In Wednesday night’s GOP debate, Rick Santorum, the new frontrunner, found himself apologizing for much of his political record.
“Sure I had some votes. Look, I think we’ve all had votes that I look back on I — I wish I wouldn’t have voted — No Child Left Behind, you’re right,” Santorum stammered.
Unmoved by Santorum’s mea culpa, Rep. Ron Paul offered, “I find it really fascinating that, when people are running for office, they’re really fiscally conservative. When they’re in office, they do something different. And then when they explain themselves, they say, ‘Oh, I want to repeal that.’”
Santorum sought to explain a second time: “I supported No Child Left Behind.… I have to admit, I voted for that. It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader, and I made a mistake.“
Former Sen. Santorum’s biggest stumble may have been acknowledging that he voted for federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
“I’ve always opposed Title X funding, but it’s included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things,” Santorum began. “So while, yes, I — I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and there were things in there I didn’t like, things in there I did, but when it came to this issue, I proactively stepped forward and said that we need to do something at least to counterbalance it.”
Santorum’s counterbalancing act? Title 20 — yet more federal spending, this time for abstinence education.
How about abstinence on spending?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
11 replies on “Sorry, Santorum”
Excellent post, Mr. Pablo, I have just been having an argument with a Santorum junkie, and when I presented a Ron Paul factoid that Mr. S. voted for funding of Planned Parenthood, this guy countered that I had better check my facts!
I told him that bundling of bills is a problem, but that Ron Paul, as a man of principle will not vote for a bill that doesn’t pass muster with the Constitution, no matter what’s in it that’s good.
Brian
To Brian, Santorum doesn’t appear to object enough to bundling of items in a bill, to vote against it. So while Santorum says it’s a problem, it’s not a problem for him. Excuses excuses.
Perhaps your Santorum junkie friend hasn’t learned the lesson of voting for a candidate based on their record, not their rhetoric. Of course, if their rhetoric doesn’t match their record, that’s a good reason to not vote for them, as that suggests they are a liar. And the Democratic approach of saying Santorum will use government to ban contraceptives (in spite of Santorums saying that’s his personal decision, not something he’d use government to impose on others) along with his rhetoric and record disconnect, will lead women to vote against him.
After all, Obama said that Bush raising the debt as much as he did was irresponsible, that Obama would cut the debt in half, and that Obama would be fiscally responsible. But many Republicans voted against him because they believed he was lying. Republicans should apply the same standard to their own candidates. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich fail the test.
Santorum is right, one makes many votes that include appropriations bills with lots of unpleasant things in them, but it remains the only way to get some things you DO want. Contrast that with Ron Paul, who votes for nothing, has DONE nothing, has no legislative accomplishment, and proudly hangs his hat on exactly that- NOTHING!
I’ll give you another example of a Santorum lie. He says he’s going to cut $5 trillion in 5 years from spending. He also says he wants to increase military spending (above the baseline increases). While he supports privatizing Social Security, he doesn’t say where the money would come from for current retirees. And regarding Medicare, he voted to expand it via Bush’s prescription drug entitlement (creating a $15 trillion unfunded liability).
If Santorum is truthful about cutting $5 trillion from the budget, he’d say from where. But it doesn’t match his record of voting for budgets that increase spending significantly.
3 days prior to his being shot, Lincoln was in a meeting planning how to deport (aka re-colonize) all of the freed Afican-Amenricans to Africa, because he was convinced of the superiority of the white race and that we would never be able to live peaceably side by side. And yet we have a shrine to him at the end of the capital mall.
No politician or statesman is philosophically pure and still abel to stay in office.
And Ron Paul, recently (I missed the exact date-within the past few months) said that the US going into WW2 was wrong- 67 years AFTER the war ended.
And he would not try ( this was in the American Heirtage Foundation debate) to take out people who were PLANNIGN a 911 type attack on amajor US city– in resposne to Gingrich who said that he would- as in his view the first obligation of a president is TO PROTECT THE US AND ITS CITIZENS.
