« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

An Open Challenge to Supporters of Rick Santorum

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  February 13th, 2012 at 05:29 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

UPDATE: A commenter found this from October 19, 2008, shortly after the passage of TARP. I think the reporter is at least somewhat confused by what Santorum was saying but it is clear that Santorum came across as anything but a crusading opponent of TARP:

This from a man who also spent a long part of the visit explaining the intricacies of the financial bailout bill; the reason the added “sweeteners” could benefit the economy; his worries that not enough private sector money went into the package.

Earlier today I challenged supporters of Rick Santorum to name me one instance in which Santorum stood against other Republicans on spending. The one and only answer I received is that he opposed TARP. Everyone seems to take it for granted that this is a legitimate defense of Santorum. What no one has produced thus far is any evidence that Rick Santorum opposed TARP at the time it was being discussed.

The first mention I can find of Santorum opposing TARP was in his speech to CPAC in 2010, when he was already considering a run for the Presidency. Before that, I have found a giant, gaping vacuum with respect to Rick Santorum’s opinions about TARP. And I am not the only one who has noticed. If you are the sort of person who thinks opposing TARP was a good idea, then you would at least have to credit Gingrich for being on the record in 2008 opposing it. As far as I can tell, Rick Santorum had absolutely nothing to say about it one way or the other at the time it was being discussed. It is all fine and good for Rick Santorum to second-guess TARP two years after the fact, when the GOP primary electorate had already condemned it en masse, but that is something for which he deserves absolutely no credit from a courage for bucking leadership standpoint.

Given the fact that Rick Santorum never turned down a request for higher spending that came from Bush or Frist during his entire tenure, it beggars the imagination to think that he would have suddenly found religion on spending when it came to TARP, if he were still in office at the time. However, right now there’s no evidence that Rick Santorum even opposed TARP from the comfort of his own living room at the time it was actually being discussed.

So this is my challenge to Santorum supporters who are using his alleged opposition to TARP to bolster his fiscally conservative bona fides – can anyone produce any evidence whatsoever that Rick Santorum opposed TARP before TARP was actually passed?

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://alt2p.org Brookhaven

    Name me one instance in which Romney stood against other Republicans or Democrats on spending.

    Every rock that can be thrown at Santorum can be thrown twice at Romney.

    • aesthete

      Mitt sucks more (maybe)!

      • lizfstone

        …sucks.

      • Xasteius

        Newt 2012!

        • mikelindell2

          He was the guy who tried to impress the left and still lost by 18 points in 06. He is big gov’t through and through-raised debt ceiling 5 times, voted against right to work repeatedly, voted for bridge to nowhere twice, thinks states can & should ban condoms, voted 4 no child left behind and voted to double dept of education. His tax reform proposal would have government pick winners and losers and would lead to massive fraud. Mitt is liberal republican, rick is big government republican ,Newt is the only Proven & Accomplished small gov’t conservative. He has most conservative record and most conservative proposals.

          • Xasteius

            no text

          • mikelindell2

            Don’t like Mitt at all but favor him over the nanny statist. Let’s hope people wake up and Newt’s got one more comeback in him.

          • BigDog

            The boldest measures are the safest……JP Jones

            Leadership in a nutshell……

            Who has the best ideas…. the best experience….. the toughness for the job?
            Who will take bold measures?

            Only Newt

            In 2008 Rick endorsed Mitt as the “conservative choice” …poor judgement and Mitt….hell he doesn’t know if he went hunting elk or moose in Montana…..!

      • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

        TARP was passed in late September of 2008. So now we have a statement in early February 2009. That’s much less than the two years later you mention in the post.

        You can watch it here.

        Not only did he oppose TARP, Santorum understood it was the reason we lost the election.

        • sethellis

          I just wanted to make sure that you got your due credit for finding what I couldn’t. Good job.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      1. Romney vetoed a crapton of bills during his tenure, most of which were on the basis of excessive spending. Having done so on even one occasion would put him ahead of Santorum in this category.

      2. I’ve dealt with a whole slough of morons over the last two weeks who angrily told me they would not vote for Romney under any circumstances, even against Obama, because the same old go-along, get-along Republican stuff would doom this country. DOOM THIS COUNTRY, I SAID. Now it looks like these same people are lining up behind the guy whose picture is in the dictionary next to “go-along, get-along Republican.” I’m just hoping at least some of them will have the decency to admit that principles have nothing to do with it, they just don’t like Romney.

      • federalfarmer1

        Voting for romney is like voting for Nixon. Fingers crossed he’s got more rehnquists than blackmuns lined up.

        • Leon H. Wolf

          You apply that same sort of reasoning to explain why someone should vote for Romney over Obama in the general and you get screamed at.

      • jamesm

        1) 1 point Romney

        2) These people–Morons without decency are no good. Maybe they should raise their hands,

      • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

        Leon,

        I say this with the caveat that I would probably support Romney grudgingly over Newt Gingrich in the primary, but will vote republican in the general. That said, two reasons:

        1. When everyone and their brother was pulling out all stops to prevent PPACA/ ObamaCare from passage, to include those rallying to Scott Brown in Massachusetts — Mitt Romney was MIA. As the proverbial de facto leader in waiting of the party (apart from Sarah Palin), he could have set himself apart, but he didn’t, he hid.

        2. I am prolife. Mitt Romney is prolife when it matters for wining elections, and left of Ted Kennedy when it was a matter of winning. His “I’m good with the safety net” for the poor comment shows he is no conservative, not in the kind that every American matters. That’s how a prolife core helps one’s viewpoint — it doesn’t dictate that some are expendable. I don’t need that in a president and sure as heck don’t need that in a Commander in Chief.

    • lapert

      Romney vetoed plenty of spending passed by (and in many cases overridden by) both Democrats and Republicans in the MA legislature. It may not have always stopped the spending and it may not have come from the same principled place you would like it to but it certainly shows Romney standing up against spending by the government he oversaw.

      You can throw rocks if you like, but there are real histories here that have to be taken into account.

    • trutexan

      but he didn’t author RomneyCare, outlaw guns, and approve gay marriage.

      I have a particular bone to pick with the last of the list. Now today, a couple of same-sex active military can get married in Mass, and be legally married. But let’s say they then move to Texas where gay marriage isn’t legal (or even OK). So now are they married only when they are on base/post? And not off base/post? Or only in gay marriage friendly states? Do they get Join Spouse Assignments? Base housing? etc. I resent Gov Romney paving the way for the Dept of Defense being used as a social experiment. And being anti-gun? This lifetime NRA member will support him in the general if he’s my only choice, but will fight tooth and nail for anyone other – even if it is Santorum. I think I’ve switched one Rick for the other.

      • Leon H. Wolf

        There is really not much I can say to someone who believes that these things actually happened.

        • WY_Cowboy

          TARP happened in October of 2008. Santorum was out of office, and, if he did oppose it, who might have listened to him at the time? Honestly, at that time he wasn’t a leading contender for the nomination in 2012. I’ll bet he wasn’t even considered a possible candidate. So who would have listened to a former Senator who got crushed in the previous election in his home state? This challenge is tantamount to proving a negative. The fact is you either take him at his word, or don’t believe him. Either way, Leon knows there is very little probability of proving Santorum opposed TARP in 2008 without taking Santorum at his word.

          I would also point out that the deficits that were accumulated during 2001-2007 (while Santorum served in the Senate during the Bush era) are nowhere near where they are today. It is unfair to any former Senator or Member of Congress who did not serve a day during the financial meltdown and the Obama Administration to paint them with the same brush used to paint Obama and the Congress today. The fact of the matter is that Santorum has not cast a vote on spending in more than five years.

          So. like I said, either take him at his word or don’t. It’s up to you. It just seems to me that a guy who could win the nomination this year who understands the main flaw of Obamneycare – being that it is an expansive power grab that threats the liberty our country has enjoyed to date, as opposed to merely the cost of the program – should be given the benefit of the doubt as it relates to the fiscal abyss we are faced with today. Besides, he has produced a plan that cuts $5 trillion in five years, real cuts, not just cuts in the growth of spending. Come on. Romney is nowhere near that.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            Despite the fact that Newt had been out of office for far longer than Santorum. The reason for that is simple – if you are a current or former elected Republican who is critical of something that a Republican President is doing, the media is going to quote you on it, every time. Preferrably they will put you on TV and let you do it yourself. THe absence of the record is nearly dispositive, especially given what we know of Santorum’s predeliction towards liking GOP spending before he was booted out of office.

            And with respect to the period of 2001-2007 – there were people in Congress who at least occasionally were opposed to the runaway spending. Coburn, Flake, Kyl, even McCain, etc. While none were perfect, there were a lot of people who stood up and voted against the most egregious appropriations bills, or at least the abomination that was Medicare Part D (while Santorum was one of its chief water-carriers). That’s why I issued the challenge – even one instance of when he opposed Republican spending. Just one.

            In the absence of any evidence that he was capable of standing up to George W. Bush on anything I have no idea how you figure he has either the political courage or the capital to actually cut $5T in spending, whatever fairytales might exist on his campaign’s website.

          • WY_Cowboy

            Newt was a former Speaker and contributor on Fox News. He had a forum. What forum do you suggest Santorum could have had at that time?

            The fact of the matter is that the size of the debt and deficits today bear no resemblance to what they were back then. Also, I would like to point out to you that Tom Coburn did not serve in Congress a day during Bush 43′s first term in office.

            You just need to admit you are holding Santorum to a standard that Mitt and Newt can’t meet either. If you deny that, you’re being intellectually dishonest. The facts are that Mitt imposed a top down government mandated health care system that neither reduced costs to the patients or that tax payers. Newt too favored Medicare Part D. As a matter of fact, he got paid to support it, as well as the policies and direction of Freddie Mac.

            Perry is out of the race. We are left with Santorum, Newt, and Romney. If we are trying to pick the most conservative of the group, I think it’s hard to look past Santorum.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            I think you ought to spend some time reading this because it’s pretty clear Santorum is lying if he is claiming he opposed TARP at the time it was being debated:

            http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08293/921163-176.stm

          • WY_Cowboy

            It seems to me he wasn’t speaking in favor of TARP and actually was opposing it. Did I read this passage wrong?

            This from a man who also spent a long part of the visit explaining the intricacies of the financial bailout bill; the reason the added “sweeteners” could benefit the economy; his worries that not enough private sector money went into the package.

            Surely, he’d like to say those things on the floor of the Senate.

            “I’m very happy to say it on Fox News and I’ve probably communicated it to more people than if I’d said it on the floor of the Senate,” he says.

            You asked for “any evidence that Rick Santorum opposed TARP at the time it was being discussed.” Well, there it is. If you are now changing your challenge to produce evidence that he was “a crusading opponent of TARP” then I suppose we’ll lose that challenge too. It’s hard to meet a challenge when the goal posts keep getting moved.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            He’s defending TARP. He’s saying the sweeteners would be good for the economy. His only complaint was that not enough private money went into the bailout package.

            That is not opposing TARP whatsoever.

            Let me put it this way, Mitt Romney is on the record criticizing certain aspects of Romneycare that were inserted by the dems in the legislature at the time of its passage. Under this standard, if Rick Santorum is an opponent of TARP, Mitt Romney is an opponent of Romneycare.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            If one said they wanted private money into the package, the alternative was PUBLIC money. The private money would come from PRIVATE BONDHOLDERS, who were due to bear the loss under any definition of free market capitalism.

            All he’s saying is that private bondholders should bear more of the losses.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2008/10/03/20081003biz-Meltdown-Sweeteners1003.html

            Again, voicing criticisms of the bill is not the same as opposing the bill overall. If it were, then Mitt Romney would be considered an opponent of Romneycare.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            could have been because they included tax cuts. That’s the problem when you have a quote that doesn’t really support what you say.

            I’m willing to look at his arguments now against TARP. They sound philosophically consistent to me. They connect the dots in a way that Romney or Newt do not.

            You would rather take past arguments on earmarks and entitlements and recast them as a TARP argument now that Santorum is making so much traction on TARP.

            Different strokes for different folks.

          • sethellis

            I keep hearing reference to bond holders, but I honestly don’t have a clue what you are talking about. There were not bonds involved here, and the whole point was that the holders of the securities had already lost so much they couldn’t stay afloat. Don’t confuse what happened in 2008 with the issues we face today in Europe.

            The Republican plan had nothing to do with bondholders. It was still a bailout. The difference was simply that the money would come from the markets instead of the government. Private equity firms like Bain Capital, and investors like Warren Buffet could step up to the plate. This wouldn’t be the first time something like this happened either. During the crisis of 1907 JP Morgan stepped up and got his buddies to bail out all the bankrupt traders. They made a killing on their investment as well.

            It’s a pitty we didn’t do the same thing with TARP. The government could have made billions with Citi alone, but they’re simply too stupid to take advantage of it effectively. A lot of people could have made good money that would be flowing back into the markets right now if we had done this the right way.

            Unfortunately, Pelosi and Reed simply wouldn’t allow this to happen. The only other option we really had was to just let it all blow up. Something I think would have been unacceptable.

          • Bill S

            And I certainly am not a rabid TARP opponent/regretter.

            However, I don’t see how ANYONE can read that quote as him opposing TARP. There is not a word/phrase combination in that blockquote that says that Santorum opposed it. Anywhere.

          • jgelling

            http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm

            Among critics of the bill was Mr. Casey?s predecessor, Republican Rick Santorum, who expressed doubt about the government?s suitability as a market stabilizer. He wanted to see a hybrid of both limited government purchase of the troubled investments, and a series of loan guarantees that would let the private market do the work.

            Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm#ixzz1mJhw8LQp

          • Waderic

            It’s pretty clear that he was against all the bailouts at this point. Looks like the gap is now down to 5 months from when TARP was initially enacted.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6bsYedbQE0

          • jgelling

            http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm

            “Among critics of the bill was Mr. Casey?s predecessor, Republican Rick Santorum, who expressed doubt about the government?s suitability as a market stabilizer. He wanted to see a hybrid of both limited government purchase of the troubled investments, and a series of loan guarantees that would let the private market do the work.”

            Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm#ixzz1mJhw8LQp

          • jgelling

            Santorum was already on record being critical at the time the bill passed the Senate.

          • JSobieski

            Second, this is hardly leadership. More analogous to writing a diary on on Redstate.

            The fact that Santorum always seems to be on the pro-spending side of virtually every argument is quite telling.

