Posted on 02/12/2012 8:49:12 PM PST by katiedidit1
In 2008 when my wife, Gena, and I were on the campaign trail backing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for president, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was fighting to get former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney elected. (Listen in this video how Santorum passionately endorsed and elevated Mitt in his bid for the Oval Office.)
Just three years ago in his interview with radio host and conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, Santorum also emphatically told millions of listening Americans: “If you’re a conservative, if you’re a Republican, there is only one place to go, and that’s Mitt Romney.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The part of the list I posted is far from being complete. There were two more pages :)
but I decided not to spam the thread with the list in full.
“I assume he was lying and knew he was lying...all for political purposes.”
Santorum caught lying in the 2012 debates as well!
... I’m wondering if he’s not Romney’s kin, after being the fervent Romney’s supporter in 2008 ...
“In a recent debate, Santorum declared, “In 2006, I went out and authored a letter with 24 other senators asking for major reform of Freddie and Fannie, warning of a meltdown and a bubble in the housing market. I stood out, I stood tall and tried to get a reform, and we couldn’t do it.”
Now really?
From the famous letter tracked down:
“We are concerned that if effective regulatory reform legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. Therefore, we offer you our support in bringing the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) to the floor and allowing the Senate to debate the merits of this bill, which was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. ...
“Congress has the opportunity to recommit itself to the housing mission of the GSEs while at the same time making sure the GSEs operate in a manner that does not expose our financial system, or taxpayers, to unnecessary risk.”
In other words, the Senators warned of the risk Fannie and Freddie might pose to the financial system if they couldn’t cover their obligations.
No trace of “warning of a meltdown and a bubble in the housing market”, neither of staying “out and tall” (unless he was talking of how tall he is)
“Santorum, who served in the Senate from 1995 to 2007 after a stint in the U.S. House, gets credit for supporting the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act in 2005, the year before senators’ letter to their colleagues. The goal of the legislation, according to its official summary, was to set up stronger congressional oversight of Fannie and Freddie and other housing entities by a new Federal Housing Regulatory Agency.
Santorum bucked a strong covert lobbying effort by Freddie Mac to kill the legislation, supporting it in committee — though he was not one of its co-sponsors. (The lobbying effort ultimately kept the bill from reaching the Senate floor.)”
Has anyone cried “POMPOUS LIAR” ?
I have two for you (1) Dede (2) Scozzofava.
No thanks.
I find it rather interesting that we've come this far in the campaign, and so many of us are still asking these basic questions.
What irks me more, is the fact that when folks begin posting the results of their vetting of Santorum's political career, his supporters begin crying, 'foul!'
I've asked Santorum supporters many times, to post examples of his record that would compel other conservatives to support him, and so far, none have answered the challenge. Not one.
That leads me to believe that there's precious little in Santorum's record that would justify supporting him for president, outside of his well-known social conservative positions.
That’s better than deeming it passed, no?
My position on earmarks is that they really OUGHT to be the way Congress passes budgets, as opposed to the idiotic methods of giving vast departments huge pools of money to divvy up as they choose. The problem with earmarks is that they are used to barter with other Senators/Congressman in a “you vote for mine if I vote for yours” manner.
I don’t believe that “voted for earmarks” should be considered disqualifying for any candidate.
For better or worse, the GOP won’t nominate a candidate for the top spot whose only elective experience is in the House. They do better with governors, historically, or generals than with Senators. The two best governor/ex-Governor possibilities aren’t currently in the race (no, I don’t mean Daniels and Christie) so we’re left with Santorum. More nominatable than Newt, more electable than Paul, much better than Mitt.
Amen, and a BTTT Bump.
May God grant us strength.
Tatt
I agree with you that it is hard to get worked up against either Santorum or Mr.Newt. They both have some flaws, but those are minor compared to Obama, Mitt, or RPaul.
And, anyone who thinks Rick is boring to listen to has not heard his inspirational, off-the-cuff, discussions of the Constitution and the Declaration and how it applies to issues.
The most certain way of winning the Senate is by having a good conservative heading our ticket. Romney is a problem in that respect. I think both Newt and Rick would face some very different challenges, but would at least not have some of the baggage that Mitt has.
“anyone who thinks Rick is boring to listen to has not heard his inspirational, off-the-cuff, discussions of the Constitution and the Declaration and how it applies to issues.”
Are you ... serious?
Watch this, on Constitution Day, Lancaster County :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjCZXfhjoWA
8th grade level “speech”.
Santorum: “Government must be big”
I have been pro-Mr.Newt since 1991 or so. I absolutely went bonkers over his course/TV “Renewing American Civilization” ( http://terrenceberres.com/ginren00.html ). That does not keep me from seeing he has some flaws, as do all political figures, and indeed as I have myself. I hope (at this time) that either he or Santorum is our nominee.
Compare Santorum’s speech on Constitution Day with Newt Gingrich talking about the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8cOrJqYFKo
In PA, students are district residents in the district in which they sleep.
The virtual charters are funded by the individual districts for THEIR students. They pay for each student enrolled (who would otherwise be a student at the physical district school). Yes, public education in PA is funded by property taxes paid TO THAT DISTRICT.
Sorry to burst your balloon, but paying property taxes in one district does not entitle your children to attend the school in that district if they do not reside (sleep) there.
There were PA court cases regarding district residency as far back as the 70's so it is not a new revelation.
He was wrong - plain and simple, and morally, if not legally, he owes the district and the state for that tuition that was paid (the state paid the district some so that they would not incur the costs of a lawsuit against Santorum. He did not repay either the district or the state.)
“Second Amendment is A Political Right; Historic Context, Not about Hunting!” - Newt Gingrich
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWsE9jvwjLA
I like many of those endorsing Newt.
Just not Newt.
BTT. Go Newt.
Marguerite: I like you, I very much like Mr.Newt, and LOVE that long list of what Mr.Newt has done for conservatives, but that post of yours stating that letter Santorum referred to makes him a liar is terrible. That letter was only part of a discussion that some people including Sen.Santorum and President Bush were trying to bring to the forefront in 2005&2006 because of the troubling signs in the housing market at that time. I wish I had access to posts on FR that I made at the time supporting those efforts, but there were ample statements of impending disaster made by many “in the know” about financial matters at the time and reading that letter in isolation is dishonest. That these senators did not use the language of catastrophe in letters and bills and we can right now agree would have accurately described the situation does not justify characterizing his current statements as those of a “liar”. Those discussions were shut down by the Dems, especially in the Senate, and if stronger language had been used it would have been even more roundly criticized and more soundly defeated by the Dems than it was at the time. The efforts by Bush, Santorum, and others, were prescient, if insufficient. At least Rick was part of the effort. For what its worth, he joined DeMint, Coleman, Thune, Shelby, and some other notable financial hawks in the failed effort, but over half of the other GOP senators could not even bring themselves that far (Olympia Snowe and Mitch McConnell for example). I don’t know of an even stronger effort to bring this issue into legislation, although I believe that Ron Paul and Taranto were among those sounding the same alarm in the House.
By the way, using politifact to criticize any conservative position is inherently suspect.
Please, take a little of your time to compare Santorum speech on Constitution Day, post 131,
with Newt speech about the Second Amendment and the people rights guaranteed by the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWsE9jvwjLA
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.