In 1807, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.” And in the 1890s, John Sharp Williams, a prominent congressman, expanded on that quote stating, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government has grown out of too much government.” And only one hundred years later, Senator Rick Santorum embodied the Republican version of “too much government.”
As Rick Santorum travels across the nation touting his “bold contrast”, “conservatism” and that he was a “tea party kind of guy before there was a tea party,” he fails to mention that his actions preclude him from any such labels. Make no mistake about it, Rick Santorum is the right wing version of Obama. He wants a big federal government to tell you what you can and can’t do. And he has a love affair with spending your tax dollars into oblivion.
FISCAL INSANTIY
On Rick Santorum’s website, it states, “Senator Santorum fought to maintain fiscal sanity in Washington before it was in fashion, fighting for a balanced budget and a line item veto.  He bravely proposed reforming entitlements, cutting spending and even developed a “spendometer” that added up the cost of Democrat amendments to spending bills.  This record made him one of the most conservative senators in Pennsylvania’s history.”
What the Santorum’s website doesn’t mention is that there wasn’t a pork barrel project or earmark that Rick didn’t like.  This doesn’t just go for appropriations of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to his state, he voted for appropriations outside of his state as well. He even voted for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.
Furthermore, Rick voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit to the tune of $550 billion, backed subsidies for the milk industry, and even supported publicly financed trust funds for children tailored after legislation passed in socialist England.
In looking at an objective Santorum “spendometer,” it reveals that Rick voted to raise the nation’s debt limit five times. It also shows that Rick 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.
Where in all this is Rick Santorum fighting to maintain fiscal sanity? Actions speak louder than words, and Santorum’s actions show fiscal insanity that only a Democrat would love.
ANTI-TEA PARTY
While the Tea Party endorses reduced government spending, opposition to higher taxes, reduction of the national debt and deficits, and a limited government, Rick Santorum has advocated for quite the opposite.
As mentioned above, Santorum has increased government spending and irrefutably added to the national debt and deficits, making him closer to Greek protester than to a member of the Tea Party. But what about the rest? What about taxes and limited government?
Rick sponsored and co-sponsored a whopping 1,451 bills during his time in Congress. Nearly a quarter of those bills, 332, he sponsored himself. In fact, of the 4,383 days Rick spent as Senator of Pennsylvania, he was sponsoring or co-sponsoring one new law every three days. More bills mean more laws and more laws mean bigger government. Not quite the limited government kind of guy he wants you to believe.
Santorum’s big government votes have manifested themselves in different ways. He voted against “right to work” laws, he voted against NAFTA (and has long opposed free trade), he voted for Sarbanes-Oxley (overly complex regulations in financial markets), he sponsored a bill to further regulate the oil industry, and he has supported mandatory government service programs (such as forcing every member of society to serve in the armed forces for a period of their life whether they want to or not under threat of imprisonment – talk about an individual mandate).
How can Rick pay for all the handouts, subsidies, pork barrel projects and earmarks? In terms of taxation, Santorum has backed tariffs on steel and backed taxes on imported honey. In other words, raise some taxes a little to support more than they can handle. Tea Partiers call this fiscal insanity. The object is to cut taxes and cut government spending a lot more. Santorum has it all wrong.
BOLD CONTRAST
Rick Santorum is a big government Republican. His record is one that creates laws, increases spending and grows government. Sponsoring or co-sponsoring one law for every three days he was in office?  Voting with Big Labor and against “right to work” laws? Voting for higher tariffs, taxes, subsidies and more regulations? These are not the actions of a limited government Republican.
But there is a Republican in the race that can offer the “bold contrast” that Santorum so desperately seeks to be… and it is not Speaker Newt Gingrich.  In fact, it’s the only person left in the race that hasn’t worked a day in Washington D.C.  It is Governor Mitt Romney.
By contrast Santorum’s big government ways, Romney cut 341 government programs, vetoed the Democrat legislature 877 times in four years, turned a deficit into a surplus, did not raise taxes, and took his state from 50th in unemployment to 11th.
Aside from the fact that Santorum’s nerdy ineptness embodied in sweater vests suggests he cannot beat a likable and smooth Obama that can hit a three pointer while singing an Al Green tune, his polling numbers prove it. Since July 2010, Santorum has beat Obama in only one poll of nineteen… and by only a single point. Obama bests Santorum 95 percent of the time, by an average of 9 points. These are the kind of numbers McCain scored against Obama… and look how that turned out.