            The fact that Santorum supporters are pusing his TARP opposition as some great example of . . .. something, is pathetic.

            P.S. I think TARP was defensible even though I opposed it at the time. Did a lot of reading about Mark-to-Market.

          • jgelling

            Santorum opposed TARP at the time. The fact is he did oppose TARP, and communicated this to a variety of media outlets.

            As for failed “leadership”, the guy fell on his sword trying to defend Bush’s 4 years of dithering in Iraq before they came up with a strategy to leave. Having lost his seat mainly because of Iraq (and the immensely popular Casey brand name), I’m not sure what you’d have expected the guy to do at the time.

          • JSobieski

            When in office, he seems to have supported most of the spending.

            Out of office, he “opposed” TARP in a speech or two.

            On a list of the top 10 people opposed to TARP, Santorum is not on the list.

          • Bill S

            First, Santorum was no longer in the Senate, so there wasn’t a whole lot more he could do than write a Redstate diary or something similar (op-ed, etc.)

            Second, Santorum started it. He was the one touting his opposition to TARP. His fans are simply following suit.

          • jgelling

            The original post suggested Santorum just invented his opposition to TARP years later. Then we find two newspaper interviews where Santorum criticizes TARP at the time.

            So now the argument he didn’t do enough to stop it (having fallen on his sword because of Bush). He did more than write a Red State diary – he was clearly still giving media appearances and discussing politics despite being a private citizen for 2 years. If that’s not enough, it’s certainly more than anyone else can claim.

          • Bill S

            I’m more or less defending the guy, so lighten up. I was responding to another commenter who used the original phrasing. I suggest climbing off your high horse.

          • jgelling

            I meant to address the other fellow who ignored both articles that have Santorum on the record opposing TARP in October of 2008.

          • JSobieski

            The issue is ultimately what kind of mark did Santorum make on the TARP debate in 2008. The answer is … not much.

            The fact that a bunch of political junkies can even ask the question tells you what you need to know.

            There were people writing op-eds to oppose TARP. Folks actively trying to stop it.

            Santorum showed the leadership of non-frontpage RS blogger.

            Santorum’s supporters cite this as evidence that Santorum will cut spending?

          • sethellis

            He didn’t even go as far as to write a diary about it. He has nothing more to show than a small passing reference in an interview. The whole point of the article was that he was more concerned about pushing his movie ideas than he was about what was going on in Washington.

          • JSobieski

            Neither of them were in office.

            Both did more to fight TARP than Santorum did.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            Even he proposed alternatives similar to what Santorum proposed.

          • JSobieski

            Remember, the original question is: What evidence do we have that Santorum would fight spending?

            Answer: He opposed TARP.

            To quote the WSJ on Romney’s fiscal plan… Santorum’s opposition to TARP barely went beyond answering the question “Do you support TARP”.

            It is not evidence of taking a difficult stand or mobilizing public opposition. In short, it signifies nothing on a scale worth mentioning of a Presidential candidate.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            I never said because he opposed TARP he will fight spending. Maybe you guys should have kept that discussion on an original thread.

            You guys wanted to make one point thinking no one would find evidence. People did find evidence. You guys brought a quote out of context, but that was batted own.

            So now you guys are going back to the original point in another post about his spending and earmark record. EE made plenty of posts on that and it had no impact.

            The choice is now between three guys and people are choosing Santorum in spite of his record. Personally, I hope Santorum finishes just shy of a majority and we have a brokered convention.

          • JSobieski

            “Earlier today I challenged supporters of Rick Santorum to name me one instance in which Santorum stood against other Republicans on spending. The one and only answer I received is that he opposed TARP.”

            It is totally within the topic of discussion for me to suggest that even if true (and it is tepidly true), if Santorum’s opposition to TARP is the pre-eminent example of Santorum being tough on spending . . .. Santorum isn’t very tough on spending.

            This is clearly the broader point I am interested in making. I acknowledge that you are trying to address a far more narrow point.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            The challenge has been more than met. I acknowledge that you are trying to address Santorum’s spending record. I too find it troubling.

            I don’t think this has done anything but cheapened the TARP issue and made it more confusing for everyone. I mean upthread there are some really wrong views on positions for and against TARP.

            If you want to address Santorum’s past record, go for it. Don’t bring another issue into it.

          • JSobieski

            Frankly, I don’t think TARP is a big indicator of anything.

            The fact that Santorum supporters cite Santorum’s not well publicized opposition to TARP as a private citizen instead of actions as a sitting Senator as evidence that Santorum will fight spending is pathetic.

            I’ll bet you that Jimmy Carter was relatively frugal with Amy’s allowance, but it wasn’t evidence of anything.

          • Dave_A

            It’s more an ‘are you a populist’ test…

            Based on historical evidence with the RTC, unless you had a ‘Dr Doom’ Pete Schiff/Karl Denninger perspective on the US economy, it was pretty clear that TARP wasn’t going to cost the government any money, and might even result in some positive returns.

            I recognized this in 08, and history has proven me right. TARP was not a fiscal disaster (like the competing ‘bank nationalization’ would have been) – far from it…

            If you want a real ‘fiscal bailout test’, then the proper thing to look at is the GM/Chrysler bailout – something that DID cost us a fortune as a nation, and did nothing to improve either company

          • acat

            Remember, TARP money went into the auto industry….

            Mew

          • jgelling

            Romney, McCain and Bush supported TARP, with Romney profiting from it personally.

            Newt, Santorum and Forbes opposed it, but Santorum wasn’t strong enough in his opposition because he only spoke to two media outlets at the time?

            What’s the takeaway from that? That former senators who aren’t current lobbyists in Washington aren’t that great at getting media exposure during the height of a presidential campaign? To me, all that matters is Santorum didn’t invent his opposition to TARP after the fact. In other words…

            Santorum didn’t pull a Romney.

          • JSobieski

            He opposed TARP, but did less in its oppositon than others did.

            The guy is running for President, not a spot on city council or editor of a law review.

            If TARP is his big get tough on spending moment, he did less to stop TARP than I did.

            He could have shown leadership, written op-ed pieces, etc and shown leadership.

            Instead, he just answered someone’s questions about it.

          • littlehouse18

            ‘Among critics of the bill was Mr. Casey’s predecessor, Republican Rick Santorum, who expressed doubt about the government’s suitability as a market stabilizer. He wanted to see a hybrid of both limited government purchase of the troubled investments, and a series of loan guarantees that would let the private market do the work.

            “We’re not going in there as Warren Buffett would to make money for the American public. We’re going in there for a public policy purpose and profit is of a secondary or even tertiary nature. That’s a big concern. That’s a higher risk venture because we’re paying more for something than the market would pay,” Mr. Santorum said.

            “Instead of trying to fix the deal they’re just going to sweeten it with things other people need to buy the deal,” he said.’

          • acat

            ?We?re not going in there as Warren Buffett would to make money for the American public. We?re going in there for a public policy purpose and profit is of a secondary or even tertiary nature. That?s a big concern. That?s a higher risk venture because we?re paying more for something than the market would pay,? Mr. Santorum said.

            See, it’s the idea that TARP was going to buy low and sell high – invest, in the short term, in distressed assets and sell them *at a profit* in the longer term. In short, the profit would prevent TARP from becoming a corporate welfare handout.

            Santorum appears to be saying, in the quote above, that the corporate welfare would have been preferable.

            Mew

          • windwaker24

            If he were opposed to TARP he would have let it be known to anyone who gave him attention.

            As to your last sentence, if you go by their ACU “ratings” Newt is the most conservative one. Santorum is 88. Newt is 90.

          • jgelling

            http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm

            The PA media had no trouble recognizing he was on record opposing Bob Casey on TARP *at the time.*

            In fact, of the four candidates left in the race, Romney is the ONLY one who supported TARP at the time.

        • Scope

          I think you can’t stretch that Romney didn’t support gay marriage. Many of his remarks were very recent, especially in the debates. It shouldn’t be lost that his gay positions were in debates which took place in Iowa. Iowa is one of only 6 states that has passed gay marriage laws.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            Even they are forced to admit, if you read it carefully, that he did not support gay marriage.

          • mikelindell2

            Why choose between liberal repub(mitt) and big government repub(rick). Newt- highest ACU rating, most experienced, most accomplished conservative alive, best proposals. How is there any other choice?

            Newt-Most electable b/c of his record solving same issues we face today & the fact he had to work w/ Bill Clinton to get 4 balanced budgets, 4.2% unemployment, entitlement reform, 11 mil jobs in 4 yrs.

          • naharu89x7

            I was looking at all the various candidates and thinking “I wish I could combine all the best aspects of them all into one person”.

            Imagine the best of Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt, Santorum etc rolled into one person.

          • mikelindell2

            of everyone’s best traits. He has boldest plan, best experience, proven track record, most articulate, most conservative record according to acu, strong on social, fiscal, and foreign policy fronts.

          • mikelindell2

            &

          • Adjoran

            Gingrich was an awful leader as Speaker. What got done was done by the Committees, not by him after the initial Contract items were brought to a vote. Conservatives were already making noise after two years, and finally managed to kick the bum out.

            He has stabbed conservatives in the back more times than McCain ever did.

            Where do you get your history – Newt?

          • mikelindell2

            Forgive me for not getting my information from Steve Doocy or Mitt Romney ads. It doesn’t seem like you are familiar with who the speaker of the House is, I don’t have time to explain it to you. The Contract with America was Newt’s, getting those things passed through the House was Newt’s doing, and most importantly, finding a way to get Clinton to sign them was certainly Newt all the way. Can you name the other speaker who balanced the budget for four years? Can you name the other speaker who came into a projected 2.7 trillion budget deficit over 10 years and when he left turned that into a projected 10 year 2.3 trillion dollar surplus? Can you name the other speaker who reformed entitlements? What happened to budget deficits and spending when Newt left? I’d ask who you are supporting, but I feel I’ve embarrassed you enough as it is.

          • Creedo

            All this talk about “Contract for America” forgets the fact that government didn’t shrink after it was passed. It grew and grew and grew and grew. Where was Newt to guide it? Lobbying Freddy and Fannie because a conservative revolt threw him out in disgrace due to ethics concerns. Such a leader…

          • mikelindell2

            Newt cut hundreds of billions from entitlement & from discretionary spending. Only time in your life we got 4 consecutive balanced budgets and a major entitlement was reformed. When Newt’s era was over, Republicans became big spending Dems. ‘Nuff said

          • JSobieski

            What did winning the Civil War get us?

            What did the Reagan tax cuts of 82-83 get us?

            What did tax reform in 86 get us?

            The fact that we have all these problems in 2012 doesn’t make the preceding events irrelevant.

          • sulmak

            despite having been logest serving Republican speaker in history. That is because he accomplished nothing but to become master of the quo.

            Newt Gingrich is a household name.

            Dennis Hastert by the way.

          • Dave_A

            There’s simply no getting past his personal life, the fact that he pretty much alienated himself from his own party, the general-election public perception of him as the ‘evil villian’ opposing the still-popular BJ Clinton, and the fact that Obama would be able to splatter him with negative ads on the above, far worse than Mitt did in FL.

            Newt is DoA in the general, no matter how bold his plans are, how much he knows about policy, and so on.

            People – especially independents – will not overlook personal qualities… Especially once the Obama attack-machine gets going, and Gingrich has nothing to counter with besides policy-points…

            It’s for that reason that I and many others are firmly voting ‘Not Gingrich’ in the primaries, and ‘Any (R) but Paul’ in the general.

            Santorum’s recent polling pickups (not the caucus wins, but his uptick in the RCP average, and so on) are a result of a bunch of us (A) not wanting Mitt after his recent extremely un-conservative comments, and (B) being unable to pinch our noses tight enough to block out that horrid slimy sewer-smell emanating from Newt’s personal life.

            Thus, if Santorum drops out, you will see Romney pick up in the polls, and run away with the nomination. Too many of us who now support him as ‘least objectionable’ cannot vote for Gingrich in the primaries, period.

            If Gingrich drops, most of his ‘not-Romney’ support will go to Santorum. Most of the fanatical libertarians who can’t see past Rick’s moralisim are already voting for Johnson or Paul.

          • WillWong

            Newt’s personal traits outweighs everything else!

          • mikelindell2

            If you can’t move on from Newt’s personal life from decades ago, which way way overblown to begin with, I feel bad for you. Santorum’s doing well because he is being pushed by “conservative” media; Newt was attacked every step of the way. With Rick, you get a solid big gov’t, big spending, unelectable, nanny-statist. His tax plan lets govt pick winners and losers. Congrats, you got yourself a keeper

          • demsaresatanic

            is your problem, not Newt’s. Newt has admitted his sin and asked for forgiveness, there is nothing more that he can do, either you are willing to forgive and move on or you aren’t. Perhaps you think you have never sinned to that extent and are therefore in a good position to judge and throw stones; you are wrong about that, but forgiveness has to come from within, nobody here can change you.

    • jgelling

      http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm

      Among critics of the bill was Mr. Casey’s predecessor, Republican Rick Santorum, who expressed doubt about the government’s suitability as a market stabilizer. He wanted to see a hybrid of both limited government purchase of the troubled investments, and a series of loan guarantees that would let the private market do the work.

      Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm#ixzz1mJhw8LQp

      • Leon H. Wolf

        He wanted to see a hybrid of both limited government purchase of the troubled investments, and a series of loan guarantees that would let the private market do the work.

        You do understand that that was exactly what TARP was supposed to be, right? I mean, to the letter? We all understand that that did not actually happen, but that’s the entire point of asking if there was any evidence that he criticized TARP before it passed. EVERYONE criticized it afterwards when Paulson just took the money and used it as a slush fund. The question is whether he criticized what the bill was supposed to do as it was being passed. And this article, which again is after the fact, illustrates that Santorum was 100% clear that he was in favor of that concept.

        • jgelling

          TARP, as presented by Paulson, was a blank check (literally a bill 1 page long that gave the Treasury Secretary carte blanche). Paulson proposed to spend all or most of the money buying the toxic assets.

          Everyone thought that something had to be done – the biggest banks could be allowed to fail overnight. They had trillions on balance sheets tied to assets of questionable value, so the immediate problem was a lack of liquidity. Santorum, and others like DeMint, proposed fixing that liquidity problem NOT by scooping up $750 billion in toxic assets, but by extending loans to the banks.

