Gingrich Denies Splitting GOP Votes

Obama's SuperPac ABC News ^ | March 13th, 2012 | Newt Video

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Newt Gingrich says, "Between us, Santorum and I are stopping Romney."

[Utmost Certainty]

No, SatinDoll is right. From here:

On spending, Santorum has a mixed record and showed clear signs of varying his votes based on the election calendar. In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, he was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system. He also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed. He also voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.

More recently, when he was out of Congress, Santorum opposed TARP , the stimulus , the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.

However, there is a troubling part of Santorum’s record on spending, which is found in the years sandwiched between these periods of fiscal restraint. His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006. Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. He supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

And while Santorum voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, he sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005, which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”

An examination of his scores in the NTU rating of Congress shows that Santorum compiled a very strong record on taxes and spending in the first four years of each of his two Senate terms, then a sharp swing to below the Senate Republican average in the Congress before his reelection campaign. 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.

[Utmost Certainty]

No, SatinDoll is right. From here:

On spending, Santorum has a mixed record and showed clear signs of varying his votes based on the election calendar. In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, he was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system. He also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed. He also voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.

More recently, when he was out of Congress, Santorum opposed TARP , the stimulus , the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.

However, there is a troubling part of Santorum’s record on spending, which is found in the years sandwiched between these periods of fiscal restraint. His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006. Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. He supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

And while Santorum voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, he sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005, which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”

An examination of his scores in the NTU rating of Congress shows that Santorum compiled a very strong record on taxes and spending in the first four years of each of his two Senate terms, then a sharp swing to below the Senate Republican average in the Congress before his reelection campaign. 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.

[berdie]

Hey now! Quit being logical. You might ruin the whole darn thread. ;)

[chris37]

All I see here is 4 guys who can’t even defeat or help each other much less Obama.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Nobody said nor claimed that Santorum was perfect.

Gingrich is a fiscal conservative as is Santorum, yet I don’t think you want me posting a pic of Gingrich sitting next to Nancy.

I won’t do that, because this isn’t a pissing match. The point is that we could both point out this, that, or the other thing about both and it would be correct about both.

The target is Romney. He’s running for president in the wrong damn primaries, in the wrong party.

Santorum is indeed a fiscal conservative. Ditto for Gingrich.

But not Romney.

[Lazlo in PA]

Nice try. Why not post the full article or the summary instead of cherry picking spicific items to slam Rick, eh?

On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill. As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.

A very different depiction of a person who is claimed to be a Big Gov't Socialist by some here.

[oldbrowser]

When Newt goes to the convention in Tampa, he will have bargaining chips called ‘delegates’. It will matter.

Exactly. He will be the kingmaker, but the question is, what will he want?

Payoff his campaign debt?
Add his plants to the platform?
VP?, SOS?

[Utmost Certainty]

It's generally alleged that he's a big spender—which the record shows he indeed is. Particularly his more recent record in Congress.

Also when Santorum says stuff like this, it sounds an awful lot like socialism:

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone." [source]

"What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission." –Rick Santorum, p. IX It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

"I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good." –Rick Santorum, p. 421 It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

[Kudsman]

How about a real Energy Secretary with the full support of a GOP House and Senate to go with a Presidents signature unhindered by the unhinged environuts.

[Lazlo in PA]

...it sounds an awful lot like socialism:

Baloney. He is slapping down the Ron Paul Libertarians with their near Anarchical view of life. He is one of the few Conservatives around who is willing to make a distinction between the two different ideologies.

[CedarDave]

Actually, in proportional delegate situations, Newt staying in really hurts Romney’s math, quite a bit.

I agree. With his current low poll numbers outside the south, Newt should look hard at withdrawing in upcoming winner-take-all states but remain in those with proportional delegate assignments.

[Utmost Certainty]

Did you read the two below that where he advocates welfare statism?

[SatinDoll]

No, Santorum is shooting for VP. I doubt the RNC will let Santorum run for President if his delegate count is lower than Romney’s count. They definitely do not want Gingrich on the ticket.

Gingrich wants to save this nation. He isn’t interested in money or power like Santorum, he doesn’t have a daddy’s legacy to better such as Romney. He wants this nation to get back on the right track, and socialism isn’t it.

[itsahoot]

Then Romney it is I guess, whatever else can we do?

These circular firing squads must stop, any thinking person here knew how this was going to go down. Crying now about what might have been serves no purpose.

[SaraJohnson]

Santorum is out of his league. He should give one for the team. He could not argue his way out of a paper bag.

The obama media will hang him high. However, at least he is against killing people. So he’s better than Mittens and obama. Newt would know what he’s doing and we need that badly right now.

