Posted on 03/20/2012 4:36:52 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Rick Santorum makes an excellent point that “past performance really does indicate future results.” I completely agree—but not just “in Mitt Romney’s case.” Rick Santorum became the third-highest ranking Republican in the Senate in 2001 at a time when Republicans inherited balanced budgets, surpluses, and conservative, pro-life majorities. Senator Santorum and his big spending GOP allies proceeded to squander this inheritance.
The leadership of the Rick Santorum Republicans proved disastrous:
* The Rick Santorum Republicans never passed a single balanced budget, after inheriting balanced budgets and record surpluses. They racked up $1.7 trillion in deficits and increased the average number of earmarks by almost 500 percent. The Senator even voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.
* The Rick Santorum Republicans increased the national debt by 12 percent and voted to raise the debt ceiling five times to accommodate it—even while dealing with a president of their own party.
* The Senator voted with Democrats and Big Labor to defeat the National Right to Work Act of 1995. He justifies this vote saying he was representing Pennsylvania where forced unionization is the law but today, PA Senator Toomey is cosponsoring nearly identical legislation.
* The Senator voted with Democrats and Big Labor — repeatedly — to protect Davis-Bacon legislation, an old law on the books that requires the federal government to pay more to its contractors. He was so wedded to big labor that he even voted against waiving Davis-Bacon in times of emergency. By voting to protect Davis-Bacon, the Senator cost taxpayers many millions in higher taxes, deficits, and national debt.
* The Senator sponsored the “Santorum Amendment” to raise the Minimum Wage 21.4%. He supported Ted Kennedy’s proposed hike in the Minimum Wage. And, in a 2006 campaign commercial, he bragged about his support for a higher Minimum Wage.
* The Rick Santorum Republicans abandoned their principles, resulting in the worst electoral defeat for Republicans since Watergate and the loss of GOP Congressional majorities in both the House and Senate. This left Congress in the hands of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. And in destroying the Republican brand of balanced budgets and spending control, the Rick Santorum Republican failure gave us Barack Obama in 2008.
This is not a record of leadership to be proud of, and in 2006 it resulted in a catastrophic 18-point defeat. I fear it would do so again in the fall of 2012 if he were the nominee.
Unlike Senator Santorum, I did not go to Washington seeing politics as a “team sport.” Instead, I set out to change the game, and was willing to fight the forces of the establishment within the Republican Party to do so. The result was the first GOP majority in 40 years and the largest increase in pro-life votes in House of Representatives history. When I was Speaker, we balanced the budget for the first time since the 1920s — and it stayed balanced for four straight years. We reformed welfare, lifting millions of Americans from poverty. We passed the biggest capital gains tax cut in history, helping create 11 million jobs. And we did it all while paying down the national debt by $400 billion.
If you agree with Senator Santorum that “past performance really does indicate future results,” it means there’s only one candidate in this race who can offer the change our country desperately needs.
Yes, that is another good example where Newt Gingrich said things the “wrong” way, and gave ammunition to the liberals.
Thanks for that. It’s also more recent. It appears that it isn’t just Santorum who says things that get misrepresented by the media.
Don’t you miss Rick Perry?
ON this issue, in this decade, Ron Paul is the guy who has done the most to stop spending, if you look just at votes. He voted against the big Medicaid prescription drug benefit that Santorum voted for, and that Gingrich lobbied for.
I don’t expect Gingrich to endorse Ron Paul though.
I don’t expect Gingrich would endorse anybody. He’s in it to the convention. And he’s not one to do endorsements until things are settled — so far as I can tell, he never endorsed in the 2008 primary. And even in New York, he only endorsed Dede Scozzafosa because she was the “republican”, and the conservative wasn’t the republican nominee.
Good grief, I am for Newt and you are going to drive me away!
?????
I haven’t chosen sides, nor am I trying to make Santorum look “better” than Newt.
The argument was made that Santorum is a bad choice BECAUSE he said something that is being used against him. I’m pointing out that Gingrich has done the same thing, and in reply, another example of Gingrich doing the same thing was pointed out.
These are facts. You can draw your own conclusions. Your reaction suggests you find this particular fact about Newt to be negative, but I didn’t say it was negative, I just said it was an example of the same issue that was being highlighted regarding Santorum.
Since I don’t seem to think Santorum’s statements are a big deal, you shouldn’t be surprised that I don’t think Newt’s statement about Medicare was an issue either — I supported what he said, and defended him back when he said it.
This is a recurring conversation. People point out things they claim are bad about Santorum. I, not thinking they are bad, point out that the same things apply to Newt. Then I am accused of attacking Newt, when I don’t think the things I am pointing out are actual negatives.
But like I said, you can draw your own conclusions.
It all seems to be a moot point anyway. Newt isn’t going to win, so who really cares if he’s “better” than Rick Santorum. You could just argue Santorum isn’t going to win, but if we are so certain that neither Newt nor Rick is going to win, why are we attacking anybody?
It would be nice if both Santorum and Gingrich could get 25%, although the goal is to keep Romney from getting that 25%.
Not that it matters much. There is no guarantee that the 20 delegates will even be chosen based on the primary results, and even if they are, the delegates are unbound, as are the 26 that get picked in June meetings.
Loiusiana in the end is a small plate of delegates who can be used by the establishment at the convention in whatever way they seem fit.
Still it will be best if Romney is shut out, and it if takes Gingrich and Santorum together getting enough votes to stop Romney, then that is what should happen.
I just don’t see how Newt attacking Santorum in Loiusiana (and on the same issue that Romney is attacking Santorum for) will swing a single Romney voter. If anything, people who were torn between Romney and Santorum might well switch to Romney when they find out that Romney is “right” about Santorum.
