COMMENTARY: GOP’s Rick Santorum Full Of Surprises
SOME MAY BE VOTING FOR CANDIDATE TO DRIVE ROMNEY TOWARD MORE CONSERVATIVE CAMPAIGN
Posted: February 13, 2012 at 5:29 a.m.
The notion that Rick Santorum stood a chance of being in the race for the GOP nomination in February 2012 seemed laughable a few short months ago. For many Arkansans and others, hearing his name prompted the unavoidable “Rick Sant-who-um?”
This story is only available from the archives. Click here to contact the online desk.
(Advertisement)
« Previous Story
COMMENTARY: Some Board Members Talk, Others ...
In a span of three months, the Bentonville School Board went from supporting construction of a ninth-grade center to creating a committee to investigate an alternative solu... Read »
Next Story »
CASUALTIES OF WAR
To honor the men and women in our armed forces and remind our readers of their sacrifices, the Benton County Daily Record is publishing Department of Defense announcements ... Read »
Comments
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.
I would say skip the MSM and hit the web/YouTube for your information on the candidates. There is archival footage of all of them and their stances on the issues throughout their political careers. I hope you'll see, as I did, who the true consistent conservative in the race is. My vote is for Dr. Paul, and only Dr. Paul. The rest are in the running not to change the country for the better but to better themselves and their position of power in the political arena. Dr. Paul is truly a humble servant to the people, which is why Wall St & K St hate him.
Posted by: ROBINSONJAS
February 13, 2012 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ROBINSONJAS--
RE "I hope you'll see, as I did, who the true consistent conservative in the race is. My vote is for Dr. Paul..."
"Consistency is more important than correctness." --Mediocrites
He's a crank, and he's wrong-- but at least he's consistent.
Posted by: AlphaCat
February 13, 2012 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
One of Santorum's "surprises" is that he's one of the most corrupt members of Congress, yet no one in the campaign or MSM has pointed this out as yet.
"One of the 3 Most Corrupt Senators --
Santorum is one of the most corrupt politicians in recent memory, by which I mean, he repeatedly sponsored laws giving very specific help to companies -- worth millions of dollars -- and they immediately gave him large campaign donations and -- after he left the Senate -- hundreds of thousands, and millions of dollars in cash that went directly into his pocket and made him rich. He was twice named one of America's 3 most corrupt senators by CREW, a clean-government group, and has become a millionaire from payments by these companies since was voted out of the Senate in 2006. "
http://www.realchange.org/santorum.ht...
"In February 2006 Time Magazine described a synthetic-fuel tax-credit amendment that Santorum added to a larger bill as "a multibillion-dollar scam" that benefited "a small group of the politically well connected." (Wikipedia)
Posted by: Coralie
February 13, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
More on Saint Santorum:
"Santorum loves to talk about cutting government expenditures, and relying on yourself. But while homeschooling his kids, he collected $73,000 in unwarranted tuition reimbursements from the Penn Hills Pennsylvania School District for an online charter cyber-school -- even though, by his own admission, they lived in Virginia 11 months of the year, and he was making $165,200 a year as a U.S. Senator at the time. (Virginia does not pay for students to attend online schools if a local real-world school is available, as it was to Santorum's family.)
Santorum claimed he was a valid resident of the Pennsylvania school district because he owned a house there -- which cost $88,000, compared to the $690,000 he paid for the house they actually live in. The only problem with that story is, he rented the Pennsylvania house out during the time he was supposedly a resident.
After this was discovered and publicized, Santorum pulled his kids out of the cyber-school, but refused to repay the $73,000. As a result, the State of Pennsylvania had to pay another $55,000 to settle a lawsuit by the local school district demanding repayment. - http://www.realchange.org/santorum.ht...
ALSO
"A supporter of enhanced interrogation, he said in 2011 that John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war, did not understand how the process works." (Wikipedia
Posted by: Coralie
February 13, 2012 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
The two "most conservative" are a crank and a crook.
But hey, who cares if Santorum is corrupt? He talks a good line and he has all those children, so he must be a great man, right?
Posted by: Coralie
February 13, 2012 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
"While in the Senate, Santorum held weekly meetings supporting Tom Delay's "K-Street Project," an effort to fill lobbying groups with Republican loyalists. And they rewarded him handsomely, even back then. In 2006, he received $500,000 from lobbyists, far more than any other federal candidate -- 40% more than the #2 recipient, George Allen. "
http://www.realchange.org/santorum.ht...
"One dramatic example was Santorum introducing a bill that required the National Weather Service to keep collecting weather data, but said they couldn't release it to the public! They had to hand it to private weather companies who then would make the profit off of it. Guess what? Accuweather, a private weather company in Santorum's state, gave him tens of thousands of dollars right during the time he promoted this absurd bill. " (same source)
Posted by: Coralie
February 13, 2012 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Another "surprise" about Santorum: his wife had a late-term abortion to save her life. He would deny you, your wife, your daughters, your sisters, to have access to the same procedure. When quizzed about this curious hypocrisy, he said, "Our abortion was different. I love my wife. I don't even know your wife."
