Every bit of your info is Romney Slime Machine opposition research that is totally unable to be verified.
Think about it: "arrogant"? I've met the man, and I disagree. Not even close.
How do you defend yourself against that kind of slime?
Earmarks I simply don't care about. I want as much of my tax money as possible back in my own district.
You have him being both "compliant" and "bucking the leadership". He backs Specter for the team, because Bush asks him to, and he's bad for that. He backs an increased debt limit because Bush asks it, and he's bad for that. He backs the Bush medicare prescription stuff, and he's bad because he does that.
No one can win against the Romney Slime Machine, and Romney is far more liberal. But, he knows all he has to do is introduce to conservatives a bit of "impurity" in perceived conservatism, and the conservatives will eat their own guy on Romney's behalf.
It's amazing how gullible conservatives are.
First, it's definately NOT a Romeny link. Pennsylvanian's don't need Romney to show what we've known for sometime concerning Rickie...Here again is the link....shall I post other links as well just so you know? How many will satisfy you? Understand I live in Pa. Rick is no stranger to us....nor can he pull the wool over our eyes.
Read more http://hillbuzz.org/why-rick-santorums-pennsylvania-residency-scam-and-school-tuition-fraud-still-matters-and-why-he-cant-be-the-nominee-because-of-it-95754
Additionallly Santorum loves to sponser "spending" bills, in fact he won the prize for doing just that as follows:
In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending,... and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal.
In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican -- sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.
Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003.
In the years that followed his controversial support of Specter, Santorum has offered a series of revisionist explanations. Those explanations have changed several times, and none of them are consistent with what he said during the 2004 campaign.
..... The only explanation that is consistent is political expediency. .... Santorum was willing to jettison conservative principles when it suited him in 2004, and he wants to try to explain it away when it no longer suits him on the 2012 presidential campaign trail.