Now, if there was a chance for Gingrich to actually single-handedly stop Romney AND Santorum, that would be great. But is there a single freeper here who thinks Newt has any chance at all to come back and sweep the remaining states, claiming the nomination? He has beaten Santorum 3 times so far in this election — South Carolina, Georgia, and Nevada.
And he has beaten Romney a few more times, but has been beaten by Paul more than he has beaten Romney.
Disagree with your tone, but not your assessment. Of course, Newt was just the 2nd-to-last-man standing, not the conservative stalwart HIS supporters now claim him to be.
He was just the man picked out of blind desperation when Herman Cain dropped out.
Unfortunately, if you are correct, conservatives never had a chance to win this nomination, because each one was just the next desparate choice of an electorate longing for some alternative to Mitt Romney, but being given only flawed and unelectable candidates — Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and lastly Santorum.
Even now you can’t name a single one of those candidates and get more than about a quarter of conservatives enthusiastic. If you threw Palin into the list, the other 5 would be afterthoughts — and Palin wouldn’t even enter the race because she was smart enough to see what HER chances would be.
It would be great if we lived in an alternative reality where Newt Gingrich was loved, not hated, and where he could win primaries and get the nomination and then could actually beat Obama.
In the real world, he’s never polled well against Obama, his negatives are higher than his positives, he has only won two states, he only beat Santorum 3 times, and he gets beat by Paul more often than he beats Romney.
Gingrich was a “better” last stand than Santorum, from a purely result-oriented viewpoint. At least I think so — if I had to pick one of the two, and they would automatically be President, I’d pick Gingrich over Santorum.
Unfortunately, they don’t let me pick. And if they let me pick ANYBODY, these two wouldn’t be on my list. Of those that ran, Perry would be 1st on my list, but he’d be trumped by at least 3 names I can think of who didn’t run. (On the other hand, I’d pick Perry over the entire competitive field in 2008, including Fred Thompson).
I guess what gets me about the attacks on Santorum is they come from people who keep pretending that Newt actually WAS the conservative choice, as if none of us can remember back to last March when he announced.
The proof is between the lines. The same place we all know Fox is in the tank for Romney. Common sense tells us it's true even though they don't verbally admit it, in fact deny it, we know that is true. Politicians are smart. They know that Rick is ahead a few points in Louisiana, over 25% and Romney is just under 25. He knows if he can knock a few points off of Rick with this hit piece, more voters will go to Romney, getting him over 25%. Newt lost as my second choice. He sold conservatives out. No Romney, no newt for me.
Lost as your second choice...what is the great loss there?
Boo hoo.
Do you really believe I’m the only person that is upset that newt just threw the nomination to Romney?
Do you really believe I’m the only person that is upset that newt just threw the nomination to Romney?
...I understand your umbrage—neither have been very complementary to your Mitt Romney.
Santorum is the GOP Elites' fall back guy in case Romney bombs. They've managed to take out every conservative candidate in the race one by one until the last one standing is Newt Gingrich. Both Romney and Santorum will do the bidding of the Establishment Elites. Nothing will change in DC, absolutely NOTHING!
Pointing out the data of a politician's time in office -- not criticizing him for his marital life or questioning his morality, but reciting measurable data, goes against "postive campaigning"? While Rick Santorum exhorts me to "vote my values" when about the only thing he COULD mean is "don't vote for the guy with two failed marriages"? Because by all appearances, Gingrich is every bit as worthy a conservative Christian as Santorum, but with a resume ten times stronger in reforming government.
Santorum strikes me as thinking he's morally superior to me, a lot of my fellow Americans, and to Gingrich, and that Americans who center their lives around children and grandchildren are of greater value than Americans who, for whatever reason, don't. Santorum assumes the moral arrogance of every "compassionate conservative," while the understanding of limited government conservatism flies miles over his head -- in a world where it has become clear that government, from welfare to anti-discrimination laws to education, creates the infrastructure for multiple classes of immoral living, and indeed punishes attempts to right them.
Santorum fails to understand that excess government enforced by activist judges is the primary culprit for our moral malaise; he would have more government to "correct" errors of morality. He thinks I should vote for him because he's more moral, you understand. He and the likes of James Dobson certainly do.
Campaigning doesn't get much more negative than that.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
Not more moral, a better man.
To be taken seriously, you should keep up on current events. And nobody -- NOBODY here is saying Newt is perfect. He's got lots of flaws, and I'd like it better if he called Global Climate environmentalist politics for the ludicrous, self-serving fable it is. But unlike Santorum, Gingrich is every bit as committed to reducing government back to the state, on a planned and methodic schedule on multiple levels, which will effectively give fiscal and MORAL control of government back to the people, as he is for upholding the social conservative causes of pro-life and halting the homosexual agenda.
Gingrich is clearly the better choice for America's future. Try reading his website, and then reading Santorum's website. You probably don't have the guts to do it, but if you do ... it's pretty obvious why Santorum once called Gingrich his mentor.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
In my experience, willful deceit comes easy to CWCT.
Supposing that kind of happy speechifying horse-crap really mattered (it doesn't because it's entirely subjective and emotion-based), Gingrich in his wacky life was apparently tested A HELL OF A LOT HARDER than Santorum in many ways, and has to stand as a humbled and repented man in his church. What was that you were saying about principles -- what, is it that they only count if you have an unblemished past? Where did I miss that in the Gospels?
And how is it going to get gas back down to what it was when Obama took over? As morally upright as Santorum is, he doesn't really have a clue. GINGRICH DOES.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
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.