E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSGOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum speaks with NBC's Andrea Mitchell about the driving principles of his campaign.
For conservative Republican voters who can’t accept Ron Paul’s bring-the-troops-home foreign policy, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum seems to be emerging as the best alternative to Mitt Romney.
Saturday’s Des Moines Register poll showed Santorum with 15 percent of likely caucus goers supporting him, up from 6 percent in late November.
Four weeks ago, few people were paying close attention to Santorum. But now, with victory in the Iowa caucuses, or a strong second, seeming to be within Santorum’s reach, Republicans are digging into his record to assess how conservative he really was during his 16 years in Congress.
Best known for his outspoken stands on social issues, Santorum led the fight for a ban on the procedure known as partial birth abortion, a ban that President Bill Clinton repeatedly vetoed, but was signed into law by President George W. Bush and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007.
Santorum also was the leader of the 2004 effort to amend the Constitution to allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and to define marriage in federal law solely as the traditional man-woman union.
He got credit for his skillful Senate floor management of the 1996 welfare reform bill, which Clinton ultimately signed after vetoing an earlier version.
On gun owners’ rights, Santorum voted against extending the ban on so-called “assault weapons” and against the 1993 Brady bill which imposed a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun and required criminal background checks on gun purchasers.
In line with Republican tax-cutting orthodoxy, he voted for the income tax reductions which Bush proposed in 2001 and 2003 and voted to abolish the estate tax in 2002.
Santorum’s career rating from the American Conservative Union, based on dozens of roll call votes during his 16 years in Congress, was 88 out of 100, not quite as conservative as that of Ron Paul or Jim DeMint of South Carolina, for instance, but still ranking Santorum as one of most conservative Republicans in Congress.
Santorum told NBC’s Savannah Guthrie last week, “I've voted toughly over the years to cut spending and to rein in entitlements. I've led on those things.”
But there’s at least one blemish on Santorum’s conservative record: his vote for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement in 2003 -- the biggest expansion of the program since it was created in 1965 and a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add nearly $400 billion to cumulative budget deficits over the first ten years after its enactment.
Fiscal conservatives such as Paul, DeMint and Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvanian Pat Toomey voted against the Medicare prescription drug bill, as did Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
McCain made the case against the Medicare prescription drug bill: “Adding a new unfunded entitlement to a system that is already financially insolvent is so grossly irresponsible that it ought to outrage every fiscal conservative.”
But on the Senate floor right before the prescription drug entitlement was approved, Santorum explained his support for it: “I say to my conservative friends who are expressing concern about this bill, the most important thing in this bill, from my perspective, for conservatives is this plan allows for health savings accounts” -- which are tax-free accounts people can use to set aside money for medical expenses.
“Fundamentally, what health savings accounts will do is eventually change Medicare -- not today, not even five or 10 years from now, but over the long term, once health savings accounts become what I believe they will become, which is the method of choice that the vast majority of people in this country will do in the private sector,” he said. “This will be a very popular plan in which millions of Americans will participate, and it will fundamentally change the insurance market in this country.”
Ten years later, Santorum’s prediction has not come to pass. Most Medicare enrollees continue to choose traditional fee-for-service Medicare, and in the under-65 population, health savings accounts are used by only a few million people.
In its assessment of Santorum’s congressional career, the conservative advocacy group, The Club for Growth gave him high marks for supporting tax cuts and welfare reform but criticized him as “a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress.” The Club for Growth also slammed him for voting against the North American Free Trade Agreement and for co-sponsoring a bill to impose tariffs on steel imports.
On the campaign trial in Iowa, Santorum has faced a few critical questions not on these votes but on his long association with Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania’s long-serving senior Republican senator, who switched parties in 2009 but lost the 2010 Democratic Senate primary to Joe Sestak
Terry Madonna, the veteran Pennsylvania pollster and analyst at Franklin and Marshall College, said the Santorum-Specter partnership “wasn’t a bosom buddy relationship, but they developed a modus vivendi for how they’d operate. Specter stayed out of Republican politics in the state and let Santorum be the major domo.”