By contrast, Governor Romney beats or ties Obama 38 percent of the time, with one poll showing Romney beating Obama by as much as 6 points, during the same time period. In other words, Romney is seven times more likely to beat Obama than Santorum.
While “conservatives” are out there suggesting that they must die on their feet instead of live on their knees with a “moderate” as the Republican nominee is nonsense. If they truly believe that, then they should nominate Mitt Romney, since he is the true “conservative” that is a bold contrast to Obama and a Tea Party kind of guy before there was a Tea Party.
Facebook
Twitter
Unfortunately Tim, I agree with you on the premise of the argument. However, I do not agree that Romney is any different. After teatering with the cast of characters that is the Republican race right now, I have decided that I am hoping for a brokered convention.
I do not think any of them will beat Obama and I do not think any of the “Big 3″ are any different. The only one that is different is Ron Paul. However, his foreign policy agenda leaves quite a lot to be desired.
Hopefully, Mr. Paul will have enough delegates to lock the convention and then we can maybe get a true candidate and conservative that can regain the White House. If this doesn’t happen, I fear we will have another four years of the Socialist in Chief.
Assuming things continue as they have and we end up without a nominee with enough delegates… Romney wins a brokered convention. Why? Because Huntsman and Paul are going to send all their delegates to Romney. Why? Huntsman has already endorsed Romney and Ron Paul is VERY good friends with Romney (as are their wives). If you notice during the debates, they NEVER go after each other. So, all it takes is some simple concession that Romney will promise to Paul, and he will have all his delegates, which will probably put Romney over the top. Done deal.
The brokered convention at that point — the end of August — will be costly and by the time the candidate begins to take on Obama… they will need to replenish their funds to take on Obama’s billion dollars and only have 2 months to campaign against Obama. Then there is the problem with the fractured party and the lack of time to reunite it.
You’re not the only one hoping Republicans will have a brokered convention… Obama and the Democrats are praying for one too.
Maybe what you say of Paul is true (I don’t think Hunstman has enough delegates for anything), but what about Newt and Santorum making a deal. This can be a disaster from all sides.
Huntsman has 2 delegates… Gingrich + Santorum won’t have enough delegates to get across the finish line based on the current trend. Don’t forget, Romney currently has more delegates than Gingrich, Santorum and Paul COMBINED! If the trend continues and it proves Romney doesn’t have enough delegates to get across the finish line, then all he will need is Huntsman’s two delegates and whatever Paul has. The damage will be enormous to the party if that ends up being the case. Enormous. We will be fractured and broke with only two months to muster something together to fight Obama and his billion dollars. We don’t want a brokered convention. It would spell disaster.
That his stance on government spending troubles you more than the fact that he wants to deprive Americans of the right to use CONTRACEPTION, for Crissake, is itself troubling, but we agree in the broader scope of things that he does indeed suck.
There are no candidates in the race that want to deprive Americans of using contraception. That is a flat out lie.
No, it isn’t. He’s gone on the record as saying that he’s against contraception many times, and that Griswold v. Connecticut was decided wrongly. You know what Griswold v. Connecticut did? It made it legal for MARRIED COUPLES TO USE CONTRACEPTION. That’s right, Tim, it was ILLEGAL prior to Griswold v. Connecticut for a MARRIED COUPLE in the privacy of their own home to use protection, i.e, to have sex for any reason other than procreation.
Rick Santorum says this was a bad decision.
Oh, he may have later backtracked, realizing what a fatal mistake it was to actually say that out loud…and sure, he might be well aware that it would be futile, if he WERE President (shudder), to actually attempt to ban contraception, but it certainly no lie to say that he WANTS to deprive Americans of contraception, or that if he saw a way to do it that wouldn’t be political suicide, he would. At the very least, I have no doubt he would try to stack the court with similar-thinking justices on that issue.
But yes, sure, too much government spending. THAT’S the real bugaboo.
*Legal in CONNECTICUT, I should say. It was legal in other states already. The point is that it made it NOT legal for states to outlaw it.
Again: Santorum frowns on that.
Oh, and also…
http://www.politicususa.com/en/ban-porn-gingrich-santorum-romney
Fantastic. All three want to ban a multi-billion dollar industry that almost everyone in the country over 12 utilizes.