          That’s a wildly different position than what Paulson wanted, and very different from what ultimately happened (huge equity investments in the banks). And the important point is that he spoke out AGAINST the bill, which you have a duty to your readers to admit, even if you want to avoid the complex details of this issue.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            You’re the one who deliberately is refusing to read what Santorum said, which is that he wanted the government to purchase the troubled assets. Hey, what does TARP stand for again? I forget.

            Again, what we have here is a statement by Santorum that is critical of some particulars of the bill (he would have preferred more loans and less asset purchases) but is something completely different from rejecting the idea of TARP altogether.

          • jgelling

            Then let your readers decide if Santorum’s opposition to the bill was sufficient to make him a critic of TARP. You can at least mention there’s a news source published contemporaneously with the bill that mentions Santorum as a known critic of at least some of the bill’s details, however.

            As it is, your story strongly suggests Santorum just invented his opposition to TARP years later out of whole cloth. That may or may not be the interpretation your readers would draw, when presented with the facts.

          • sethellis

            The key thing that people need to consider in order to understand this discussion is that there are two key questions here. The first is simply about whether or not TARP was the most effective solution to the crisis. Almost every presidential candidate has said that it was not. We could go on about little details like this, but the honest truth is that none of the candidates have gone into it enough for a real discussion.

            But the larger question is about whether or not there should have been any bailouts at all. I call this the “let them fail” camp. In both his 2008 interview, and 2009 CPAC speech Santorum’s comments lead me to believe that he was NOT in the “let them fail” camp.

            In other words, his position is really not all that different from Romney’s. In fact, his position is really not all that different from what most of the establishment said at the time. Furthermore he did almost nothing at the time to voice his extreme opposition to the plan. Like most of the establishment at the time, he stayed quiet so as to not derail McCain’s campaign.

          • jgelling

            The thing about the financial industry is that, unlike other industries, you’re making money with money. Your assets are money, your liabilities are money – you basically have a house of cards (or paper).

            There was no one seriously in the “let them fail” camp, if by that you mean do absolutely nothing at all, since then the feds would still be forced to step in to insure deposits. Letting all the banks go bankrupt because the financial markets were in panic was, and is, not a sound policy.

            At the time, the TARP plan was to buy up all the toxic assets directly. Santorum was saying, “OK, maybe a bit of that, but mostly we should focus on providing short-term loans to the banks to get them through this panic phase, then let the private market sort it out.”

            To me, that’s a very different position than taking $750 billion, and, at the sole discretion of the Secretary of Treasury, using that to buy whatever crap the banks had on their balance sheet. Or using it to buy up equity in the banks and meddle in their affairs. To me, that’s a pretty clear distinction.

          • fooliod
            If you want to talk about who supported TARP and who didnt? Cantor, Boehner and Paul Ryan ALL voted for it.

            Oh, and Ron Paul voted No.

            Hope that helps with whatever point you were trying to make about TARP

          • Bill S

            None of them are running for President.

            Except RuPaul, who really doesn’t count anyway.

        • jgelling

          The article was written the day after the vote, and is quoting Santorum as a known critic of the bill.

          You’re really grasping at straws Mr. Wolf, if you won’t do your readers the service of at least mentioning that he was on record opposing the bill at the time it was passed. No journalist would ignore evidence like this.

        • littlehouse18

          I wish Santorum had executive experience, but he is a smart, knowledgeable guy who has fought pretty well so far. Romney’s performances lately make me very nervous about his campaigning ability. Plus, I’d rather have a guy who goes along with a Republican president than one who touts his ability to reach across the aisle to Democrats/Marxists. We’ve already been down that road and Mitt doesn’t seem to have learned where that leads.

          Perhaps not a great recommendation, but here we are.

        • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

          I’ll wait.

          It is entirely possible to have the government purchase the toxic assets, but for the price they were worth at the time under mark-to-market. That would’ve been entirely conservative. That would’ve given most of the losses to the people who deserved them.

          Instead, we just handed money to the companies and they kept the toxic assets on their balance sheets. Then we suspended mark-to-market and short-selling to prop them up.

          One is conservative, one is not. Both involve government purchase of troubled investments. One lets the private market do the work.

          You have no understanding of this issue.

    • SteveM

      Again, please answer the question.

      Santorum supporters seem to be good at

      1. Whining.
      2. Not be able to say anything positive about their guy other than “He’s not Romney”

      We’re electing the 45th President of the USA here. Up your game.

    • earhartam

      You hit the nail square on the head, Brookhaven!

  • Viet71

    who cares?

    I have lots of reservations about Santorum. I even lean toward Romney (yuk).

    If Santorum can fire up the base and get the nomination, I say, go for it. Notwithstanding Arlen Specter.

    • aesthete

      I’d prefer to avoid a repeat of GWB’s domestic agenda, if at all possible.

      • Viet71

        Mitt would be an amalgam of GWB and Obama.

        Better than Obama. Not ideal.

      • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

        Newt’s unfavorable ratings combined with his proven record of failure and embarrassment as speaker guarantees another Obama, nevermind another Bush.

        Romney is another Bush with the same attitude toward big banks.

        Santorum at least is skeptical of Big Banks and isn’t getting most of his money from them. He’s the only one articulating why TARP was/is bad. That’s more than we can say about anyone else in the field.

        • annie54

          Newt doesn’t have the votes nor the stamina and energy. He also is not firing up the base.

          I WILL NOT vote for Romney!

          Santorum is firing up the base and has compassion for the people as well as passion for the country.

          No one will change my mind on him. When he speaks, it isn’t a lot of words that mean nothing. He says what we’ve been waiting to hear and it is heartfelt. No one is perfect except Obama and that’s because his credentials and records are sealed. Santorum isn’t perfect, but he’s the one I’m campaigning for and I’m thankful we have him. Now, you wanna talk about TARP? Talk to the mirror.

          RICK Santorum 2012 period

          • aesthete

            “When he speaks, it isn?t a lot of words that mean nothing.”

            Didn’t he tell you that he was for small government? If he did, he was lying to you.

            So far I’ve got anti-bank postings and “energy” recommending Santorum to me.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            First time I’ve seen someone bragging about it.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            I know you aren’t responding to me, but I hated that term and the whole blog war it caused.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            -notext

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            *no*text*

          • littlehouse18

            I’d just rather vote for Rick (either one).

        • http://bullpasturechronicles.blogspot.com jdbray

          Calling Gingrich’s record as speaker a failure and embarrassment is quite a stretch. If it wasn’t for his very effective leadership we wouldn’t have had the Contract with America and the Republican tide that swept Ricky S into the senate. What did Ricky S do with this gift from Gingrich’s leadership? He joined the dem’s in filibustering Right to Work because he is a “principled conservative.”

          • WillWong

            in order to build up their candidate?

            I remembered it like yesterday, the mighty Red Tide which swept both chambers in 1994….have we forgotten?

            It was no little achievement! Easily one of the most significant political upheaval of the second half of the 20th Century, comparable to the Reagan Thatcher, and John Paul Revolution that swept across Eastern Europe in the late 80′s.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            In 2008, what good was winning the majority in 1994? Is there some time warp of which I’m unaware? Did we reform entitlements so that we’re not in our present fiscal disaster? In 2008, did we or did we not pass a sweeping law that presented an existential threat to free market capitalism?

            Was Newt’s speakership closer to the longest and most influential speakerships or the shortest and least influential speakerships?

          • WillWong

            Enuff said!

          • WillWong

            Hastert and Boehner combined! I am leaving Pelosi out for obvious reason!

          • Adjoran

            The real work was done by the Ways and Means Committee which pushed the Capital Gains Tax Cut, freeing up capital invested in old equities, firing the tech boom and raising revenues.

            Of course, Newt did almost nothing on the budget or tax issues, he was all about his Big Ideas and trying to deal away our gains to burnish his image. That’s why we threw him out. But Bob Dole had the harder task of getting 60 votes in the Senate to get those bills passed.

            The guy was a disaster who wouldn’t listen to any Republicans. If you believe Newt’s version, he was George Freakin’ Washington. In his head, he probably is.

          • WillWong

            Why is it that the GOP controlled House went on the greatest spending spree after Newt left?

            If what you said is true, the fiscally conservative minded republican congress would have done even better with Newt out of the way. Have they? What did Hastert do that was fiscally more conservative than Newt? Am I missing something?

          • lapert

            You mean under the Republican President’s leadership, you mean with entitlement extension like Medicare Part D that Gingrich was a big supporter of?

          • Dave_A

            The 90s budget was the result of:

            1) The biggest tax hike in US history
            2) A massive cut to defense (almost 50% of active Army forces, for example)
            3) A bubble that popped in 2000

            Since there was no real, significant structural change to the budget, as soon as we repealed Clinton’s tax hike, the .com bubble ran out, and we started to try and return the DoD to proper funding, things went back to the way they used to be.

            So since Newt never actually GOT the change required to balance the budget on conservative principles – he never got enough spending cuts to keep it balanced when we undid Clinton’s bullshit – it never stayed balanced.

          • Dave_A

            Sorry, a bit of our normal conversational tone over here in AFG (bulls***) slipped into the above post.

            Won’t do it again….

          • Finrod

            Too bad that the people that ‘threw him out’ have a different story than the one Adjoran has been viciously spinning for a long time now. Here’s the story, told by someone that helped evict Newt from the Speakership. Quoting the conclusion at the end:

            Whatever else, and I say this as both an ally and a tormentor of Speaker Gingrich, he did not resign in disgrace. His leadership was key in getting us to the majority. His inspiration helped keep us there: twice. But after the 1998 midterm election, with a presidential campaign approaching and Governor George W. Bush emerging as our likely leader with a real chance to regain the presidency, we needed a speaker who could manage the House not an idea leader. So like a business changing direction, we changed leadership.

            There are plenty of reasons to oppose Newt Gingrich. I happen to support Rick Santorum. But the speaker has been unfairly maligned by Mitt Romney, and the full story needs to be told.

          • lapert

            So let’s see, he was fired for ineffective management and that is a good sign for a future president?

            Did you actually read the article? Do you really think, “his leadership had become indecisive and confused, his anger flared too often, and operationally we House Republicans could no longer function” is an endorsement for someone who wants to lead the executive branch and the party? This seems more closely to reflect the facts as Adjoran says above than whatever redemptive version of them you want to push.

          • WillWong

            It basically said that in 2000, the party thought that a manager was needed more than an idea person and Newt being an idea person was replaced. In 2012, the country needs an idea person more than ever and it is now time to bring Newt back.

            Newt said it better than anyone….Santorum and Romne can manage the decay, he can make bold changes.

            If you guys think we only need a manager, go right ahead and pick Santorum or Romney but as for me and my household, we are going for big ideas.

          • lapert

            It says more than they needed a manager – it says that “his leadership had become indecisive and confused”, something we never need in a President.

            We are not short of ideas in this country and idea men are a dime a dozen – leadership is a rare quality that is instrumental in great presidencies. I don’t think Romney or Santorum have the makings of great leaders but I know from having witnessed it and hearing the testimony of those even close that Gingrich has the making of awful leadership. An indecisive and confused presidency would be a disaster.

          • WillWong

            for leading the Republican Revolution that brought the Party control of the House for the first time in 40 years. That is the kind of visionary leadership this country needs at this moment.

          • lapert

            We already had that visionary leadership – we took the house with it two years ago. We don’t need someone with an electoral strategy for the house, we need someone who can lead in office – and not just lead a caucus but lead a country he couldn’t even do the former and you think he will successfully do the latter?

          • WillWong

            Boehner? McConnell? Romney? Santorum?

            The closest is Sarah Palin and she ain’t running.

          • lapert

            I wouldn’t say Palin is the closest or even plausible as the answer but I would agree that whomever it is is not currently competing for the nomination.

            That said, I would gladly choose a potentially competent if not great leader over one whose has a record of crashing in the role.

            I also think we have a deep bench developing with many who can play that role in the future – but I would generally avoid looking to the halls of Congresses past or present to find them

          • WillWong

            that Newt Gingrich is the person who has been prepared to lead this country out of the wilderness. This belief is based on a recognition of the extent of the problems facing this country and the skills set each candidate brings to the table.

            Newt is by far the most capable candidate able to articulate what needs to be done as well as having the best ideas on tackling the nation’s most serious problems. You pick a candidate based on his resume and Newt’s resume has the most appropriate accomplishments that we need today.

            I don’t have a problem if you decide 4 years from now that you need a better manager but right now, we need Newt to even have a chance to talk about having a country 4 years from now.

          • lapert

            I’m not looking to change that which you believe with all your heart. I would just caution you that anytime you talk about believing with all your heart in anyone whose business is politics you are probably in for disappointment.

            I see very different things in Newt than you, like someone who struggles to articulate realistic details of his ideas and has a tendency to jump through many ideas expecting someone else to find which ones are nuggets and which ones trash. I see someone who failed as a political leader and then spent the subsequent decade pandering for whomever would pay him or get him attention. I see someone whose resume includes a lovefest with Nancy Pelosi, support of Dede, serving Freddie and hawking Medicare Part D more recently than any of those distant wins of his political past. I see someone who was opportunistic in passing on 2008 in the hope that 2012 would be a better environment in which to run. I see someone who was so poor a leader that his campaign team quit on him, couldn’t organize to get him on winnable ballot’s such as Virginia and hasn’t been able to raise nearly enough funds.

            All in all, I see your standard politician who has a history of poor leadership in the areas most crucial to the leader of the executive branch.

          • WillWong

            Most people would agree that Newt won most of the debates so far….how does that correlates with your “struggled to articulate”?

            Most of your complaints about Newt can be answered if you seek to. Newt is far from perfect but many of us chose to see past his many flaws to his considerable achievements in conservative governance.

            With Newt, we know what he is capable of doing, which is the ability to turn this country around. Am I willing to risk his considerable baggage? Yes, considering the options available. 4 years of Obama, Romney, or Santorum might take us to the point of no return.

          • lapert

            You are still a naive idealist in a period of time where the best you could find to be idealistic about is such an uninspiring run of the mill politician.

            Hopefully in the next few years one of the younger Governors will catch your eye and provide a better outlet for it.

            And for the record, the U.S. is very resilient, we have survived bad presidents before and will again – so don’t worry about a ‘point of no return’.

          • demsaresatanic

            A speaker needs “people skills” to build consensus in the caucus. Highly intelligent men often lack people skills, they grasp quickly what others are slower to see and become impatient with them.

            A president needs to be a man of ideas, able to see the big picture, good people skills are not required. Obviously people skills help to be elected, but are of secondary importance on the job. If we are fortunate enough to see a Newt presidency you will see what I mean.