Although ideologically opposed on issues such as abortion and gay rights, the two men developed a pragmatic partnership. Madonna notes that Specter lent Santorum his political staff in eastern Pennsylvania in 1994 when Santorum ran for the Senate and they even shared the same campaign manager – Pat Meehan, who is now a Republican congressman in Pennsylvania. Santorum endorsed Specter’s brief bid for the 1996 GOP presidential nomination.
And Santorum helped bolster Specter in the wake of the 2004 election when conservatives tried to topple Specter from the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee after he warned Bush to not nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who might try to overturn the Roe v. Wade abortion decision.
“Sen. Santorum has been enormously helpful,” Specter said during that chairmanship fight. “He’s gone above and beyond the call of duty. My number one priority in the next two years is to reelect Sen. Santorum.”
It didn’t work out that way: Santorum lost his Senate seat in 2006. But now – in a most unlikely comeback, Santorum is poised to be the conservatives’ man of the moment in Iowa.
Leave a Comment:
(CNN) - Ron Paul dinged rival Rick Santorum Monday for being a "very liberal" candidate, saying the former Pennsylvania senator and staunch social conservative voted for too much spending during his time in Congress.
Wow.
Paul went on to say: "--and screw all those greedy homeless veterans -- and the starving children too... Those cry-babies need to get a job."
Rand Paul said, "You tell 'em daddy... Now write me a prescription for some weed!"
Odd how Ron Paul gets more donations from veterans than ALL OTHER CANDIDATES (including Obama), COMBINED. Do some research.
Really Odd how Ron Paul gets more donations from foriegn nationals, Russia, China and N. Korea. LMAO
I am a veteran and Paul isn't getting my vote. I am not voting for Woodrow Wilson 2.0.
Probably means you wouldn't vote for Gingrich either who recently described himself as wilsonian.
Why are you all so excited about Obama when HE is the one that SIGNED the NDAA? YOu know, the ones allowing American citizens to be INDEFINITELY DETAINED?
So now we are at the bottom of the barrel trying to avoid electing Romney.
Yeah while Santorum dresses up like the pope and plots to bring a Christian Wacko state to America. Never mind the votes to raise the debt, don't worry about balanced budgets and oh yeah, lets have a 20 year war in Iran. Brilliant failure of a candidate.
Just another Republican that lies about his spending record. Santorum and Paul both earmarked and spent like drunken sailors while in congress. Jeez people look at their records. Bush's medicare part D is the largest unfunded mandate ever. So now younger taxpayers get to pay for well off oldcmen's boner pills.
BU, in 2008 Obama got the most donations from active duty servicemembers of all the candidates. That throws your little fabrication right out the window.
Woodrow Wilson was a war monger-er who wished to make the world safe for democracy. Ron Paul does not sound like an updated version of Woodrow Wilson. Inversely, the rest of the field looks like updated versons of Wilson.
Devils son....Obamacare will trump Bush....that will be the biggest unfunded mandate ever.... I know you love to hate on Bush but spread the hate around to the current hack in chief...
Santorum draws his support from "Social" conservatives who are vehemently anti-abortion to the point of wanting to charge women with murder for aborting fetuses. Yet he is also the biggest warmonger and booster of foreign aid to Israel, a country that allowed tens of thousand of government approved and financed abortions every year. When push comes to shove he has demonstrated that he is the most pro-death of all candidates in the field.
Inaccurate-- on the threat of VETO, the section of the bill that allowed for citizens suspected of terrorism to be held indefinitely without out trial was removed. The final bill that Obama signed contains no such provisions. Read for yourself:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840826#.TwM5TIGHT04
Not that I am pro-Obama. He is not getting my vote this year. But c'mon, at least verify your statements before posting them.
Rick Santorum is a crook;
My sister lives on PA and told me they danced the day Santorum was defeated.
He may be the conservative's man, but I don't think he will be the moderate, independent, or progressive choice and that makes him a loser in the national election. But let's face it, the entire political structure is a disaster. We need total election/campaign finance reform. In this age of electronics, why do we need a 2-6 year campaign (yes six years, since some of these candidates actually have been on the campaign trail that long.) Go to www.faircampaignreform.us and get involved in the Popular Amendment Movement to change the federal elections back to the "power of the people."
