“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” ?
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.