          • lapert

            You don’t think an effective President needs great people skills? Do you really not understand why Reagan was successful? You don’t think managing the White House, interacting with Congress, diplomatic negotiations etc. don’t require people skills?

            You think someone who becomes impatient rather than is able to bring those slower than them to see their point of view can succeed at implementing ideas, even if they are worth it? Wow.

          • demsaresatanic

            am I surprised that you resort to silly straw-man arguments. Keep thinking of new words to put in my mouth, you are good at that.

          • lapert

            Actually I used your own words, they were pretty stupid so it was easy.

            I work in an idea industry, I have worked with great idea men who had people skills and those that didn’t – the only ones that were ever successful were those who had good people skills.

            Anyone who thinks good people skills are optional for a president is destined to back poor ones.

          • demsaresatanic

            between managing people as individuals and managing a country. Again, no surprise there.

          • lapert

            Um, you don’t think the President manages people? Seriously, what do you think he does all day, ruminate on grand ideas, throw them out there and then they mysteriously come to fruition? You think he doesn’t have to manage and lead his various advisers, his cabinet, his Generals?

            You may be able to draw a distinction, but it is purely a mythical one.

          • demsaresatanic

            getting sillier. For some reason you refuse to make the distinction between managing people as individuals and managing a country. Why not throw in the people who mow his lawn to your list?

          • lapert

            It doesn’t seem you know what a straw-man is.

            Managing people, managing teams, inspiring and leading those that work for you is part and parcel of managing a country. What about that don’t you get? What about that do you think is false? What do you think a president does to accomplish anything?

          • demsaresatanic

            nt

          • lapert

            That is exactly the level of substance I would expect in your reply.

            Bet of luck to you with that

          • JSobieski

            Given the deep hole we are in, it is silly to downplay what some of the best budgetary numbers in my lifetime.

            They did actually come closer to a grand bargain on entitlements, but then the impeachment issue came up (something Newt advised against pursuing) and the rest as they say is history.

          • lapert

            Newt didn’t really oppose impeachment, he wasn’t in favor of it at the start of the conference call Delay called and was behind it by the end – not much in the way of opposition particularly for the leader of the caucus that was committing the worst political decision of a generation.

            And it is also a bit of a stretch to call them the best budgetary numbers in your lifetime – the budget didn’t decrease year over year at any point nor was any long term controls put in place to even direct and the year over year growth was smaller in ’87.

          • JSobieski

            http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich

            We need to bring back the spirit of October 28, 1997.
            Obama will never stand for it, but there are D Senators who would be helpful.

          • Adjoran

            Like Newt’s Grand Bargain, it never happened.

          • JSobieski

            There are three periods of domestic policy in my lifetime that represent high water marks for conservatives.

            81-84 Reagan tax cuts, significant domestic discretionary non-defense spending restraint

            87-88 Tax reform results in low budgets

            95-98 Newt’s tenure as speaker

            Dismiss his accomplishments if you wish, but nothing Romney or Santorum have ever done comes close.

      • Locke

        Romney may not be pure in heart but what we need in a candidate is one who can:
        1. beat Obama,
        2. bring more conservative Reps into Congress on his coattails,
        3. be a good spokesman for policies coming out of Congress.

        I have doubts about Romney on all three counts, but right now it looks as if he may be the best of the four alternatives.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      against it w/i 5 seconds of the idea being floated?

      Seems to be a pretty large moving of goalposts to me.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        I would say though that many good tea partier-approved Republicans did vote for and/or support TARP including Paul Ryan and Herman Cain and many more, due to the crisis at the time and if that vote is a litmus test, then it makes tea partiers look foolish imho.

      • aesthete

        Politicians don’t get credit for stuff they don’t do. If Santorum didn’t say anything about TARP until months after the deed was done, then he doesn’t get to wave this completely pathetic record in our faces to prove how fabulously conservative he is.

        If a prominent conservative — say, Rick Perry — had not said anything about ObamaCare until months after its passage (and after it was clear that opposition was the best political course of action), and then took umbrage to people pointing out that this belated opposition is by no means a courageous or impressive stance, then that would be his problem and no one else’s.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          was a very short one.

  • demsaresatanic

    between Newt and Rick on big spending. Rick claiming after the fact that he opposed Tarp obviously conflicts with his actual voting record which is big government Repub straight down the line. Newt is the only one who came out and fought it.

  • tnguy

    Santorum is bad news. Few people here seem even willing to try to dispute that. Unfortunately, Romney is even worse.

    Yet the republican party cast aside Rick Perry in favor of these 2. What is wrong with you people????!!!!! (republicans in general, not the denizens of this site)

    • texasref

      That’s why I’m voting for the guy Rick Perry endorsed.

      • demsaresatanic

        thanks.

      • WillWong

        To all the undecideds:

        You need to watch this video and then decide. Just a couple of minutes and Newt clearly distinguished his record and plan on taxes, jobs, and the economy.l

  • whitfox3

    Gingrich showed in Florida that he can’t get past his negatives. That’s a shame, but I see no reason to give him more of a pass on that than Perry. Paul is not an option for those who value sanity. So we’re left with Romney and Santorum.

    I freely admit, that when we’re talking about Santorum and spending, we are partly taking the man on trust. Romney, who actively supported TARP, and who still seems to defend it, is in an even worse state.

    Which man is more trustworthy?

    May I also point out that our deficit changed greatly since 2006? A Senator not terribly interested in reducing the size of government in the abstract, might be much more concerned about gross insolvency. We’re talking about 25% GDP spending with 18% taxes. A cut in government to even that up, is frankly more than we can even hope for. I find it credible that Santorum takes this issue seriously enough, to handle the President’s modest role in the budget process.

    • federalfarmer1

      I don’t think any of these clowns can win, and losing with romney is the worst possible outcome. Sell out to rino establishment and still get more Obama. Ugh.

      Newt at least can get me excited to vote republican.

      • SteveM

        NT

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        My unborn grandchildren and great-grandchildren NEED to be punished. Sheesh.

        • naharu89x7

          What Obama has done already has far-reaching implications. Sooner or later the trillions of debt will come back to haunt this country.

          Wouldn’t you want a President who is as conservative as possible to undo everything Obama has done?

          • tnguy

            So we can dismiss the trillions Bush added? That he did it at a slower rate is what you hang on to? And Obama isn’t the only one to enact a health care program with trillions in unfunded costs. All we got with Bush was a watered down version of Obama with a small tax cut.

            People are delusional.

          • littlehouse18

            ..

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Over 3 years, Obama added $5Tr to the deficit. Given Obama 8 years and he adds, $12Tr to the defiict. If what Bush did angers you, you have an even more urgent moral imperative to throw BHO out of office in Nov 2012. Thank you for that urgent and timely reminder.

          • tnguy

            … Bush and Obama are/were on the same road. One of them is just moving at a faster pace. Doesn’t change that both are/were leading us towards economic destruction.

            And federal debt increased nearly $5M under George Bush, and he left us with another gigantic unfunded entitlement program in prescription drugs. So because I’m disgusted with what Obama is doing, I’m expected to support a candidate who will continue to do the exact same thing only at a slower pace? No thanks.

            The only acceptable answer is no budget deficits, no new debt, period. If no one has the courage to do that immediately, they aren’t worthy of my vote. Bush was a disaster and in my opinion, re-installing another Bush just delays the time til it’s possible to take any real action. Worse, if a Romney-type were to somehow win the white house, that means that he’ll be the candidate in 2016, further delaying any hope of dramatic change. I do not believe we have that much time left.

          • tnguy

            …$5T, not M. I hate not being able to edit.

        • texasref

          that if you assume we are destined to lose no matter which Republican we put up (of the 4), then we might as well go down with our best of the bunch. I do not subscribe to that assumption. I do agree with Erick that Romney is a sure loser in the general, however.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            nt

    • http://bullpasturechronicles.blogspot.com jdbray
      Paul supporters are quite sane. No one has been more principled with regard to the constitutional limits on government. You may not like his foreign policy positions but I suggest there is a lot more reason to his positions than those who supported 10 years of war in both afghanistan and Iraq. We won WWII in less than 4 years. Something is wrong with spending 10 years in those backwaters.

      The only real criticism of Paul is that he simply hasn’t been effective. Gingrich got more done in a couple years than Paul has in 30. ROmney and Santorum are just political opportunists.

  • sethellis

    I guess I should repost my findings from the other thread. It its the only mention of anything economic I can find from him at the time. The fact that he thought sweeteners could help the economy does not bode well for him. I’m sure the writer of the article could day more, but he left the paper for the Corbett administration a few weeks ago.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08293/921163-176.stm

    “This from a man who also spent a long part of the visit explaining the intricacies of the financial bailout bill; the reason the added “sweeteners” could benefit the economy; his worries that not enough private sector money went into the package. “

    • Leon H. Wolf

      Like supporting TARP.

      This from a man who also spent a long part of the visit explaining the intricacies of the financial bailout bill; the reason the added “sweeteners” could benefit the economy; his worries that not enough private sector money went into the package.

      If anything, he is saying TARP wasn’t big enough.

      • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

        This is very similar to refrains heard in the current European debt crisis. If one says that they think more private sector money should go into the package, what they mean is bondholders should bear more of the loss.

        So if you’re holding what was known as “toxic debt.” That is your own fault for not doing the research and knowing it was toxic. This view is commonly known as free market capitalism: you take the risk and the profits if you’re right, but if you’re wrong you alone bear the loss.

        So he’s actually saying TARP should be smaller rather than larger. The opposite of what you claim.

        • Leon H. Wolf

          However, that still does not equate to opposing TARP. He didn’t oppose the spending of the $700B, he just thinks the private equity should have been wiped out in the process. And he argues that the other portions of the TARP helped the economy. Taken as a whole, even in the generous light you have painted them, you have someone expressing his criticisms of a plan he nonetheless supported. He does not say anywhere in there that he opposed the bailout package as a whole. To the contrary.

          • sethellis

            I’ll never get over how easily the public forgot what really happened during the bailout. My problem is not that we bailed the banks out. It had to happen to avoid a great depression. No, the tragedy was that Republicans presented a perfectly reasonable that was never even considered by Pelosi and Reed. This alternative would have obtained the money from the private sector. Investors would in turn demand their assets be managed more effectively solving one of the biggest problems we saw with TARP.

            This is what Santorum is referring to in his comment. He was repeating almost verbatim the party argument at the time. That it was unfortunate the conservative plan was ignored, but at least we did something.

            If anything this just plays exactly into Leon’s post. He was going right along with the Republican narrative at the time. Even up to praising the stimulus “sweeteners” that were included in the bill.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            nevermind at the time of TARP. There was no such party argument of which you speak.

            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227351/wanted-republican-consensus-tarp/stephen-spruiell?pg=1

          • sethellis

            Perhaps consensus is the wrong word. Many felt that we shouldn’t have done anything leading to the tea party. However, these comments were made almost immediately after the crisis, and McCain was still trying to win. The view that it was good that we at least did something was the position that McCain and the party went with. So even though there was dissention, Santorum was largely going along with the party leaders.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            “I do not believe this is the right approach. We did not get into
            this situation in a matters of days, and we are not going to fix it in a
            matter of days.”
            Sep 25 – 2008.

            He was the most vocal opponent of TARP. So I do not find support in the quoted text for your argument that because Santorum was concerned about the details of the deal, this was somehow contrary to every other conservative Republican at the time who advocated doing nothing. Hensarling also had a proposal to do something. Even Ron Paul has some fiscal legislation he would like to advance to solve the problem.

        • Leon H. Wolf

          If indeed the private equity had been wiped out to zero, what are the chances that TARP would have been almost completely repaid, as it now has? I would say they approach zero. So while I get the moral hazard argument for wiping out private equity, the end result of doing so would have been much worse for the taxpayers.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            That’s interesting.

            Do you want me to continue arguing about your vague supposition that a past record on earmarks/entitlements indicates insincerity on TARP?

            Do you want me to continue arguing with you about this new, wrong interpretation you have of Santorum’s past comments on TARP?

            or

            Do you want me to debate with you the merits of TARP itself?

          • JSobieski

            was cost-free to Santorum since he didn’t say much at the time, and picks up an issue that conveniently has nothing to do with his Senate career.

          • JSobieski

            its a political freebee

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            TARP was passed in late September of 2008. Here is what he said:

            Here it is.

            He opposed it on principle:

            “It was the wrong thing to do because it opened up a door that the next president is driving a bulldozer through.”

          • JSobieski

            /sarcasm off/

            I specifically recall Newt opposing it, Forbes opposing it, and a handful of others.

            So clap clap clap for Sen. Santorum.

            If this is is a big example of Santorum fighting big spending—-it is only a step or two better than citing Obama’s law review days as an example of bringing people together

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            My bad. I see now that of the two most critical voices on this thread, one supported TARP and one just doesn’t like Santorum at all. You fall in the latter category.

            Next time save us all the time and trouble and just write another post about why you don’t like Santorum given his past record on earmarks and entitlements. That’s far more intellectually honest, does not cheapen the most serious issue of the election, and might even get you more sympathy.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            Which is to say, before Paulsen mucked it up and everyone and their dog hated it. In other words, at the time where it was a real live issue where opposing it meant placing yourself in opposition to every Republican in power, rather than opposing it when the water was already over the dam and the TEA Partiers were making it clear that they were going to support anyone who claimed to be opposed to it.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            That really says it all. This isn’t about anything other than you not liking Santorum for one set of issues and bringing in another issue to use as the vehicle for those complaints.

          • sethellis

            Here’s what the issue comes down to for me personally: Would Santorum have voted for the bill that ultimately passed tarp? I think he would have. He was not on the far right “let them fail” side like the tea party wants to believe. He wasn’t so much opposed to bailouts as he was the actual implementation details of TARP. Ironically this is a similar position to the one Romney has held.

            He had the chance to speak out publicly about TARP when it was being debated, and he was largely silent. He was silent because he was a surrogate for John McCain. What makes us think that he would have bucked the party line if he was actually in office at the time? I just don’t see it. He would have just held his nose like so many other Republicans did.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            No one is paying attention to this thread anymore but I’m going to respond a few more times. Down thread you also said:

            “The truth is that his position is pretty close to what Romney has been saying. We needed to do something, but TARP was not the best way to do it. It seems to me that the only difference here between the two is that Santorum thinks we should have blown up the deal a second time to get a better deal, while Romney believed that the markets simply couldn?t handle another shock like that.”