Small government! Way to go, GOP!
So the candidates say that the laws on the books should be enforced, which are NOT to ban pornography, and the leftist blogger writes, “What the candidates and the group really are saying through the usual right wing code is that they want to ban pornography.” And you take this as the gospel. Again, if it fits into your left wing narrative, then you disseminate it as fact. Sad, really.
Tim, you probably don’t realize this, but most porn is technically illegal, it’s just that the laws aren’t enforced because not enough people actually, truly gives a shit. So yes, by saying that they would actually enforce the law, they are in effect going to war with porn, just like 99% of the country would not want them to do.
It’s the equivalent of saying that they are going to start demanding that police officers start ticketing people who are going 56 in a 55. Sure, it’s the law, but you know…Ain’t there bigger fish to fry?
Oh, incidentally? Santorum also signed Bachmann’s loony “Marriage Vow”, which pledges support of an OVERALL BAN ON PORN.
But right, I’m just reciting the “left wing narrative.”
None are so blind as those who choose not to see. Sometimes an opinion on a legal case is not a reflection on a person’s opinion of the law. Example. I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned, but that doesn’t mean I am anti-abortion. I just think it should be left up to the states. So, an opinion on a judicial decision is not proof of a person’s opinion. You have to hear what they say about it. Here is an excerpt from a transcript from an interview with CNN’s John King about the issue:
SANTORUM: Yes, I — I think both in the case of the “Lawrence v. Texas” case, which was the sodomy case, as well as the contraceptive case, what I’ve said is both of those laws I would not have voted for. I don’t believe that everything that is immoral should be illegal. The government doesn’t have a role to play in everything that, you know, that either people of faith or no faith think are wrong or immoral. That was one. And I said it at the time, that I wouldn’t have voted for the Texas sodomy law that was in place NOR WOULD I VOTE TO — TO BAN CONTRACEPTION, even though I think that, as a — as a Catholic who the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is wrong, I would not do it myself.
SOURCE: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1201/04/jkusa.01.html
Sorry that doesn’t fit into your narrative. If you want to criticize Santorum for something legitimate, sure. But don’t use misinformation that fits into some left wing agenda and DNC talking points that Rachel Maddow pontificated as your means to an end. It’s disingenuous at best.
Tim -
First off, I already acknowledged that he then back-pedaled on his stance because he realized how scary loony it sounded.
Second off, listen again: I didn’t say he INTENDED to ban contraception. It would be political suicide for him to say that. But here’s the money quote:
“Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. IT’S NOT OKAY (emphasis mine). It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Now set aside how sickeningly judgmental and self-righteous the above quote is. He’s saying there’s this thing that’s legal that’s NOT OKAY. On what planet does a politician say that something is “not okay” but he wouldn’t make it illegal if he could? If a politician says “Drugs are not okay” or “Child molestation is not okay” or “Murder is not okay” or “Gay marriage is not okay”, you think “I see, so they’re in support of laws against those things.” Right? Common sense, yes? But somehow when it’s birth control, it’s different? When it’s birth control, it just means “I disapprove, but I’m okay with it being legal?” But I’M the biased one just mindlessly obeying the pundits? Ummmm…Okay. Whatev’.
But you know what, let’s just put all the interpretation and guess-work aside for a second: Regardless of his intentions, what he undeniably SAID was, “Contraception is not okay.” This thing that 99% of Americans are for and use regularly, this thing that’s been one of the great boons to mankind, this thing that enabled billions of people to enjoy sex free of concerns about procreation, and this thing that has helped control the world population to an incalculable degree…”Not okay” with Rick Santorum.
Does THAT not trouble you more than the government spending thing?
>>I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned, but that doesn’t mean I am anti-abortion. I just think it should be left up to the states.
So lemme get this straight. You think Roe v. Wade, which determined that woman have a constitutional right to privacy that includes decisions about terminating a pregnancy, should be overturned. Meaning you DON’T think women have a Constitutional right to privacy when it comes to abortion. But it’s not that you’re anti-abortion! You just think state governments should be allowed to take that right away from them if they want to.
Because…
Well, that’s where you lose me. But I’m sure you’ve really thought this through.
Pick your response:
(a) Sometimes there is no arguing with someone if they think they are right in light of truth and facts.
(b) Sometimes there is no arguing with irrational and illogical people.