What we actually need is for people to wake up and decide what kind of country they want. Of course no one wants to raise taxes. At the same time we need to pay our bills and ensure the country is safe. If you were making 18,000 a year trying to feed a couple of kids, would you be worrying about any of this. Of course not. However, if you are making 200,000 a year, you would want the gravy train to continue. Who do you think should pay more taxes?
$200,000 guy definitely. That is a no-brainer. At least for some people.
And no, I am not a Communist.
The $200,000 guy pays taxes while the $18,000 guy does not pay any taxes. Some is a lot more than none on my calculator.
@texasbob
And just what, pray tell, makes you think the $200,000 guy pays taxes? Please be specific and remember to take into consideration such things as interest write offs, exchanges on properties held for investment, "S" corporation business expense, and... well... the multitude of other tax dodges available to those in a position to take advantage.
Thanks.
We wouldn't have to raise taxes for anyone if we just stopped spending and cut unneeded programs.
arm-459442
You are EXTREMELY ignorant, parroting a stupid right-wing talking point. Go download the U.S. Budget, look at the Summary Page, and it will demonstrate that ALL discretionary spending doesn't even equal our budget deficit. When you have a 40% DEFICIT the only way to bridge that deficit with budget cuts is to cut across the board 40% of everything - 40% off of Social Security checks, 40% off of Medicare benefits, 40% off of student loan programs, 40% off of Military spending, etc. I'd like to see how even YOU would react after realizing the impact on your parents-grandparents that those cuts would have.
Not even the REPUBLICANS have proposed an actual budget WITH FREAKING NUMBERS that actually balances the budget in less than 20 years. Even Santorum would never actually present an actual budget like a President has to, that balances the budget in 5 years, because PEOPLE WOULD FREAK OUT when they realized exactly what programs they rely on would be gone or significantly reduced! This rhetoric of "oh the govt is so evil" is completely ignorant of what exactly the government does.
Wizard, a family of 4 making $200,000 would pay approximately $36,678 in taxes while the same family of 4 would receive a return of approximately $840 and this is after having payed no taxes at all.
Now you please tell me in detail how this family of 4 making $200,000 would not pay any taxes?
DEDUCTIONS..................
texasbob I believe you are either missing the point or purposely ignoring it. We can debate all day about what we are going to spend our money on. However, at the end of the day, we have to pay for what we have bought. So using police as an example, who is going to miss them more once we can no longer pay them. The single mother with two kids scraping by with nothing to lose or the family of four living in that nice big house in a gated community. Perhaps the police can operate like the fire departments we have read about lately. Call 911 while you are being robbed and they show up at your house only to realize you have not paid your protection money. So they sit there and watch you be robbed, like the firemen watched the house burn down. texasbob, your taxes are your protection money.
Good luck with that, the people have supported the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the recent suspension of the Bill of Rights... what makes you think they will actively try to repeal all this crrap.
@texasbob
Being subject to paying taxes is certainly not the same as actually paying them. In my paragraph above I clearly made mention of three means by which one can decrease or eliminate their tax bill regardless of their income. In the past I have personally taken advantage of all three methods as well as a number of others over the years. I am especially fond of the exemptions given for exchanges of properties held for investment.
Now then. I've given you a place to start. Should you take advantage of this you may find yourself paying considerbly less or even perhaps nothing in taxes. It is possible.
If you desire greater detail on these methods you're going to have to take it upon yourself to gain that knowledge. I am not inclined to give you the "free ride" you are asking for.
Good luck and have a pleasant evening.
Not asking for a free ride wizard, just that you back up your talking points with facts.
ir12, I don't have a problem paying taxes for defense, police, and fire, but I do have a problem paying for visitor centers with no planes of ever using them, walking trail, and a whole host of item the Federal government wastes money on. The government has a problem with spending and it needs to change.
@texasbob
Hmmm... just what sort of facts did you have in mind? Facts like actor John Wayne not paying any taxes at the height of his career even though he was bringing in millions in income? Those kind of facts?