            First, a review of TARP:
            The original justification for TARP was a complete lie. The biggest selling point was not that the financial system would collapse, it was that all insurance contracts would be worthless if AIG went bankrupt. So they went around scaring people that their home and car insurance would be worthless. This, of course, was complete nonsense. AIG’s insurance holdings could have been off-loaded to another firm. They were completely segregated and generating income for whoever held them.

            Why was AIG so important? Because it was the biggest counter party to Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs bet heavily on sub-prime debt just like everyone else. However, they realized their mistake earlier and made a bet with AIG to shore up their balance sheet. The bet, aka credit default swaps, called for AIG to pay Goldman in the event that Goldman’s portfolio of sub-prime debt had a high rate of defaults.

            Goldman Sachs knew their portfolio would have a high rate of defaults when they were making this bet with AIG. However, AIG still believed housing prices would go up forever and that the sub-prime portfolio was unlikely to have a high default rate. Consequently, AIG was happy to take a small fee from Goldman and agree to protect them against something AIG believed was impossible.

            But, of course, it was possible. AIG made this bet so many times that they would’ve had to go bankrupt to make good on the bets. In bankruptcy, Goldman Sachs would have received far less in payments from AIG than they anticipated. Thus, Goldman’s balance sheet would have been a disaster and its stock price would plummet.

            So what did the CEO of Goldman Sachs do? He called the former CEO, Hank Paulson. In fact, they placed phone calls back and forth some 30 times the day before TARP passed. What do you think they were talking about? This is all public record if you doubt me. TARP gave Hank Paulson unprecedented power to do anything he wanted with the money and not really tell anyone what he was doing. This was the TARP as it was presented at the time of the vote, not as it emerged later. Rush Limbaugh and Richard Shelby pointed this out at the time for anyone who listened.

            The TARP vs Non-TARP position:
            The argument around here has been that if one wanted to do something slightly different than TARP, that somehow that is nearly the same position as supporting TARP. This could not be further from the truth. They are radically different positions that look similar on paper.

            TARP gave money to institutions to prop up their balance sheet. Then, other agencies suspended mark-to-market and outlawed short-selling (which puts downward pressure on stock prices). There was no accountability and there was every reason to suspect at the time that Hank Paulson, a noted democrat, was giving a handout to his Wall Street friends. It was clear crony capitalism at best, socialism at worst.

            By giving direct payments to troubled firms, there was no loss on the balance sheet. Without a loss on the balance sheet, there was really no loss at all. Since the payments were taxpayer money, this is a clear socialization of the losses.

            The other approach was to buy the subprime debt assets at current mark-to-market prices. This would necessarily involve financial firms taking a write down on their balance sheet for the loss. Such a write down recognizes that they made a bad bet and will suffer the consequences. However, to make sure all of the firms do not go bankrupt at one time, we would loan them money at fair rates to keep them afloat. Many firms will end up in bankruptcy or become merged with other firms, but destructive capitalism would certainly be upheld.

            The moral hazard aspect of the two approaches is noteworthy due to recent news. MF Global went bankrupt because they placed a big bet on being too big to fail. They bet all the marbles on European sovereign debt. Essentially, MF Global bet that the EU would continue to bailout more and more nations. When that didn’t happen (or at least when the EU hinted there would be a limit), MF Global’s balance sheet and stock price took a severe beating.

            What happened next was unthinkable mere decades ago, but completely understandable given today’s climate as set forth by TARP. MF Global simply stole money from customer funds to make emergency purchases to prop up their balance sheet. They assumed that the federal government would eventually come running, and that they would get a TARP-like cash infusion. When that happened they would restore customer funds and all would be well. Thankfully, the federal government did not give them another cash infusion. However, it is important to recognize that under the “similar” alternatives to TARP I outlined above, MF Global would have anticipated taking a loss on its balance sheet. This would have made stealing customer funds unnecessary, and perhaps made them rethink the original EU bet.

            On paper, these two approaches sound similar. In actuality, they are totally different. They would have let to different outcomes with MF global. One would have preserved capitalism and one has given us crony capitalism.

            I’m not going to pretend Santorum understood these granular details at the time. However, he seemed to recognize the general philosophy: this was an unprecedented moral hazard and invitation for more government intervention. He appears to said so at the time, and drove the argument home further in Feb of 2009 when we still had prominent Republicans supporting TARP in principle. That is good enough for me.

            But for supporters of Romney, who is now funded primarily by Goldman Sachs, I can understand why this TARP issue would be troublesome. I understand the need to tie it together with issues comparatively less important and stop it from gaining traction. Romney actually said in a debate it wasn’t important to discuss the cause of the financial crisis. Well, maybe it isn’t important for Goldman Sachs, but it’s important to me. I actually care about capitalism and resent others, like Goldman Sachs, pulling the ladder up behind them.

          • sethellis

            First of all, for the sake of full disclosure I should point out that I actually work at one of these large banks. I don’t take it personally. They did a lot of dumb things. In fact, that’s why I decided to go into the field. I felt that government was incapable of solving these problems. I decided that the best place for me to change things was from the inside.

            That aside, your review of TARP is just factually incorrect. It had nothing to do with AIG or Goldman. They had ALREADY been bailed out two weeks earlier. TARP was more for the ones like Citi that weren’t smart enough to buy protection. They weren’t going to leave something that important to the hands of congress.

            I also agree with Santorum that TARP was the wrong solution, but so does Romney. My issue is with how anyone that attempts to point out the nuance in the issue is demonized. Rick is not being honest with voters. They think he would have let them fail. They would abandon him if he explained to the tea party what you have in the second part of your post. They’d lump him right there with Romney. Many simply don’t care about the details of the bailout as they are opposed to then in the first place.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            The loan was 4 days before TARP was proposed. Citigroup, who you say was the main purpose of TARP, received just 5 billion more TARP funds than AIG. AIG was the third highest recipient of TARP cash.

            In effect, Goldman Sachs received 135 billion of tax payer dollars to shore up their counter party risk or liquidity. The rules were then altered on mark-to-market and short-selling so that Goldman Sachs could hold the contracts and receive a far better deal than they deserved under the rules as they had been for a considerable amount of time. This also allowed them more time to set up a deal with Warren Buffet, who instilled market confidence in the firm at a crucial time.

            Romney had plenty of time to explain his position on TARP and talk tough on big banks. He has not. He’s avoiding talking about any issues, never mind the most important one of the election. TARP was not a wrong solution it was a wrong philosophy. That’s what I tried to point out in the second part of my post.

            Romney caved along with Bush when it mattered most. He now takes a substantial amount of money from the people that benefited from TARP, So I have zero confidence that Romney could resist another urgent call to socialize the losses. That, in a nutshell, is the most important issue of the election: are we going to elect a guy that will toss out capitalism when influential rich people start whining?

            I disagree that the tea party is too dumb to understand the nuances of TARP. They understood it far better than most Republicans at the time and Romney supporters now. That’s exactly why Santorum is getting so much traction with voters on this issue.

            I have no problem with you or banks making large amounts of money. But I don’t believe they provide economies of scale, so I don’t think they’re worth protecting when they make stupid decisions.

          • sethellis

            I just don’t think they agree with Santorum’s position. They are in the let it fail camp.

            As for Romney caving I think we are finally getting down to the real difference between them here. Like it or not the alternative solution was never on the table. It simply wasn’t an option due to Dem control.

            Santorum believed that letting it fail was better than TARP, while Romney thought that any solution was better than letting it fail.

          • trickamsterdam

            You owned all the opponents you debated on this thread (and neither of the two you debated is dumb, either, so it’s not like me owning jojo-whatz-hiz-name later in the thread who can’t even figure out how to work the “reply” button, let alone offer any solutions on the issues of the day or figure out a good user name).

            PS – I expect nothing less from someone intelligent enough to want Paul Ryan out of a brokered convention for President…Santorum doesn’t have as high an IQ as Ryan, but he’s not as petty and jealous as say Romney (who fired his debating coach after he got a few good things written about him, and then went into a message tail-spin).

            Santorum will be an under-dog to Obama, but has a real shot too…will Ryan have a roll in the Administration? (just your opinion obviously, you’re not psychic)

            Anyone can comment, I guess, not just Ragna.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            Part of me wants him to stay as budget chair. Part of me wants him to be VP and eventual President. VP is fine as long as they let him loose.

          • JSobieski

            that Santorum is a big fighter on spending, some people are going ask—was his opposition limited to answering a question on the topic, giving a speach or two, etc.

            I remember the fight over TARP. I remember people doing things to try and stop it. Steve Forbes for one. Newt Gingrich for another.

            Santorum’s position on TARP was just a tepid as Romney’s position on taxes.

            I would likely support Santorum over Romney, but I am not going to stand idly by and listen to people talk about how Santorum’s activities in fighting TARP are even worth mentioning.

            The guy hardly mobilized to stop anything. He addressed TARP as a pundit as much as anything else.

          • JSobieski

            The biggest specific issue in this campaign should be the repeal of Obamacare, but Romneycare is the model for Obamacare.

            The biggest general issue in this campaign should be government spending, but Santorum’s record is such that people are going to talk about his opposition to TARP after being a private citizen (i.e. no drive to cut spending in his many years in DC).

            Newt is erratic and has a personal life that would have disqualified him in prior years.

            Here is the honest to God’s truth of my assessment:

            Had Santorum never run for public office, nothing would be different.

            Same is true for Romney.

            Newt actually made a difference in 94-98, and he has been an idea factory since leaving office.

            Newt has the better record, as sad as that makes me to say it. But for Newt, 1994 wouldn’t have happened, and even his detractors admit it.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            That the Palinistas have found their final resting place.

          • demsaresatanic

            turns out Santorum was for Tarp with different details. This will happen more and more as these talking points get closer scrutiny now that Santorum is on a surge.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            or his record on spending.

            I care about this issue. As a close follower of this issue, I can tell you that Santorum has the best position of those currently left in the field and it’s not even close. He speaks from sound principles. These principles combined with all the evidence out there is enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

            No one is going back to Newt or Perry. Ever. It’s over. You vote for Santorum and hope we somehow get to a brokered convention or you vote for Romney.

          • texasref

            nt

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            nt

  • keithe

    Yes, Santorum was out of congress by 2008 when TARP was passed so this line is self-serving nonsense. And its always disappointing when a candidate claims to have taken a position in the past and it can’t be proved or disproved.

    Only thing worse? Claiming to have taken positions in the past which CAN be disproved. Pick your favorite Romney flip or flop here.

    Its a regrettable choice, Leon. There are things I don’t like about Newt and Rick. I wish someone else was in the race. But I just can’t make the leap you did. For me, Romney is still that kid at Stanford who protested in favor of the Vietnam draft and then took a religious deferment and went to France. I have nothing against those who objected to the war, or the draft, or even those who avoided the draft for reasons of principle. But to advocate drafting other kids to go and then to sit it out?

    Its a theme with the guy. I personally don’t think its that he lacks a moral compass, or that he is a scheming liar. I don’t think a young man could grow up in a highly political and religiously devout household, with parents who marched with Dr. King and all, and not have a very clear idea of what he believes, And Mitt doesn’t strike me as a liar, either. He’s just a guy who won’t stand up for what he believes when the heat is on. I think he wants to be liked and respected too much. Maybe its because he grew up in the shadow of a powerful father. Maybe that isn’t the reason, who knows. But you get this guy in a room full of conservatives and he talks like a different guy than when he is in a room full of liberals.

    I might be wrong. Maybe it is just political expediency after all. Whatever the reason, its there. I can’t pull the lever for this guy. Give me someone who will stand for something, even if I only agree with 60% of it. At least I know what to expect.

    • redcal

      nt

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      Honestly, I just wish people could show a little bit of objectivity.

      • Leon H. Wolf

        To be fair to the commenter’s position, you left out that part.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          -no-text-

  • Creedo

    This question doesn’t mean anything to me. I’d go with Paul if my only issue was spending. With Romney, frankly, I see a guy who WILL raise taxes if the heat is hot enough. It would be very easy for the left to raise that heat on Mitt and get him to cave. Mitt just wants to be loved. He doesn’t care about the principles involved. This “open challenge” means little to me because Santorum at least understands and can clearly communicate conservative values.

    • carolina

      I think you are exactly right. I. too. would vote for Paul if economics/spending was my only issue. You make an excellent point about Santorum understanding conservative values. Romney is all lip service. I don’t want any more “lips’ as President.

  • http://illinoisreview.com lnewcom

    The answer is simple. Yes I thought Perry was better in every respect on these spending issues. My choice now is one of three. Of those three, none of whom excite me on spending, who do I think might have the possible philosophical leaning to stand against spending? It is not Gingrich for the multiplicity of big government positions and flip flops that are well documented. It certainly is not Romney, who I am mystified people can support in light of providing the framework for Obamacare. I am left with Santorum, who I am very confident is a fine and honest man, who I have to hope will stand up to spending too. I don’t like that explanation either, but that is all I have the option of voting for.

    • littlehouse18

      nt

  • Waderic

    While you can still apply your caveat to this of him thinking about running for President, this is 5 months earlier than your claimed oldest mention of him opposing TARP
    http://theiowarepublican.com/2009/don%E2%80%99t-underestimate-rick-santorum/

    • Waderic

      “In addition to being critical of President Obama and his administration, Santorum was also pretty tough on his former Republican colleagues. He chastised Republicans for passing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). He said that he prayed that Sen. John McCain would suspend his campaign to go back to Washington to blow up the idea, something Santorum admitted McCain was good at. Yet McCain supported it, which Santorum believes lead to his defeat.”

      • WillWong

        nt

      • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

        This is exactly what I thought in 2008: McCain should go blow up the deal.

        This lets me know that Santorum understands conservative politics better than anyone else currently in the field.

        Romney would’ve done just as McCain. Newt would’ve advocated some other kind of obscure government intervention. Santorum would’ve blown up the deal.

        • aesthete

          is of Romney telling McCain to support TARP, Newt opposing it at the time of passage, and Santorum… doing what? From the evidence, it looks like he was twiddling his thumbs — and God only knows how many knots he would have twisted himself in to support a vote for it if he’d been in the Senate at the time. Lord knows that he had no problem doing the same with the other big government programs promoted by Bush.

        • demsaresatanic

          about it when it was voted on and comes out against it only after it’s law. Newt was the one who came out against it when it mattered.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            …the best answer that we’ve gotten to Leon’s question is “Well, he apparently first mentioned his opposition five months earlier.”

