I'm not sure when Rick bought this particular house, but I'll take your word of 2006 minus 9 years or, 1997.
So what? He was paying local property taxes. A lot more than you can say about a host of other congress critters.
Was he 100% ethical about it? No. Did he do anything illegal? Emphatically no. Was it at least somewhat hypocritical after what he did to oust Wofford, an appointee who, by the way, was an appointee warming a seat to replace a dead Republican? Yes it was, but on a scale which would barely even register on the Richter scale if he hadn't been a conservative Republican.
Does Pennsylvania have a distaste for even the appearance of corruption? Again, it depends. If you want to see just how much corruption is tolerated, read today's local headlines about Bill DeWeese, the state representative convicted of actual corruption. If the election were being held today, DeWeese would probably be re-elected. That says more about his constituency of government teat suckers than it does about DeWeese.
OTOH, Rick Santorum took his loss like a man, learned something and has now made a comeback. I can't help but admire that.
Yeah, politics is about personality as well as politics. Yes, Santorum is imperfect on the personality issues as well as some political issues.
Ask yourself: Who is closest to that generic Republican which we consistently see beating Obama in the polls. The serial adulterer who has never won an election outside of a safely conservative congressional district? The wooden former governor of Massachusetts who can't crack 50% in any primary of national poll despite the most impressive list of endorsements? Or everybody's second choice (and clear first choice for about 1 in 5 of us)?
Particularly when most of the Gingrich people say they will never support Romney. And most of the Romney people say they will never support Gingrich. How are you going to win the real prize by picking either one of them?
Vigilantman,
As you know perception is reality, especially in politics. No one said Santorum’s house was a huge ethical lapse, though it certainly didn’t go over well, and
As to PA corruption, local districts are far cries from national or state wide ones... Murtha had a job for life in Johnstown district, and would still get elected to this day despite being utterly corrput, Deweese et al are the same deal, they have their little feifdoms and they run them with iron fists.. and the electorates there are old school... Yes, he’s a crook, but he’s our crook. However if you put Murtha or DeWeese on a statewide ballot they’d get slaughtered, so taking tolerance of corruption at district levels to equate to statewide tolerance is a bit much.
Lets be honest, Our current Governor won is largely do to the fact he took on the Corruption of Deweese et al.
The fact we got Fast Eddie in the first place was because then Lt Governor refused to run for office, and the republicans put up a guy, who while a nice enough joe, had about as much Charisma as moldy bread. (That is a comment directed at the PA is a blue state idiots who don’t live here, not yourself.)
Santorum held a house, which is fine, he paid taxes on a house which is fine, but he LIED about living in it, and like it or not expected the local school district to pay for his kids education when he clearly was not living there, and that my friends is a no no, not only is it a no no, by the law it is technically ILLEGAL. I own property in several school districts in PA, and pay property taxes on all of them, however if I send my kids to a school in one of those districts claiming a house I own, but do not reside in as my residence for doing so, technically I am in violation of the law. Because I AM NOT A RESIDENT OF THAT DISTRICT.. paying the property taxes to the school district is not what determines residency, actually living there does. Now, is it a huge end of the world infraction? No.. and honestly while it cost him some votes on election day, I don’t think that mini scandal was a big huge vote change.
But what it did do is futher solidify an electorate that was already well against him, to be more so, by showing just one more example of his say one thing and do another nonsense. PA School Taxes are outrageously high, and the teachers union is far too powerful and should be abolished, so while joe and jane six pack are struggling to pay 2.5% of their homes value to a school district every year for mediocre results, its going to piss them off to see someone playing games like Santorum was.. like it or not.
The fact he made it a huge talking point against Wofford just added to the mix, because it stopped the “everyone does it” argument from having any sort of merit. How can you have attacked wofford so badly on this as though it was a moral imparative to you, and then do something similar yourself? In fact I do recall when Santorum made it an issue with Wofford, Wofford even told him, when you are in washington all the time, you will see.. (Im paraphrasing of course, but Wofford was right at the end of the day).
My gripe with Santorum is fundametally that I don’t see a man capable of winning a hard national election. 06 he a modest attack by outside forces to paint him as an extremist, and they did it very very well, and he never ever was able to respond effectively to it. He lost an election by 17 points to someone who was more boring than a rotting deer carcass who literally no showed the entire campaign.
I don’t see him being remotely capable of handling what will be thrown at him if he is the nominee, he’ll be painted as incredibly extremist, and he does not have the intellect or oratory skills to defend his positions effectively when challenged. Do you think if Santorum had faced an agressive leading attacking question about say his stand on abortion, or gay marriage or any of the other hot button issues at the begining of a debate, that he could have turned it right back on the moderator and made him look a fool and called them to the carpet for it? Absolutely not. But that is exactly what is going to happen to any republican nominee they are going to have to face that and much worse, and if they are not capable of standing up to it, and smart enough to recognize it and turn it back on the attackers, they will be painted into a corner and never get out of it, and that’s exactly what happened to Santorum in 06 and its what I believe will happen in 12 if he is the nominee. The race will be over before it begins.
2012 is a sad crop of candidates, no doubt about it. As to which I think can handle the storm, and not only handle it,but take it to Obama directly and make this a truly ideological election, where its not going to be simply, tit for tat who can find the most dirt, or the next scandal, but truly ask the electorate and articulate to the electorate the differences in the choices they are truly facing, Newt in my mind is the only one who can and if he does, it will be routing.
If we settle for Romney V Obama, there is little difference between the two, Romney takes ObamaCare off the meny for the 12 election so Obama and the Dems love that, that election is little difference... nuanced differences that the general electorate isn’t going to be able to notice. Santorum, while a social conservative is not a generic conservative, he’s more along the lines of the “compassionate conservative” of Bush, and frankly we don’t need another Bush. He’s fundamentally not for smaller government, he’s not fiscally conservative, he’s not articulate or intellectual enough to be able to truly make a strong ideological argunment, and because of that, his social stands will get him painted as an extremist before he even gets started.
I have stated before, end of the day I will vote for the republican, no matter how bad he is, because I believe even the worst is better than what we have currently, but I’d really like to vote for someone who gets it, and understands not only what the leftward slide is doing to our nation, but has plans and can articulate them on how to reverse it. And there is only one guy in this bunch who offers that, and that’s Newt.