Or something of another nature? At least give me a little hint. In exchange I'll give you one. Look up the rules regarding 1041 exchanges on properties held for investment. This little exclusion allows you to buy and sell at whatever amount of profit and you pay no taxes on whatever portion of the profits are rolled back into investments. You do have to file the paperwork at the time of each transaction, but this allows you to continue to use money that would otherwise have gone for taxes to instead purchase more investments, thereby creating more profits to again file an exchange again and on and on... forever, if you so desire to keep playing the game.
Anyway, again... good luck and have a pleasant evening.
Santorum is in the top 3 most corrupt members of the Senate.
citizensforethics(dot)org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/
I did look through to see if there was anything really substantial. What a lot of those were was matching up the campaign funding to parts of bills sponsored or supported and ASSUME wrong doing. A Brewer gave Santorum a donation and Santorum supports or sponsers a reduction of tax for all brewers.
I knew about the Housing and the school issues. Those are peanuts compared to McCain getting manipulated by the Keating Five.
Read this left wing crap - they are saying he sold out for as little as $1,000.00. Get a grip; just because there exists a contribution from someone in whose favor he voted does not constitute corruption. Corruption is when a politician gives away millions to bogus energy companies run by people who gave big bucks to his campaign.
If Santorum gets the nomination, the Obama/Clinton ticket will capture 766 out of a possible 538 electoral votes. It won't even be close. Lesotho, Romania and Morocco will all petition the UN for electoral votes just to get in on the fun.
So for America's sake, let's hope this intellectual troglodyte gets the nomination, receives a thorough jail-sexing in November, and finally answers once and for all this question: does a neo-racist knuckle- dragging pseudo-christian plutocratic close minded philosophy of greed that wishes it was still 1844 have a future in the 21st century?
Here are a couple of more "flaws"
Rick Santorum named one of the MOST CORRUPT CONGRESSMEN in 2005 and 2006.
Fact:
Start at p. 207 for the indictments:
I think you better say what they really were - Per the Report "Ethical transgressions". The only ones indicted (i.e. investigated and found ample proof of) were Rep William Jefferson, Tom Delay, and Roy Blount. Of those Tom Delay's was convicted in Texas, but his conviction is expected to be overturned on appeal, just at the 6 other cases like his in Texas were.
Two days ago a couple of kids - maybe 19yrs old - pointed to a picture of him in a newspaper and stated that they will vote for him. I asked if they did their homework......was looked at like I was nuts......
None of the GOP contenders are getting my vote.
My money is on RON PAUL for President in 2012.
Good for you Hannibel. Ron has the same outlook on humanity that you do. LMAO
social issues are the most important thing facing our country now. The economy, foreign policy...hah..we need to roll back gay rights! vote for santorum!
Oh yeah, those gays are bringing our country down to its knees. LMAO
Who's on their knees?
vermontguy, yours is the funniest post I've read all day. Obviously, you're joking.
This article pretends that being a conservative is a good thing. It isn't. Being a conservative means you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's 1955. Under conservatives, nothing would ever get done for the 1st time.
I wish the GOP would return to its pre-reagan roots..before it made a deal with the devil and became the free spending, high debt, pro war, social issue party. At least I could respect that and you'd have a choice (to a greater degree) than with the dems. The GOP now is a joke and a shame in comparison to then.
Being a conservative or a liberal isn't a bad thing when not taken to the extremes. Many people such as yourself try to paint a picture of far extremism. People posting message throughout this site in a wide range of articles try to give the impression that everything is one way or the other. Sad.
What this country needs is a balance between the liberals and conservatives. While conservatives tend to refrain from quick change and trying to keep a status-quo, liberals look upon that as doing nothing. Liberals all too often change things with a knee-jerk reaction to whatever is most popular at the moment. Conservatives look upon this as unnecessary and impractical because many things end with poor results as legislation is enacted without enough consideration of the end results.
There has to be a happy medium or this country will continue on the course we are currently running and not many seem to feel it's a good one.
conservatives ARE unecessary AND impractical at this point of the legeislative cycle,so far they've conspired to destroy @!$%# for the last 3 years......and its them .....4more O
I wish more conservatives would refrain from "quick change" and "consider the end results" when it comes to tax cuts and war.