(c) Sometimes there is no arguing with fools.
(d) All of the above.
See, this is what I don’t get about you folks. Rather than defend your positions, you resort to the name-calling. Despite the fact that if you were right, and my arguments really were so idiotic and irrational, it should be easy as pie to demonstrate that. I mean, that would really be the best way to destroy me, wouldn’t it? To just take two minutes and go “Here’s where your argument falls apart: A, B, C and D.”
But no, instead it’s just “You’re irrational and illogical, and I’m not going to tell you why, you’ll just have to take my word for it, so I win.” Jesus, man, YOU’RE THE GUY WHO WROTE THIS FUCKING COLUMN. And in any case, I ended by not even MAKING an argument, I just asked you a simple question: Doesn’t it bother you that Santorum said that “Contraception is not okay”?
If it does, then why not say so? You’re clearly no fan of the guy anyway.
If it doesn’t, then why not stand up for your agreement with the assertion?
And if the above is such a crazy, fact-ignoring, truth-shunning question, then enlighten me how.
Cause otherwise, it’s almost like you’re just being a lazy douchebag who can’t defend his views or something.
Incidentally, here’s a test:
Try to type with a straight face that if President Obama said “Gun ownership is not okay”, there would NOT be right-wing rioting in the streets, and every conservative pundit and blogger in America – including YOU and everyone at this site – would NOT be screaming at the top of their lungs that “OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!!”
(Hell, half of them have ALREADY been saying that for years, and he’s never said ANYTHING like that.)
Go ahead, give it a shot. I’ll be right here.
What does any of that have to do with anything in this post or thread? Classic straw man.
But I’ll take your bait. When Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate, a Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question on their questionnaire and Obama’s answers were as follows:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Does Obama want to take away my handgun here in California? If he was King I am sure he would, but as an Illinois state legislator, he wanted to ban the possession of handguns to those in Illinois.
In short, banning the possession of a handgun IS taking away guns.
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008
>>What does any of that have to do with anything in this post or thread?
As I say, I was mainly just amused and curious about the fact that his government spending policies apparently bother you more than his anti-contraception stance. It’s just kinda odd, is all.
>>Classic straw man.
Jesus fucking Christ, you STILL have no idea what a straw man argument is, even though you’ve been making them for years? You never even bothered to look it up?
Again, last time here:
Strawman argument would be if I responded to this column with something like “Look, just because you don’t like Santorum doesn’t mean that Pennsylvanians are stupid.” See, what I did there? You never SAID Pennsylvanians are stupid! I put words in your mouth and then refuted them. THAT’S a Strawman. IT’S NOT THAT COMPLICATED.
Jesus!
>>But I’ll take your bait.
Uh, except no, you didn’t. First of all, you’re deliberately omitting how Factcheck acknowledged that Obama DENIED personally filling out that questionnaire, that he has stated many times that he has no intention of taking away guns, and that they found NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the years since then that he actually wanted to ban them. So your OWN SOURCE is undecided on the issue (which you, for some strange reason, failed to mention).
And second all, it’s not the point. It’s a hypothetical. Again: IF Obama said something EQUIVALENT to what Santorum said about contraception, I’m saying there’d be a pro-gun uproar, an interpretation on everyone’s parts that Obama wants to ban guns.
You disagree? Just say so. I’ll be right here.
And are you really unclear on what this has to do with anything? I have to spell it out? Man…
I mean, here you are, saying (I think) that just because Santorum said “Contraception is not okay” doesn’t mean he wants to ban it.
And I’m saying that if Obama said that “Gun ownership is not okay,” you and yours would all jump to the interpretation that he wants to ban guns.
And your response is to dig up some questionnaire from SIXTEEN YEARS AGO that he may or may not have filled out and come to the conclusion that he wants to ban guns?
Soooo…You’re aware you just made my point for me, right?
Whackadoo
Well played, sir!
And if you’re this much of a wuss about defending your views, why bother posting them?
I love it. Dude says “Contraception is not okay”, this thing that revolutionized sex into being actually an enjoyable recreational act for both genders and not just a means of procreation, something that almost everybody uses, something that basically saved the world from over-population…and Tim Ross is unable – even in a column where he expresses thorough disdain for the guy for other reasons – to say that he disagrees with him on that.
Tim Ross thinks contraception is not okay. Just like Rick Santorum.
Got it.
Good to know.