That ought to tell you all you need to know about Rick Santorum.
Posted by: SPA
February 13, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Go ahead: Google "santorum". Then you too wonder if that's one of the surprises that Mr. Sanorum is full of.
It's clear that he's full of something.
Posted by: AlphaCat
February 13, 2012 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alpha_cat
explain "He is wrong" please
Posted by: ROBINSONJAS
February 13, 2012 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
...and I dont get the crank part at all
Posted by: ROBINSONJAS
February 13, 2012 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ROBINSONJAS--
RE "explain 'He is wrong' please"
His belief in a straitjacketed Constitution was apparently not held by the Founding Fathers, who as Presidents and legislators, having just written and adopted the Constitution, immediately began to exceed literal Constitutional limits to government power and authority. We wouldn't have become nearly as great a country without an expanded understanding of the powers given the government by the Constitution. Given his unrealistic vision of the narrowness of the Constitution, there is no foundation for much of his platform.
"...and I dont get the crank part at all"
Of course you don't. People complain that Obama "hasn't kept all of his campaign promises" and such. Only a crank would campaign on such a laundry list of things that absolutely will never happen-- and only the deluded would set out to elect him with the expectation that much of his platform would see the light of day. Note that much of Ron Paul's support is from people who agree with only one or two of his policy positions-- say, staying out of war adventures and ending the war on drugs; it is arguable that they hope to have.these planks adopted by other candidates, or brought to the attention of a reality-based government.
At least he's not Rick Santorum.
Posted by: AlphaCat
February 13, 2012 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I think you're wrong when you say that most of his support is from people who agree with only one or two of his policy positions, that's not what I see/hear when talking to people. I get the fact that the Constitution began changing immediately after it was adopted, but to the length we've strayed is beyond insane. If you think the Constitution is narrow, I think you're looking at it wrong. It's quite broad when looked at from a civil liberty standpoint. It keeps government out of most things, and allows the people freedom unlike we've seen in generations. People in this country are beginning to question the role of government, which is a good thing. His movement is undeniable and reaches beyond the boundaries of this election. I can see in your responses you think he's unfit, but I'd be curious to see who you think is? I appreciate your stance, you have your opinion and I have mine...we can agree to disagree.
Posted by: ROBINSONJAS
February 13, 2012 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ROBINSONJAS--
RE "I think you're wrong when you say that most of his support is from people who agree with only one or two of his policy positions..."
That's not what I said. I said that _much_ of his support comes from people who are distracted by whatever of his policies make them see pretty colors, but don't see the whole picture. It's the same sort of hipster appeal that makes cigar bars and cheap-beer snobbery viable-- it's not good, it's not good for you, and apparently the chicks dig it. I guess it's a bad-boy thing.
RE "...the length we've strayed is beyond insane."
The changes in the world have been beyond insane as well, and changes in our application of the Constitution allowed us to stay at the forefront of the world until about the time Reagan pulled the plug.
RE "If you think the Constitution is narrow, I think you're looking at it wrong."
Actually, it appears that you think the Constitution is narrow. I think it confers quite a bit of latitude.
RE "It keeps government out of most things, and allows the people freedom unlike we've seen in generations."
That's one interpretation, though it wasn't universally applied by the people who wrote the Constitution. Certainly it keeps the government out of some things, but it also provides a framework within which the government can operate more broadly as the world changes.
RE "His movement is undeniable and reaches beyond the boundaries of this election."
I certainly wouldn't deny it.
RE "I appreciate your stance, you have your opinion and I have mine...we can agree to disagree."
In this respect, we have something of an accord, and with any luck, it will all work out nicely.
Posted by: AlphaCat
February 13, 2012 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Thanks for the documented info on Santorum, Coralie.
If he wasn't the MOST CORRUPT I dread to review the record of one who was more corrupt.
.
Posted by: cdawg
February 14, 2012 at 12:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie,
Respectfully, do you have any other sources than that of a stand-up comedian?
-Tank
Posted by: Tankersley101
February 15, 2012 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SPA: "When quizzed about this curious hypocrisy, he said, "Our abortion was different. I love my wife. I don't even know your wife." --Rick Santorum">>
I can't find any support for that quote among any mainstream sources and I only see it being repeated on far leftie sites, so I am rather confident that Santorum did not say this.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
February 15, 2012 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Santorum is a mini Duggar
Posted by: Apbacker
February 15, 2012 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FFT,
Thank you.
V/r,
Tank
Posted by: Tankersley101
February 15, 2012 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie, before you start throwing stones, you'd better check your man obama's record on Fast & Furious and Solyndra.
Posted by: glorygrace
February 17, 2012 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GloryG: "obama's record on Fast & Furious and Solyndra.">>
Why don't you tell us about this "record" GloryG? Sounds interesting.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
February 17, 2012 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Can we at least agree that they are all scoundrels and need to be changed frequently, like diapers.
Posted by: Mikeej
February 17, 2012 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
"Santorum" is defined as "a stain that won't easily brush out of the nap of a sweater vest." Google it.
Posted by: GeneralJackTRipper
February 18, 2012 at 3:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.