            Folks, I’ll pull the lever for Santorum if he’s the nominee, but as it stands I’d like to hear just when he got religion on TARP. Not least because I was myself reluctantly persuaded to support it, back in the day – and I get kind of stroppy when dealing with after-the-fact types.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            I missed you by 3 minutes

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            If you cannot answer the question as asked, just say so.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            It’s not that there is no evidence, you guys are just whining that he didn’t have a stamp from a notary in 2008.

            You cannot prove that he supported it. All you have are vague suppositions. None of what you are saying about his past carries over to his TARP position.

            If you don’t like his position on earmarks and entitlements, that’s fine. But don’t get mad that he’s getting traction on the most important issue of the day. He’s killing it out there with his tough talk on big banks.

            It isn’t Santorum’s fault that Romney is funded by Goldman Sachs. It isn’t Santorum’s fault that Newt would rather yell at Romney to get off his lawn, then talk about a moon colony, instead of maintain a consistent message.

            We are left with these three. Santorum not only has the best position on the bailout, he may actually bring independents on his side so we can rally against future silly bailouts in the future.

            By pursuing this line of attack, all you guys are doing is cheapening the issue. That’s a real shame because if we don’t have an authentic form of capitalism we cannot whine about 1-2% of the budget that goes to silly bridges to nowhere. All this attack can possibly do is prevent Santorum from talking about it more. So this whole thread is counter productive.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            No one is out there saying Rick Santorum supported TARP (we don’t care) so we don’t bear the burden of proving that he supported it. Rick Santorum and his supporters are out there saying he opposed it – in fact, it’s central to their ridiculous claim that he’s a fiscal conservative – so they bear the burden of proving that.

            However, if you will check the update to this post, the evidence has been produced which suggests pretty strongly that Santorum is lying if he claims that he opposed TARP from the beginning.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            When I write an article titled “Rick Santorum supported TARP” then I will accept challenges to prove that he supported TARP.

            Rick Santorum made the claim – which has been parroted by his supporters – that he opposed TARP. It is their burden to prove that this is so. Sorry to everyone who is not clear on the concept.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            There is evidence to support he opposed TARP. You just don’t like it.

            You then take other elements of his record you don’t like as a way to support it.

          • acat

            I seem to remember some key phrases of his from one of the plethora of 2012 debates where he sure sounded, to this cat, like more government intervention was a Good Thing.

            Mew

          • Finrod

            .

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            but even if he were, I’ve heard little in his ramblings that articulates the LESSON from the mistake of TARP. By contrast, Santorum clearly gets it. He communicates it consistently in a way people find appealing.

          • demsaresatanic

            how about sticking to the point, if Santorum would have “blown up the deal” why did he keep quiet about it when it was voted on and come out against it only after it was already law.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            That implies he would’ve blown up the deal.

            If you don’t believe him, you are free to do so. But this idea, without any evidence whatsoever, that he supported TARP or would have support TARP is absurd.

            It is based on nothing but dislike of his past record on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issues.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            There is absolutely no question in the universe that Rick Santorum is now saying that he was opposed to TARP. No one is disputing that.

            You seem to be disputing that it is reasonable for people to ask whether he said that at the time, given his lengthy history of non-opposition to Republican spending. I guess that explanation will probably work for the people like the commenter downthread who is proud of the fact that no one is changing her mind with any pesky facts.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            to take a spending record and conflate it with TARP.

            They are entirely different issues. Paul Ryan has a great record on entitlements and spending. Guess what? He voted FOR TARP.

            Similarly, you’ll find a lot of people who have lousy spending records who voted against TARP. You’ll find liberal democrats that voted against TARP.

            So given that there is no correlation in the record, yes, I do think it is unreasonable to take a past record on spending and impute it to a position on TARP. This is particularly true when you are questioning the one candidate in the field making the most persuasive and philosophically consistent argument against TARP at the moment.

            I’m not even a fan of Santorum, but I care deeply about this issue and it makes me sick that we’re comparing it with bridges to nowhere. One is wasteful spending, one is actually the beginning of the end for the capitalist system our country was built on. The whole thing is ridiculous.

          • JSobieski

            since TARP pretty much paid for itself (at least with respect to the non-GSE and non-auto company expenditures), even on this issue Santorum finds a way to lower the balance sheet.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            Here he is in February of 2009, opposing it on principle:

            Here is Bob Corker in January of 2009:
            ?I voted against releasing any additional TARP funds because I am concerned that we are treating the symptoms and not addressing the root problem.

            I voted for the TARP legislation in October because I felt we needed a systemic approach to restarting the engines of our financial system.”

            It doesn’t sound like Bob Corker was opposed in principle to TARP in January of 2009. He scored 83% on the American Conservative Union’s ratings in 2008.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate
          • Leon H. Wolf

            Bob Corker is running for President? This changes everything.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            I supported TARP at the time it was passed. I do not think voting against TARP is the sine non qua of conservatism.. In fact, I think it was in most cases petty and irresponsible pandering. However, that is very much not Rick Santorum’s view of supporting TARP, which is what is at issue here.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            “You know what, you can make all the arguments you want that TARP is necessary to avoid an economic collapse. It’s still wrong. It’s wrong to do because it opened up a door that the next president is driving a bulldozer through.”

          • demsaresatanic

            wanted to see a hybrid of both limited government purchase of the troubled investments, and a series of loan guarantees that would let the private market do the work,” don’t you understand?

            This is a quote from your own link to the 10-2-08 article; Santorum did not oppose Tarp, he wanted a different version of Tarp. Your repeated references to Rick’s subsequent statements to the contrary only underscores the point I and others are making, Rick says one thing now but said something entirely different back then when it mattered.

          • sethellis

            What I find inconsistent is that today so many people claim that we should have just let it fail. When Santorum talks about TARP that’s what everyone thinks he means. That is the group he is playing to with his comments today.

            The truth is that his position is pretty close to what Romney has been saying. We needed to do something, but TARP was not the best way to do it. It seems to me that the only difference here between the two is that Santorum thinks we should have blown up the deal a second time to get a better deal, while Romney believed that the markets simply couldn’t handle another shock like that.

          • jgelling

            Sine qua non of conservatism or not, could you at least post the link to the 10/2/08 article that puts Santorum on the record as an opponent of the TARP bill? Whether his opposition is or is not the very definition of conservatism or the ultimate profile in courage seems kind of secondary to showing that he didn’t just invent his qualms about TARP years later, like your OP suggests.

            http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm

    • Leon H. Wolf

      Anyone have anything from 2008? Anyone?

  • WillWong

    Newt is coming back for the third and last time. He has 200,000 contributors with about $200 each, the majority of which signed on after his fabulous debate performances in SC. Look for these coming home to Newt soon. America needs Newt to make another comeback!

    • maybenexttime

      Gingrich will have to win at least Michigan or Arizona to be relevant again. Not much polling has been done in Arizona lately, but the most recent one (pre-Santorum hat trick) showed Romney with a huge lead. A recent poll in Michigan shows Santorum now leading Romney by 15 points!

      If Santorum and Romney split those two states on February 28th, Gingrich will get pushed further to the margin than he already is. Sheldon Adelson will stop writing checks if his guy keeps finishing 3rd or 4th in every contest.

      • rankandfileconservative

        Santorum finished in the dumpster for several states after his Iowa (last man standing) miracle and only got back into it after Mitt and Newt went nuclear on one another. Who’s to say we won’t see a similar outcome in favor of Newt on Super Tuesday, after Santorum and Romney trash each other over the next few weeks?

        Newt has, by far, articulated the clearest, most succinct Reagan conservative message, both in this campaign and over his entire career. If that isn’t clear to conservatives who have reviewed the numerous interviews, events, and debates, then I’m really not sure what you have been watching. It’s a shame that so many have spent so much time reflexively attacking him, much like poison ivy that grows in one’s garden, rather than actually listening to his message.

        Some of us are sick of the same old, bigger government (dare I say right wing social engineering ;) types being rubber stamped to the top of the GOP ticket. Santorum may excite parts of the social conservative base, but it will take a lot more than that to restore our Country to its shining city on a hill glory.

        • demsaresatanic

          that some are simply too young to remember the time when Dem control of the House was taken for granted and don’t know about what Newt did to change that.

          The other part is people who simply refuse to forgive Newt’s sin no matter what, those are the ones that tick me off, they will throw away the man who is the superior man in every way but his private life because of a failing Newt has admitted, and requested forgiveness for.

          • littlehouse18

            especially when he’ll be compared to Mr. Family Man Barack.

          • WillWong

            The last time I checked, Newt needed God’s forgiveness and possibly his first and second wife’s.

            People who took offence with Newt’s sins against his God and his first two wives are usually very slow to forgive because God’s grace is usually only sufficient for immediate victims and not for the rest of us!

          • demsaresatanic

            Republican voters care about it, Dems and squishes don’t, just look at Clinton, his numbers went up after Lewinsky with Dems and squishes (independents).

  • http://thethinkingvoter.blogspot.com abierubin

    You should be asking where are the videos of Santorum supporting TARP as there are of Newt and Romney. Newt went around on Capitol Hill convincing members of Congress to vote for TARP. Even if no video exists of Santorum opposing it, no video exists of him supporting it.

    Further more, big government is not limited to big spending. Big government includes grabbing freedom away from the people and putting that power in the hands of bureaucrats. Obamacare / Health Care mandates removes choice from the individual whether or not to insure themselves and if implemented, will eventually tell us exactly what to buy, eat, exercise etc.

    Romney passed Romneycare with health care mandates within it. Newt Gingrich fought for health care mandates for two decades and supported the concept as late as May of 2011 after Obama-care had passed & he’d declared his candidacy.

    Rick Santorum, as a young Senator in 1994, vocally and strongly opposed all government mandates, as I’ve written about in a previous diary and included the clip.

    http://www.redstate.com/abierubin/2012/02/02/a-fighter-for-conservative-values-when-conservatives-weren%E2%80%99t-looking/

    Rick Santorum has opposed the most important issues of the day; He opposed global warming all the years and of course, Cap & Trade. Although Newt eventually opposed Cap & Trade, he first praised it publicly. He also supported Global warming for several decades, and in a debate w/ Kerry took the more liberal position – that government intervention is necessary to control global warming. Romney too supported global warming.

    Santorum had also always opposed amnesty, unlike Newt and Romney.

    No one’s perfect and neither is Santorum. He is, though, by far the best choice we currently we have.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      You have no evidence that Santorum opposed TARP at the time it was being discussed, either.

      • WY_Cowboy

        is a little childish. If you don’t take him at his word, just say so. If you think he’s a liar, just say so.

        • Leon H. Wolf

          If people want to answer a dozen other questions that I didn’t ask, that is their business. Hey, it’s a great political tactic. I’m just not going to get fooled into a wild goose chase.

          As far as I can tell from the comment linked up thread, Rick Santorum is lying. In October 2008 he was absolutely not railing against TARP.

  • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

    Domestic spending is not the same as TARP. You cannot look at someone’s domestic spending record and use it to predict a vote on TARP. Earmarks are a small percentage of the budget. Entitlements are clear government guarantees. TARP was literally socializing the losses even though the profits had long been privatized.

    15 Republican senators voted against TARP. You can find senators that voted for it all across the spectrum of earmark and entitlement spending. Paul Ryan, my favorite non-presidential candidate, voted for TARP. Few would argue that Paul Ryan is lousy on entitlements.

    Therefore, what is important is not the stance in the past, it is how they feel about it now and what lesson they’ve learned. Romney literally said in a debate that he did not want to talk about what caused the crisis (as he gets most of his money from Goldman Sachs). Newt is a little better on TARP, but I’ve yet to hear him be as tough on big banks as Santorum. Also, Newt isn’t electable.

    Perry wasn’t in Washington when TARP was being discussed either. Yet, when Perry said big banks are too big, I took him at his word. I never recalled anyone questioning the sincerity of that statement.

    I don’t dispute that Santorum is more of a “compassionate conservative” than I would prefer. But his sincerity on that score does not necessarily indicate insincerity on TARP.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      You have no evidence that he opposed TARP at the time it was being discussed.

      • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

        Also, you have no evidence to suggest he SUPPORTED TARP at the time it was being discussed.

        I am responding to your larger argument, which is that we can look at other votes Santorum took that we didn’t like and predict with accuracy that he would’ve supported TARP.

        But this isn’t a vacuum, we can look at all sorts of other Republicans with excellent earmark/entitlement records who voted FOR TARP. So your argument falls apart.

    • windwaker24

      He sent a letter to D.C. It was brought up in earlier debates. If you want to read it, you can google it.

      • WY_Cowboy

        but thanks for this.

        • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

          Thanks windwalker for the post. I was not aware of such a letter.

        • Leon H. Wolf

          That if you were really against it at the time you ought to be able to produce something that proves it.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            he was for it.

            Newt produced some great evidence too: he was against it (but he’s an undisciplined politician with sky high negatives).

            Consider the alternatives.

        • texasref

          still is

          :-)

  • jon11

    santorum is hoping that having essentially no record (compared to mitt or newt) will get it done for him the way it did for then senator obama.

    nothing to praise, but nothing there to really go after either.

    it won’t work for him the way it did for obama.

    despite not having a lot of big achievements he can point to : Mitt’s investments have created 110k jobs, Newt led a conservative revolution in the 1990s, Santorum, well, not sure what he’s done…

    but he’s managed to take a lot of questionable positions and votes despite having never done anything to brag about.

    • keithe

      created 110k jobs, while he was in the private sector. Not a great metric for choosing a president, unless you think that Sam Walton is the most qualified man in America. The point is that his ability to make money in the private sector is no indicator of how he would perform as president.

      Romney’s jobs creation record as governor was weak sauce. http://www.tableausoftware.com/public/blog/2011/09/washington-post-who-created-most-jobs-1300

      Ouch.

      I’m a capitalist. Use the asset where it is most productive. Romney is good at creating wealth in the private sector. He should keep doing it and leave running a government to those who are good at it.

      I agree on the other two, however. Santorum is feeble on non-social con isues and Gingrich is all over the place and, frankly, way, way too polarizing. I think Santorum is the only guy left with enough residual good will to potentially win. Over the next few weeks, it likely will vanish under a barrage of fire. We find ourselves here because Perry had one unfortunate memory lapse during an early debate. Oops. The guy was a jobs generator, a real conservative, he looked presidential, he was the package. But got in late and ill prepared and here we are.