“Tim Ross thinks contraception is not okay.” You couldn’t be farther from the truth. This is why you are a whackadoo. And why sometimes there is no arguing with someone if they think they are right in light of truth & facts, irrational & illogical and just simply a fool.
Read my argument with the guy on my article!
>>“Tim Ross thinks contraception is not okay.” You couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Then why be so evasive about it? Why deny the obvious? Why defend a guy you don’t like in the first place? Does it pain you that much to agree with me on anything?
>>This is why you are a whackadoo.
Tim, what else is one to think?
A: So the government spending thing borrows you more than that Santorum wants to ban contraception?
B: He doesn’t want to ban contraception.
A: Yes, he does. He said it’s not okay.
B: That doesn’t mean he wants to ban contraception.
A: I’m pretty sure it does, but that aside, doesn’t it bother you that he says contraception is not okay?
B: You’re crazy.
Uh, okay. Well played, sir. Clap. Clap. Clap.
>>And why sometimes there is no arguing with someone if they think they are right in light of truth & facts, irrational & illogical and just simply a fool.
Name-calling and finger-pointing. Fantastic. You post your silly crap on a website with a comments section, but if anyone dares use that comment section to rebut your silly crap, you insult them instead of defend your own views.
Brave. So very brave. Hail you!
Look… we have done this time and time again. You clearly have too much time on your hands. I cannot respond to every single comment you make forever and ever and on into eternity. I have videos to produce, articles to write, candidates to promote, other arguments to win, a real life to maintain. I cannot use my every waking moment on debating you on every single topic and every tangent you go down. I could tell you the sky is blue and you would argue with me that it is actually all colors of the spectrum and that we only see blue. It’s futile. You lose on substance, but you win on attrition. When you can learn to wrap up or end a debate, then I’ll consider engaging with you more… until, you are Mr. Last Word Who Is Never Wrong And Argues Everything Until The End Of Time. Clap. Clap. Clap. Hail you!
Tim, spare me the “war of attrition” crap. The way it works is: I punch holes in your argument. You make, at best, some feeble attempt at rebuttal. I poke holes in that, and you tell me I’m being irrational and illogical and crazy and so-there-I-win-nyah-nyah. Then I tell you how lame that is, and you call me or names…but somehow YOU win on substance.
Uh, right, okay. The guy who can’t even answer a simple “Yes” when asked, “Doesn’t it bother you that Rick Santorum thinks contraception is not okay?” You’re the champ. For some reason.
You crack me up, you know that?
Like I said, you’re Mr. Last Word Who Is Never Wrong And Argues Everything Until The End Of Time.
You crack me up, you know that?
Hey, Tim?
You’re aware that when you respond by commenting on how I always get the last word…You’re undermining your own point. You realize that, right? I mean, that’s about as dumb as it gets, isn’t it? It’s like making fun of President Obama for reading from a teleprompter…While READING FROM A TELEPROMPTER. As most of your party’s heroes have done.
Incidentally, in the time it took you to type the last post, you could have easily typed “Yes, I too don’t like that Santorum said that contraceptives are not okay.” With time to spare. But no, you’d rather seem like you’re anti-contraceptive than actually agree with me on something. Priorities!
Now go ahead and respond to this by again wisecracking on how I always get the last word.
Because it’s funny every time.
Like I said, I could tell you the sky is blue and you would argue with me that it is actually all colors of the spectrum and that we only see blue. It’s futile.
Anyway, thanks again for proving that truly are Mr. Last Word Who Is Never Wrong And Argues Everything Until The End Of Time.
Why? Because it’s funny every time.
>>Like I said, I could tell you the sky is blue and you would argue with me that it is actually all colors of the spectrum and that we only see blue. It’s futile.
Right, okay. THAT’S what you’re worried about. That if you say “Yes, I disagree with Rick Santorum, contraception is okay with me,” I’m gonna say “No, it isn’t!” Because I enjoy arguing with you so much that I’m willing to deny my own beliefs and embrace some insane 17th Century Puritanism to do so. Because you’re just such a scintillating debater, I just can’t resist.
Uh-huh.
More like YOU would rather seem like an insane 16th century Puritan than simply say “Yes, good point, Santorum’s wrong on that too.”
And yes, your last post made me laugh. “Here’s me getting the last word on how you always get the last word!” Now go ahead and get the last word. Again.
Wow!