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
I despsie Obama, but agree with his killing of the traitor/ Al Queida despot in Yemen ( regardless if eh was a US citizen as an accident of birth).
(By the way, as a teen, i worked in the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964.
His view– and I don’t have his exact words- but approximate – ” I ( Barry Godlweater) didn’t lead a revolution to get the government out of people’s wallets to get them into the people’s bedrooms”.
yet many of today’s conservatives want to do just that.
( The Goldwater family also started the Planned Parenthood divisions-or whatever the proepr term is) in Arizona.
Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have the same problem , they both were in the national government and with leadership roles. In those roles they were expected and “proudly” compromised, going against their principles seeking the “the greater good”.
They have conceded in their past, and their planned future, the end justifies the means. Romney uses the same argument to defend actions as governor of Massachusetts.
This false argument used by every utopian, totalitarian and despot since the crossing of the Rubicon.
All of Dr. Paul’s rivals have disclosed their belief that, at least at times, principle must yield.
Dr. Paul is different. He is a great rarity. He is a person who studied, learned and lived within the limitations of the power legitimately vested in him. He has fought his entire political career to have the rest of the government to do the same. He stayed true to Constitution and his oath of office. He understands the necessity of never compromising principal , and the inevitable path that yielding to fallacy selects.
Dr. Paul is attempted to be ignored, and, if that is not possible, to be labeled as unrealistic by any whose agendas have overridden their principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Regardless of those efforts, Dr. Paul keeps coming back, with ever greater support, as the damages resulting from unprincipled past actions becomes more and more apparent.
For those reasons it is very difficult for many, including his fellow candidates, to argue effectively with him.
I predict this will be the last of the 2012 Republican presidential primary debates, as the number remaining on the stage is too small to allow escape from Dr. Paul’s principles, logic, knowledge of their records and history.
None of those remaining desires to risk going one on one, as Santorum did with him in Arizona.
The nature of a democracy demands compromise. To expect purity in a voting record is foolhardy. You have to go along to get along. You have to give something to get something. The question to rightly ask candidates is WHERE they felt it necessary to compromise and why. No Child Left Behind? There are surely worse bills to have voted for.
RE: Ron Paul – TO HIS SUPPORTERS
I AGREE– THE CONSTUTION DOES NOT SPECIFY TERM LIMITS.
BUT, THE FOUNDING FATHERS SPOKE OF A ” CITIZENS LEGISLTTURE”.
YET RON PAUL HAS BEEN IN CONGRESS ALMSOT CONTINUALLY SINCE 1976– 36 YEARS. ( ADMITED- THERE WAS A BREAK OR TWO OF 2 OR SO YEARS — LET US SAY 30 YEARS OUT OF 36).
WOULDN’T THAT MAKE HIM A CAREER POLITICIAN?
OR, ARE TERM LIMITS ONLY FOR THE OTHER GUY???
NOT MY MAN, HE/SHE IS THE EBST.
I CALL THAT HYPOCRRISY.
Pat, you can compromise everything EXCEPT Constitutionality.
John,
Does that mean that there shoudl still be slavery?
It was in the Constution.
Women not being allwoed to vote?
As i recall, took decades and an amendment to allow that.
And, I am sure ( well before my time) that there were comromises along the way.
And as for Paul, see my comments on hsi longevity in Congress.
TERM LIMITS NOT MENTIONED, BUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID TALK OF A CITIZENS LEGISLATURE.
He, ( and his son is following in hsi footsteps) –in my opinion– career politicans and hypocrites. My vierws of them.
Goldwater & Reagan, true conservatives, compromised when necessary, to get things done.
paul, in the better part of 36 years accomplished ( besides making money and a name for himself- and hsi newsletters) one bill through- to sell 1 piece of surplus property.
In my view, taxpayers have not gotten their money’s worth from having him in Congress