Wait until the press looks into how his County in Penna. payed for the home schooling of his children. Also bringing home his still born baby to be introduced to his other children... there's a creepiness factor there.
Tony, you're free to leave at any time, you self righteous dolt!
Predictable responses from the self righteous, elitist, left wingers who dominate this socialist sympathetic site.
predictable response from the self righteous, elitist, right wingers who trolls this web site.
ROTFLMAO, your post is so typical: "elitist"? not sure how your going to pass that off on the liberals at the same time fox is blaming us for waging a class war against the elite. LOLOLOL you so funny tony.
Pay back the taxes you owe, Rick:
Rick Santorum was LATE for the taxes on his Penn Hills home and PAID them along with the obligatory penalty. Big Deal - almost everyone pays something late.
Santorum opposes abortion EVEN WHEN the woman's life is in danger...but he doesn't oppose it enough since he let his own wife get an abortion to save her life! Santorum is a hypocrite who's okay with his wife getting an abortion but would deny it to others, even to save their lives.
WRONG
Similarly on contraceptives, he is not for them, but has a record of supporting and voting for them.
I.E. he is real uncomfortable with those two items, but recognizes that he needs to flexible on each of those issues.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/candidate-guide-where-does-rick-santorum-stand--20120102
He's not "for" them, but he's "for" them enough to let his wife get one.
Still a hypocrite.
It even says in the quote you posted, he only supports compromise in the hopes it'll get anti-choice laws passed and lead to a "fuller" ban. AKA a ban without any exceptions. Try again, genius.
Also, the key word in his quote, is "TODAY." That means later down the line when he and his ilk get anti-choice laws passed, he'd be willing to move towards a "full" ban, aka, no rape exception, and no health exception.
Santorum is okay with forcing women to die for embryos - so long as its not his own wife. This is extremely concerning, and his disregard for women's rights and health, as well as his anti-LGBT stances, forever ensures he will never have my respect...or my vote. Other women have friends, family, and significant others who care about them, too. Not just Santorum's wife.
This isn't hypocrisy. You have to be careful how you judge someone's words. He isn't supporting partial-birth abortion or abortion at all when it is his wife, but not for everyone else. The situation was clear: either BOTH his wife and the baby dies, or JUST the baby dies. There was never a "wife dies OR the baby dies" situation. The choice was to save one life versus saving no lives.
This is different from the concept of being against abortion even if the life of the mother is at stake: in those cases, they are talking about choosing one life over the other, and the baby gets "priority" in that case.
Given their beliefs, you can bet the decision was one of the most gut-wrenching decisions they ever had to make. They lost a life and family member.
Furthermore, there is a world of difference between a "rape" and "health" exception, versus a "life" exception. This wasn't a case of his wife's HEALTH being in danger. It was a case of her life. If you believe ALL life is sacred...why wouldn't the life of a baby that is the product of a rape be sacred as well???
I truly think conservative think tanks are unAmerican. They sit around all day thinking up ways to deprive more than half the country of their rights. They serve no useful purpose other than to give employment to otherwise unemployable people like Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich. I say if the occupy movement wants to "occupy" something it should be the American Conservative Union or the Heritage Foundation or any of the thousands of treasonous rightwing terrorist groups that call themselves Conservative thinktanks. I'm all for freedom of speech but when you only exist to destroy others then you have no right to exist in a democratic country.
I respect your conclusions
No more unAmerican than Liberal think tanks.
You dropped some serious acid. It always scares me when a liberal starts off with "I think" LMAO what a lie that is right from the start.
Ron Paul 2012!!!! Smaller gov't. Keep the federal gov't out of the states business!!!!!!
Washington, DC – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released its second annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress entitled Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). This encyclopedic report on corruption in the 109th Congress documents the egregious, unethical and possibly illegal activities of the most tainted members of Congress. CREW has compiled the members’ transgressions and analyzed them in light of federal laws and congressional rules.