      • maybenexttime

        Santorum would have the biggest shot at getting the “underdog” momentum. Nobody expected he could compete with Romney’s well-oiled. well-funded machine. Yet, here he is, making things really difficult for Mitt’s campaign after the crown of inevitably had been placed on his head in Florida.

        Gingrich just had too many personal weaknesses. Santorum seems to be squeaky clean and has credibility on social issues. The only thing working against Santorum is name recognition. People who aren’t political geeks (or from Pennsylvania) probably won’t be very familiar with him.

        In an election year where most everybody is sick of Brand Name politicians, Santorum might be that big underdog story which takes on a life of its own as the battle progresses.

    • SteveM

      Santorum has a lengthy Senate record to defend and his negatives are unknown. Everyone knows what you’re getting with Newt. If it can’t be Mitt, I want the known quantity.

  • unsk

    Santorum is just a very weak candidate.

    His past stands on economic issues are abominable. He is pro union, and pro
    Nanny State. As of July 2010 he went on record against the Tea Party.
    He, just like Willard is a johnny come lately to conservative stands on the economy.

    Both don’t wash.

    Newt is the only prominent Republican who came out forcefully against TARP. He was all over TV with alternatives to TARP when no one else was. He led the charge against TARP. Has Romney or Santorum ever led the charge on any economic issues from a conservative point of view. Not a chance.

    To hear the lies of Santorum and Romney supporters misrepresenting Newt’s record is just disgusting, but that’s what I guess you get from psuedo Progressives.

    We are in the depths of a devastating depression caused by the strangling, unconstitutional intrusions of Big Government and it’s criminally corrupt Cronyism. That is issue Number One, head and shoulders above all else. Both Romney and Santorum has been on the wrong side of that issue for their entire careers.

    How could anyone legitimately expect either one of those two RINO’s to turn things around? There is absolutely no evidence that they would.

    Now as far as the supposed superior moral character of these two over Newt. Both Santorum and Romney voted and supported the same Progressives far too many times that have not only pushed abortion down our throat but have undermined the moral character of our nation at every turn.

    Santorum , like many so called “blue dog ” democrats, adamantly profess to be pro-Life , but have supported the Nanny State cause on the key economic issues that get the Progressives elected.

    • Creedo

      Newt is finished. His poll numbers are going nowhere but down:
      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290895/santorum-s-turn-editors

      You might as well jump aboard the conservative Santorum train, my friend. What else are you going to do? Go support Paul? lol!

      Lead, follow, or get out of the way! Santorum 2012!

      • rankandfileconservative

        So what…that rag has become, essentially, a hit piece on certain candidates–11th commandment to the wind. They have been a big anti-Newt shop since the beginning of the race. Santorum is a long standing member of the Washington DC area Catholic social conservative clique and it’s really no surprise that he’d get some love from Lowry et al at a smaller gov’t conservative’s expense.

        Someone else here mentioned that Buckley must be spinning in his grave and it was a spot on comment. I’m taking his advice and canceling my own …… subscription.

        • circlegranch

          The media, Right as much as the Left, has mangled this GOP primary with their intervention and trying to drive public opinion. All of them need to stay the heck out of it and let American voters vet the candidates, make their choices and vote. The opinions and polls of these hacks are worthless and are intended for the stupid. Candidates they love are fawned over and those that don’t meet their snobbish screening are trashed.

          Please, NR, its time for you to do the right thing and get out of this race, and on your way out, don’t bother to endorse anybody. We can take it from here.

          • Finrod

            What are they going to do next, trash the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? NR no longer represents conservatism in any meaningful way.

  • WY_Cowboy

    This from a man who also spent a long part of the visit explaining the intricacies of the financial bailout bill; the reason the added “sweeteners” could benefit the economy; his worries that not enough private sector money went into the package.

    Surely, he’d like to say those things on the floor of the Senate.

    “I’m very happy to say it on Fox News and I’ve probably communicated it to more people than if I’d said it on the floor of the Senate,” he says.

    There is really no other way to look at this. The above passage seems to suggest, at least to me, he was not supporting TARP at the time it was being discussed.

    • Bill S

      Or you’re hallucinating. There is no way to read that quote that says “Rick Santorum opposed TARP”. None. Unless you’re seeing words in there that don’t exist.

      • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

        When people said back then that they wanted more private money in the package, what they usually meant was that the holders of the toxic assets should bear the losses. This is what happens in any normal capitalist system.

        So it was the conservative position to say we needed more private money in the package.

        • Bill S

          And I have pleaded with our resident economics guy to write up a primer for our audience here, but I’ve not yet succeeded in convincing him. :-)

          However, Senator Santorum has insisted that he opposed TARP, and not that he was “taking the conservative position”. I am one of the few around here who has consistently said “if one takes into account what TARP was initially intended to do, it was a necessity, given the economic situation at the time”. So I’m hardly arguing the point because I thought it was wrong.

          Leon’s point is “if you’re gonna say you did something and use it as a key proof point for your ‘conservatism’, you’d bloody well better be able to prove it”. There appears to be no proof in existence that Santorum opposed TARP. He may have taken a nuanced, somewhat conservative position on it at that time, but he does not appear to have opposed it.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            see jgelling’s post below. Also. this.

            He opposed it on principle and mentioned an alternative similar to what DeMint and others proposed at the time. My video is from Feb of 2009, less than 5 months after TARP was passed. Bob Corker in January was still for TARP in principle.

    • jgelling

      The reporter in your article was too dim-witted to understand what Santorum was saying, but he opposed TARP and favored a solution more along the lines of what DeMint was proposing at the time:

      http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm

  • http://www.StanOlshefski.com Stan Olshefski

    How about S. 2611 (the 2006 amnesty bill).

    Santorum voted the right way against both the President and Senate leadership.

    While the bill was primarily focused on immigration policy, it would have cost the states and the federal government hundreds of millions if passed.

  • AceInTX

    If I’m not mistaken…He was for it at the time and said so….not only that…I remember knocking him in 2008 about calling for a Detroit bailout of the big three….so…Romney was on record calling for a Detroit Bailout at least a full year or more before Obama actually did it.

    so…if you oppose Santorum for this…I assume you’ll never consider Romney right?

    • jgelling

      Santorum, however, *did* oppose TARP at the time, and anyone who can enter a search term into Google could’ve found that out:

      http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm

      Is this just more of Romney desperately trying to tear down his opponents to make up for his own manifest shortcomings in every way?

  • freemkts

    The arguments against Romney, Santorum and Newt are all valid. None of these guys could beat Obama even if the Dems would give us CA and its 55 electoral votes. What we need is a brokered convention so we can start over and call someone, anyone, in from the bullpen. But, the only way that happens is if no one gets a majority of the delegates. Romney is the only one who can easily win a majority, so he must be stopped.

    If you want to think strategically vote for Santorum if you live north of the Mason-Dixon line. If you live in the south vote for Newt. Romney can have New England and Mormon country out west. Do that, and you have a chance at everyone getting lots of delegates, but no one getting a majority.

    If you want to drink the Kool-Aid on Santorum go ahead, but Romney will crush him like a bug if he gets him one on one. This, after all, is the guy who lost by 18 points to Bob Casey. But if Romney has to continue to fend off both Santorum and Newt he’ll just look weak and we have a better chance at stopping him.

  • After Seven

    Frankly I am a Newt supporter because of the debt and his proven record with the Federal Budget. I took up this exercise thinking perhaps Santorum had waffled on TARP in Sept – Oct of 08. I did not find anything other than whats already been discussed above.

    However in Feb. 09 at a time when many “conservatives” couldn’t find the moxy to unequivocally condemn TARP….Santorum did exactly that at CPAC 2009. http://is.gd/zP4dQ3 at 3:05 – 4:10 …. Ronald Reagan could not have said it better himself.

  • Wubbies World

    Santorum: Terrible on Economics, no executive experience and outstanding Christian and great on Social issues.

    Romney: Will say anything to get elected. No core principles and is unable to articulate a conservative message in a believable fashion. Looks great on camera and has a boat load of money and a great organization.

    Gingrich: Has a personal life right out of a sewer, after Congress agreed with Al Gore on Global Warming and supported a mandate. However, actually fought in the trenches while in Congress for conservative issues and does not fear the Democrats. He is a fighter and a great debater.

    Ron Paul: Nut Job

    Now if I could be Dr Frankenstein and take Santorum’s Christian beliefs and principles, add in Gingrich’s knowledge of how the legislative process works, intellect and debating skills and finish with Romney’s executive management skills, good looks, money and organization I would be able to create the perfect candidate.

    However, we are not going to get anything close to it! I am a strong supporter of Erick’s “SMOD 2012″ campaign.

    To be perfectly honest, I down to sticking my finger in the eye of the establishment for creating the ‘poop’ sandwich, voting for the Christian as my act of defiance and praying for a brokered convention.

    Sad to say, that is where I am at with this primary. Thankfully for everyone else, South Dakota doesn’t hold its primary until June and this sado-masochist process we are going through will probably be over by then and my vote won’t matter anyway.

    Who ever the nominee is in the general I will support strongly because I fear Obama worst of all.

    • Bill S

      You said it well.

      • Vegas_Rick

        That’s my view too. It’s such a damned shame. A solid 3-legged conservative, with a decent history, record and communications skills would have killed Obama in the general.

        We have so many good men and women, and yet this is what we have to choose from to lead us into battle with the dark forces of liberalism.

        God help us all.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      With one difference. I want someone that will stick it to the liberal media, and Newt’s the only one that has done it.

      Yeah, I know he won’t make it to the end, but I can still enjoy it while it lasts.

      • Wubbies World

        I like that about Newt too. I am enjoying that aspect of him as well.

        It’s a d*mn shame the other candidates do not have the spine and good sense to do the same.

  • deadite

    …early. And it was one of McCain’s boys who was a lobbyist who blew it up. Based on this, I buy that Santorum was likely against TARP.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440681,00.html

    and of course

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08276/916765-28.stm#ixzz1mJhw8LQp

    So, Mr. Wolf. Just for the record, I will vote for any republican who gets through the gauntlet. Will you? You sure sound like you won’t.

    Also, imho, Romney will be ripped to shreds as a rich man who throws people out of work. We saw it in California.

    But, for what its worth, every single one of them will be better than the Won.

    • jgelling

      I mean, I think it’s a fair question to ask, since he’s ignored the Post Gazette article which explains Santorum’s opposition in some detail.

      It just seems like a nasty political attack to accuse any politician of pulling a Romney on such an important issue.

      • marktx

        But look at the positive side of things…Leon hasn’t labeled Santorum as a racist……at least not yet.

      • demsaresatanic

        didn’t oppose the idea of Tarp, he was quibbling about the details. There is a big difference between the two.

        • deadite

          would have been a better deal, since it would have used bankruptcy and other laws already at hand. TARP in the hands of the govt was a giant pig pen.

          And it is reaaaalllllyyyy important that Santorum came out against Freddie. Shows his instincts are right.

        • jgelling

          He did oppose the bill, at the time. But was there a problem that needed to be addressed? Obviously – even DeMint acknowledge that something needed to be done. At the time, the nation’s biggest banks were technically insolvent because their balance sheets were deemed too suspect to be used as liquidity in order to operate.

          Santorum’s private sector hybrid proposal was a lot like what DeMint and others were proposing at the time vs. what the first phase of TARP was designed to do (which was directly buy the toxic assets and put them on the federal balance sheet). Subsequently, the government expanded TARP to buy equity in the banks in addition to the toxic assets. Both aspects of TARP were very different than the solutions Santorum and others were talking about.

          But yes, everyone recognized at the time that something needed to be done. Even if you let the banks go under, then you’d be facing the problem of how to finance their deposits and ensure their operation in bankruptcy.

          • deadite

            … to give alcohol to teenagers. Kinduv like giving the govt access to lots of money. :-)

      • deadite

        But you are right. I love the folks at Red State, but I get irritated at the whole brokered convention. And the whole whining about Rick (who blew the race by failing to prepare himself or his message, and sealed his own doom with the forgotten agency…) The people in the race now had the guts to give it a go. And there are people are mooning over Jeb? (truthfully, I haven’t seen that here, but I have seen it plenty of other places). A Bush on the ticket will depress the Tea Partiers completely, never mind that most people like me despise the socialist Bush family. Sorry, the Won is a big time commie, but he had the bases loaded by his socialist buddy GW.

        So, Wolf owes his readers a clear statement. Will he vote for Santorum if he is the nominee? I see he didn’t talk about Santorum being one of the few who foresaw the danger from Freddie….

        • deadite

          not Rick S….

  • rwp4liberty

    We know Romney and Gingrich both supported TARP. I fail to understand why RedState is constantly objecting to Santorum over “what if’s” and “maybe’s” when we know damnn well Romney’s a liberal. Why is RedState doing everything under the sun to get Romney ahead by subtraction? And you sheep are falling for it. Is santorum the perfect conservative? Of course not, but Romney is NO conservative at all.

    • demsaresatanic

      with the “We know Romney and Gingrich both supported TARP” business? Have you been reading this thread at all?

      • rwp4liberty

        What I’m asking is what’s the point of “challenge”? What is Leon Wolf’s purpose? As I see it he’s challenging Santorum’s conservative credentials, but in a way fitting of the New York Times and the Washington Post. He can’t find dirt against Rick in the effort to advance the Romney cause so he solicits his readers to try to do the dirty work for him. I find it stunning that websites that claim to be the conservative alternative to the liberal mainstream media employs the same liberal tactics to destroy the most conservative candidate we have running in this years election.

    • jgelling

      Only Romney (and McCain and Bush and 32 other Republican Senators) supported TARP at the time.

      Santorum is quoted in opposition at the time, as is Gingrich. Paul voted against it, of course, but it’s fair to point out he votes against nearly everything.

  • kentucky

    This isn’t just about the ideological shortcomings of Romney versus Santorum versus Gingrich. This is about electability.

    Gingrich could have ran away with the nomination back in November but he couldn’t defend himself against the types of negative attacks that Romney ran, the same type Obama would have run.

    Romney has been running for President for 6 years and has not improved one bit.

    Santorum has matured tenfold as a candidate, and there is hope for continued improvement over the next nine months.

    That is the full equation for Santorum’s current success.