[RobbyS]

No such thing. Used to be this was the normal thing, to campaign up to the convention. Reagan sure did, in ’76 and of course in ’80.

[RobbyS]

How about, as Gingrich suggests, breaking up the department and leaving its useful components alone.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

I could at least vote for Newt, but he’s not the choice.

I agree. I could have gone for either Newt or Rick but now one or the other has to bow out. And at this point it looks like Newt.

If he kicks the wind out of Santorum's sails any more, I'm gonna get a very sour taste in my mouth for any more of his runs or anything to do with him.

Santorum is the apparent winner in this horse race and it's not by a nose either.

Time for Newt to bow out gracefully.

[Kudsman]

Sounds good to me. I wish Newt had won, I remember, respect and appreciate Mr. Gingrichs speakership. I would enthusiastically support him at the top of the ticket. Either way, him or Rick and I’m all in. They need to stop targeting each other negatively if they are doing so and focus on a united theme to returning to a free republic and a government haircut.

[Rome2000]

According to some propagandists at Politico, Newt lost BIG, but I like Halstonin’s take:

Party: Republican
Reply #4
Mar. 14, 2012 - 1:43 AM EST

“Losing big? Ms. Gibson, I’m sorry, but your headline puts the credibility of your entire article in question. I’m no fan of Newt Gingrich, but he didn’t in any way “lose big.” The GOP nomination comes down to the delegates, not who “wins” each state, and Gingrich came in a close second in both Alabama and Mississippi- in other words he leaves with about the same number of delegates as Rick Santorum, and more than Mitt Romney (who came in third place in both states, beaten by Gingrich despite vastly outspending him in both places). Since Romney was trounced in both states, despite spending way more than Santorum, Gingrich and Paul combined, maybe Romney should drop out of the race based on this logic? Also keep in mind:

- In contrast to the generally narrow wins (for any candidate) in the primaries of the last few few weeks, Gingrich’s wins have been strong and decisive. He got nearly half the total vote in Georgia- which is far, far better than Romney did in his own home turf of Michigan- and he clobbered both Romney and Santorum in South Carolina, where Romney outspent him and the other candidates by many millions of dollars.

- South Carolina is also the only early primary where the GOP saw an increase in turnout compared to 2008, and Gingrich won it decisively. (The GOP winner in South Carolina has also been the nominee in all of the previous primary seasons, so that was no small feat on Gingrich’s part.) This suggests that Gingrich has an ability to motivate GOP voter enthusiasm in a way that his rivals don’t, especially Mitt Romney.

- Gingrich has a large number of second-place finishes in many other states, for example he did better than Santorum in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada, he tied Romney in Oklahoma, and he beat Romney in both Alabama and Mississippi. IOW Gingrich is very much in the thick of it.

- The race is still fluid enough that it can change on a dime. This is partly because of the debates, in which Gingrich performs well. It’s also because Romney will now be focusing on attacking Rick Santorum, which can allow Gingrich to sneak in and gain broader support- just as Romney’s attacks on Gingrich allowed Santorum to sneak in and take Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota.

- We’re barely through half the primaries, and Romney in particular will be struggling with the upcoming states. Romney got a misleading boost in his delegate count thanks to the early primaries being ridiculously skewed in his favor- packed with Mormon states (among the GOP voters in the primaries and caucuses), Romney home states (Michigan- which he still almost lost- Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine) and states that he’d won in 2008 (Minnesota for example), and yet Romney still flopped. By contrast, the upcoming states are probably friendlier territory for Newt. He’s long had popularity in Louisiana (even more so than Alabama and Mississippi), which shares many cultural and political ties with Georgia, as well as in Arkansas.

- The most favorable scenario for Newt is probably a brokered convention, and considering his revivals before (going into Dec 2011 and in South Carolina), he could still very much be important then esp if he does well in the debates. Brokered conventions wouldn’t necessarily be damaging to either party- there’s a long history of them, and if anything it can sometimes allow them a chance to hash out their coalitional issues and improve their platform, so it could be favorable to either party using it. It may also be to the benefit of the GOP’s conservative wing, and to Gingrich in particular. Going into the winner-take-all states- like Texas and California- may pose a re-think to avoid a split in the conservative vote, but up until then, it may be advantageous for Gingrich to rack up delegates and essentially tag-team with Santorum against Romney. He would then have far more sway in the convention, and considering the unpredictability of the process thus far, could very well come back again.

Many factors at work here, but the bottom line is that it’s still relatively early in the nominating process, and Newt still has good reasons to stay in.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73986.html#ixzz1p4QnXQ5d