Two members have been removed from last year’s list of 13. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) is now serving an eight-year jail term for bribery and Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) has agreed to plead guilty to crimes that will likely result in a minimum two-year prison term.
CREW has also re-launched the report’s tandem website, www.beyonddelay.org. The site offers short summaries of each member’s transgressions as well as the full-length profiles and all accompanying exhibits.
CREW’s Most Corrupt Members of Congress:
Members of the Senate:
While the article you refer to is note worthy, it was from 2006.
Bill -
this group goes about pairing up contributors with possible legistlation actions that MAY be a pay-off. They also dig to find out who may be a family member of a politician to see if they are benefiting illegitimately in some way. I happen to know that the list of people being investigated by congress had more democrats than republicans on it.
The only people on that list who were did any wrongdoing worthy of being indicted were representative William Jefferson-D, Rep. Blount - R, and Tom Delay - and Delay's charges in Texas are expected to be overturned on appeal.
I believe Maxine Watters is still on the ethics committee investigation list yet though.
The other thing that strikes me funny is why Chris Dodd wasn't on that list for his unethical Mortgage deal, Charlie Rangell wasn't even on that list either. Hmmm - I wonder why?
NO, SH$#$@&t,Rick...questionable from home,you think we want you back?Fraud ..player...republican
I hope they will get the corporate gop voting machines to issue validating receipts(like retail stores)
or we may get these right wing fruitcakes back in power.Don't forget what happened in 2000 and
the 8yrs under the "decider".
I think Jeb 's workin on that paper trail
Ron Paul 2012!!!
in pandering to the "conservatives" (read righteous right wingers) Santorum made a comment about people on welfare while on camera in Iowa - his comment bespoke an underlying racism by singling out blacks as welfare recipients - and when questioned about it he tried to say his comment was taken out of context but it was not. he does not have any compassion for the poor, the downtrodden in America. he is clearly only interested in protecting the interests of the wealthiest among us....
even without his comment I would not vote for this man -- he's untrustworthy and too, too readily recognized as just another Pharisee without compassion....
GOP = group of pharisees
I agree with you 110% abby. Blacks should get welfare and unemployment comp forever. And I speak from experience. After Clinton cut a bunch of them loose with his welfare, they got jobs and started moving into my neighborhood. We can't have that, now, can we? As long as they're on welfare, they are stuck in public housing ghettos for life.
I don't care what NBC, ABC, or CBS says about the Republican candidates. Any of them are better than another Obama regime. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse over Obama if he ran for president.
Mickie's dead,jayne Wyman was right and the Mccarthy hearings improved on it?Now who's Mickie?
PA kicked him out big time.... and he has not chance on a national scene.... just making his name so Fox will hire him like all the other fools....
Go Santorum! ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012! That is my mantra. Send obama back to chicago and let him work his magic organizing communities.
I'd rather have Obama than a man who would be willing to let women die if she needed an abortion to safe her life, (except his own wife, of course)
His first term as PA senator wasn't too bad. Up to that point PA was pretty satisfied with moderate Republican senators (Spector, Heinz, etc). Then Santorum got all "Catholic Church" on everything in his 2nd term. Just too freaky so he had to go.
why don't you libs spend more time getting your gov entitlements and leave the elections to people who work to support your give outs
Most people in the OWS movement have jobs, as opposed to the tea party movement in which most of them are retired and unemployed. Funny, isn't it? Don't believe me just google the statistics. Plenty of us DO work. But we can't all make living wages.
Santorum has a flaw alright - he's so unrepentantly extreme with his views on homosexuality that he could be considered extremely bigoted.
He's totally out of step with the majority of Americans on the issue - and he revels in it - as if he doesn't realize that he's in the absolute minority with his anti-gay extremist opinions.
That and he's absolutely nothing but a washington insider who would be nothing better than more of the same.
So that was you writing those messages on the latrine walls at fenty!
Of all the 2012 GOP / Tea Bag Prez candidates I like to watch, inSanatorium is the most *impressive* ... every answer to every question, is to the question he though he heard ... his responses end up being some quite impressive psychotic babble ...
To this day I'm still trying to figure-out his napkin & paper-towel analogy ...
LOL.