    • rwp4liberty

      ..it shouldn’t be about electability. At this time 32 years ago, the GOP establishment said there was no way Reagan could beat Carter, and Reagan polled 30 points behind him. You cannot trust the establishment or the media to be truthful about who’s electable. They’re the ones who gave us Ford, Dole, and McCain. We need to pick the most conservative, and stand behind him, and it isn’t Romney!

      • Bill S

        Your username makes me curious.

  • marktx

    RomneyCare disqualifies Mitt Romney as being a credible candidate in the republican field.

    Santorum will be the nominee. Deal with it Leon.

  • annie54

    it appears that someone is trying to suppress the vote. If this sort of rhetoric persists, the Republicans might as well not even show up.

    • demsaresatanic

      Politics involves arguments, we can’t all just get along, relax.

      • annie54

        n/t

        • demsaresatanic

          that may be a bit of an overstatement as well.

  • trickamsterdam

    Since Santorum didn’t say he was for it, that’s virtually like saying he was against it. Don’t think so because he was out of office? So were Romney and Cain, and they were both for it.

    Because they were willing to take tough stands and Santorum wasn’t? No, because I believe Santorum said he would have voted to raise the debt ceiling this last time too…I remember him have an argument w/ Bachmann about it, in one of the debates. So that suggests he isn’t just saying things to be popular (whether he’s wrong or right on these issues is a different story).

    But let’s get to the meat and potatoes. Virtually no one other than you and Ann Coulter actually thinks Romney is more conservative than Santrum (88% ACU rating in a purple State, beats utter capitulation and liberalism in a blue State).

    So who’s more electable?

    This may surprise some people…this is Romney’s approval/disapproval WITH REPUBLICANS:

    44/43

    This is Santorums (I believe w/ Republicans, but it may be w/ all voters, which would make it even better):

    64/22

    This is Obama’s w/ ALL VOTERS:

    48.4/47.0

    This is the Romney/Santorum source (which agrees w/ other sources): http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/santorum-surges-into-the-lead.html

    The source for Obama’s is RCP average.

    Now you’ll probably tell me it’s that it’s because Santorum hasn’t been vetted.

    If by that you mean Romney didn’t spend 20 million on 99.99% negative ads to destroy him like he’s done to Newt (a stunning statement of Romney’s intellectual and moral bankruptcy) you’re right. Unfortunately for Romney people have tuned him out (because the rank amateur destroyed himself at the same time that he destroyed Newt). It won’t work a second time.

    Now someone explain to me how a candidate w/ a positive/negative w/ his OWN PARTY is supposed to beat a better funded incumbent President who has a better positive/negative w/ all voters and the press on his side? Don’t bother answering, because there isn’t one. Romney is damaged goods.

    In all honesty, I was wrong too. I thought it would take a brokered convention to stop Romney. All it’s actually going to take is Santorum..

    PS – Can’t wait until Newt drops out and they both start to tag-team Romney. That’s going to be fun to watch, and I’m sure Newt’ll enjoy his VP slot or cabinet appointment or ambassadorship to France or Switzerland, or whatever Santorum gives him.. A good and dignified end to a great career.

    As for Romney, I doubt that 20 years from now anyone who isn’t a right-leaning political junkie like all of us on this site will even remember there was a person called “Mitt Romney” who once ran for President of the United States. Even left wing politicos will forget him, and just remember the eventual nominee.

    Romney will be located in the garbage pail of history w/ the other human banana peels.

    That’ll be Romney’s entire political legacy such as it is. And nothing of value was lost.

  • joeyjojoshabadoo79

    If we can’t admit that the policies of GWB were a disaster, then we really are living in a fantasy world. Romney wins by default.

  • joeyjojoshabadoo79

    “humnan banana peel”? Let me guess, you just googled “santorum” and now you’re looking for payback? Make a cogent argument and leave the namecalling to the kiddies.

    • trickamsterdam

      (I paraphrased your words)

      You mean name-calling like “zany” and “mentally unfit” and “disgraced”? Oh, wait that was Romney and his surrogates about Newt, arguably the second greatest Republican on the Fed level in my lifetime…

      And I did make a cogent argument. If you have a 44/43 approval-disapproval w/ your OWN PARTY, you can’t beat a well-funded, incumbent President, w/ 75% of the MSM in the tank for him and a better approval-disapproval w/ ALL VOTERS than you.

      Once you remove the electablility argument from Romney, it’s like the Herman Cain candidacy after the sex scandals…what’s a so-con to do?

      Romney’s whole campaign was predicated on it. Not just as a selling point, tons of words were written on his own site about how his nomination was inevitable because of his own organization, so why fight it?

      Like I said in another post once, it’s like Bruce Willis in the Sixth Sense.

      You don’t know he’s dead for the whole movie, but once you do it was obvious all along. And anyone who figured it out before you can’t figure out why you didn’t.

      Romney is unlectable because after the FL, where he ran (literally) 99.99% negative ads about Newt, he is damaged goods. Period.

      I always knew he’d never be President. Now I know (to my relief) he’ll never even be the nominee. Q: Can Santorum win? A: He can more than Romney.

      • SteveM

        I fail to see who it helps to flame the crap out of the candidates or their supporters.

        • trickamsterdam

          Your candidate went negative first, w/ some of the most vile, revolting attacks that I’ve ever seen on a conservative icon. To object to people attacking him makes about as much sense as running an unelectable candidate on the premise that he’s the most electable…Oh wait, you Romney people are doing that too.

          Fortunately, he’s not going to be the nominee. Why isn’t he? More irony…

          It’s because he went negative to win and his poll numbers collapsed more than thirty points, and now I suspect the damage is permanent. He chose to start down the dark path of scorched earth politics. Now for the rest of the election the dark path is going to chose him.. After Paul humiliates him in VA, he’ll be out of the race within a month, though, so he won’t suffer long.

          And Santorum was against TARP while Romney was for it. He’s also more of a fiscal conservative than Romney…granted though, being more of a fiscal conservative than the creator of RomneyCare who also wants automatic raises in the Minimum Wage is somewhat like saying you have a better speaking voice than a parrot.

          But I’ll take hjs 88% ACU rating from a purple State, over Romney’s endless nothingness and excuses from a blue State.

          • jamesm

            I agree Romney’s garbage is fermenting and stinking up his campaign. What he did to a conservative hero ends any chance of winning over conservatives. Maybe we can find a job for him.

  • snowshooze

    The best we have on the plate right now is Newt.
    SMOD is a dang close second, but let me tell you, the difference between Neurotics and Psychotics:
    You Neurotics build castles in the sky. It’s hopeless.
    We Psychotics… we live in them.
    If you feel like hallucinating non-existing attributes to either Romney, or Santorum…
    That is fine with me.

  • davidsayre

    Santorum was not my first choice, that was Palin followed by Newt. Santorum seems now to be the last conservative standing.

    As for the pretty boy rich kid who seems to think he can buy the presidency through a process of carpet bombing some states with negitive adds. I don?t think so. Don?t get me wrong, if it?s him or Obama, I?ll bite my lip and vote for him. I am becoming weary of the establishment GOP running whatever RINO floats to the top. With the exception of George W, every RINO they?ve ran has failed. W would have lost, had it not been for Ralph Nader. So here we go again.

    Now it comes out that a top Romney strategist from 2005 said ?Mr. Romney had been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly?? William Shakespeare may well have suggested that honestly should be made of sterner stuff! So, since we can?t really take him at his word, that just leaves his record as Governor, and that ain?t much! Who knew!, that LDS and Islam had anything in common, such as taqiyya!

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    I see no way anything Santorum has ever done making him look more liberal than the Romney record.

    • redmymind

      changed everything for me. Surely, we were all wrong. Romney has to be a conservative since he won that straw poll!

      Just kidding, of course, at the pathetic joke Romney is.

      For me it’s either Rick or Newt, whichever comes first. And it looks like Rick is that “first,” . . . for now.

      That said, even an orange juice can would be better than what we currently have in the WH, including the self-appointed “Food Police in Chief.”

      However, BHO Lite would not have much of a chance against BHO himself.

      For now, it looks like Santorum’s our guy. I hope his winning streak sticks. It’s time Romney took on less expensive hobbies and went back home.

      Because he has no conservative record to run on, credible or otherwise, Romney has no choice but to try to get ahead by attacking, attacking, and attacking and trying to dig up and magnify dirt on the other candidates.

      Some actually like Romney for this, saying that it shows him to be a “fighter.” The only problem is, BHO would crush Romney at his own game, out-spending him, out-debating him, and out-smarting him.

      And what would Romney have to fall back on? Conservative principles??? I’d love to see him try!

      The guy can’t move so much as an inch without some sort of coach telling him what to say or how to act. Criticize BHO all you want about his teleprompter, but even without it, he naturally connects with his audience. Romney just comes off as an out-of-touch, elitist fake.

      Conservatism is not second-nature to Romney.

      Oh yes, . . . he’s “a businessman.” Whoopie do! Thrills up Chris Matthews’ legs!!!

  • Dave_A

    Period.

    The reason why so many folks were opposed to TARP, was that it was ‘giving money to those evil bank people’, not because of government spending or any sort of conservative principle.

    Pure class envy.

    The fact is, TARP was simply a slightly modified re-creation of Reagan’s Resolution Trust Corporation.

    Instead of buying assets from the banks (like Reagan did), the government purchased preferred nonvoting stock.

    The end results however, were the same: The government in the end, hasn’t spent anything on TARP.

    Many of the banks bought-back their TARP stock as soon as they could, anxious about how letting the government retain it would place them under Obama’s thumb.

    As for the rest, the government has been selling it at a MUCH HIGHER value than they paid, since they obtained it when bank stocks were at record lows…

    So if you’re going to attack someone on being a ‘big spender’, TARP isn’t the place to do it.

    TARP is just ‘What Would Reagan Do’ applied to 2008, and it has worked splendidly….

    Remember: the actual liberal answer was ‘nationalize the banks’…

    Not ‘buy stock and sell it back to the banks later, or sell it on the open market once the stock-market almost doubles in a few years’…..

    • acat

      When government owns the means of production, it’s called socialism or communism, depending on exactly how far down the food chain government has chewed.

      You turn this on its’ head by insisting, somehow, that government investment in this case was good.

      Further, you’re once again factually in error – the RTC was created in 1989, after Reagan was out of office. This makes it a Bush ’41 project, not a Reagan project .. so “What Would Bush Do?”….

      Finally, calling opposition to TARP “class warfare” is so wrong I’m not even sure light will escape the black hole of wrongness. Do you consider food stamps “class warfare” because they help the non-working poor at the expense of the working poor?

      Look, I get that you don’t like your candidate being bashed, but .. you don’t get to change the definitions of “Conservative” to protect Santorum on his non-objection to TARP any more than Coulter gets to change it to defend Romney over Romneycare.

      The rules don’t change. That’s one of the central principles of being .. conservative.

      Mew

      • redmymind

        n/t

      • Dave_A

        I remember the debates well, and the public opposition wasn’t based on knowledge of economics or conservative principles…

        It was based on ‘why can’t they write me a check instead’ class-envy.

        My reasoning for supporting TARP was simple:

        1) It was not socialism, as the government wasn’t obtaining control/ownership over any companies or any ‘means of production’.

        The opposing Democratic proposal, to nationalize the banks, was Socialism.

        TARP didn’t involve the government ownership of any companies (unlike the abjectly horrid automaker bailout). It was simply a non-ownership investment, with a high probability of at a minimum breaking even, if not making some money with no end-state cost to taxpayers.

        2) The economic problem in question here was caused by government regulation. The problem government caused was so severe that only government could clean it up.

        TARP was a ‘You (FedGov) broke it, you bought it’ situation.

        3) If ‘nothing’ was done, we were looking at a deflationary spiral, where the money-supply would start to unwind all the way back to the 1.5TN or so paper dollars currently in circulation (the remaining 9.5TN USD is created by the fractional-reserve multiplier)…

        I see TARP as the government using market mechanisms (purchase of assets – in this case nonvoting preferred stock) to clean up a mess that was created by govt over-regulation of the mortgage market.

        And given the reasons listed for public opposition almost invariably fell to ‘why aren’t they giving ME the money, rather than those mean bankers’, I’m none too fond of the common opposition.

        As for the intellectual opposition, I get the moral hazard argument, but I don’t believe it was a significant enough hazard to justify flirting with a deflationary spiral (the black-hole of economic disasters), and I also believe that government bore responsibility for creating the situation in the first place – and thus was obliged to remove it.

        • acat

          I was willing to tolerate TARP – as drafted and signed.

          I disagree with the principle of “Too big to fail” … nothing is too big to fail, not the buggy whip industry, not the television repair business, not even the government. It’s a special kind of insane to claim otherwise .. and yet TARP is built on that principle.

          This is not a populist position, you’ll note.

          Mew

        • sharrondeer

          that the economic problem in question was caused by lack of government regulation.

          • acat

            Just what would you have had government regulate?

            Mew

      • demsaresatanic

        when you use one bad government program to justify yet another one you see how we got to where we are now.

    • hobarticus

      i.e. the $30 billion handout to America’s most destructive union. Most of that ain’t coming back.

      TARP also permanently retrenched the too big to fail regime, ensuring that reckless investors know they can always rely on Uncle Sam to rescue them, provided their mistakes turn out catastrophically enough. You either trust the free market to deal with these things, or you don’t.

      That said, it’s hard to blame people too much for supporting that bill. At the time, there were an awful lot of Important People in Suits saying the country would enter a permanent depression if it didn’t pass. That sort of panic is easier to resist in hindsight than in the moment.

      • sharrondeer

        Of the $11 billion disbursed to Chrysler, the government has received $9 billion. Of the $51 billion disbursed to GM, $24 billion has been received. Of the $16 billion disbursed to GMAC, $5B has been received.

        In total the government has received about half of what was disbursed so far.

        And we would definitely have gone into a depression. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would have been lost.

        • acat

          The labor force has shrunk dramatically in the last four years and we’re still losing jobs.

          Inflation is creeping upward … some of the items on my 2010 barbecue list jumped 30% by 2011 … not to mention gas prices are creeping up again. (Gas Buddy)

          Then, there’s the real estate market … I know I’m down at least 20% from what I paid .. and I’m in one of the more stable markets. Ironically, my property tax bill hasn’t budged…

          Seems to me that we would, as a country, have been better off ripping the band-aid off quickly.

          Mew

  • Pingback: Heriberto Woolwine

  • Pingback: Wai Youngren

  • Pingback: How To Give A Speech With Confidence | Wisdom Health Prosperity