Flashback: Santorum stands by his record of earmarks

posted at 1:02 pm on January 5, 2012 by Tina Korbe

So it continues, this scrutiny under which Santorum now happily campaigns. (Yes, “happily.” He sounded ecstatic to be able to legitimately target Barack Obama and Mitt Romney as his competition at his first event in New Hampshire yesterday.)

So far, most of the criticisms sound like this: Santorum is of the big government, compassionate breed of conservative — and as much a part of the Republican establishment as Mitt Romney. Santorum’s earmark-laden voting record from his time in the Senate is an easy piece of evidence to prop up this idea.

But, if these excerpts from an appearance at a Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg, Pa., in June of last year are any indication, Santorum is unlikely to be embarrassed by accusations that he once played pork-barrel politics. Instead, he’ll use a line like this: “It’s not earmarks that are the problem; it’s entitlement programs run amok.” He’ll be right.

That doesn’t mean it’ll be savvy of him to stick to that line, though. If he draws it out into a broader and more meaningful discussion of entitlement reform, then it might be a vote-winner. But if he uses it solely to excuse attempts to curry favor with constituents (attempts that, apparently, didn’t even help to ensure his reelection), then it’ll be a poor defense. True, eliminating earmarks alone would never eliminate the debt — but it’s a symbolic gesture that nevertheless does matter.

Still, Santorum says something else in this video that I find thought-provoking and important. He says he has “real concerns” about recent attempts — largely prompted by libertarians and the Tea Party — to completely redefine conservatism in fiscal terms. That redefinition, he suggests, forgets certain societal obligations that are written into us as human beings and that have to be met one way or another. Shades of Catholic thought color Santorum’s speech.

Ann Coulter sees this — and finds it troubling. She writes:

Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go, but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.”

The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous “bridge to nowhere.”

Santorum cites his father’s admonition to put any extra money in the poor box at church to explain his wanting to use the federal government to help the poor.

But what I hear when Santorum speaks about his concerns about the Tea Party and libertarianism is less a total embrace of non-doctrinally-binding Catholic social justice theory than a desire for continuity within the conservative movement and concerns about the strict reactivity of the Tea Party. That, I find legitimate.

The Tea Party, at its heart, was and is reactionary — an instinctive response to the appalling arrogance and dangerous irresponsibility of the passage of Obamacare and other Obama-era policies. Tea Party opposition to out-of-control spending was a reflex to the extremity of the expenses the government was incurring. The Tea Party wanted cuts, but didn’t initially have a systematic program to cut spending. Why? In the end, a budget reflects a people’s priorities. But the Tea Party’s primary priority has been and will be a balanced budget. Unfortunately, “a balanced budget” doesn’t dictate what should be cut and what should be kept.

Santorum — and indeed conservatism — is not reactionary. His political views proceed from a coherent worldview deeply rooted in Catholicism. Conservatism is itself a coherent worldview deeply rooted in certain ideas about unchanging human nature — and one that is fundamentally compatible with Catholicism.

As often as I’m tempted to want politicians to take a strictly negative approach to government (a la Michele Bachmann, fighting as much against bad laws as for good ones, in the style of Calvin Coolidge), I think Santorum is right to take a slightly more “positive” approach. In some ways, after all, reactivity is imprisoning. That’s because, as theologian Luigi Guissani writes, “Reactivity as the criterion for a relationship with reality burns the bridges linking us to the richness of history and tradition, that is to say, it cuts us off from the past. Reactivity signifies the absence of an all-encompassing, recognized, pursued and desired meaning.”

Tea Partiers rightly look to the Founding for political cues and, in that sense, is far less reactionary — and, hence, trapped in the present — than Progressivism. The Founders defined the “all-encompassing, recognized” meaning of America — and Tea Partiers embrace that meaning.  But it’s equally crucial not to ignore all that has happened between the Founding and now — not to ignore all the ways the meaning of America has been “pursued and desired,” sometimes to the detriment of that meaning, sometimes to its advancement.

We need reclamation, not reaction. Santorum might just be the guy to provide that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Not sure Rush had fully fleshed out his comments about Santorum yesterday. He sounded hesitant at times when making his remarks. With that being said, I didn’t disagree with a lot of what he was saying.

Someone posted Club for Growth’s analysis of Santorum earlier in this thread. Very enlightening reading. He basically has a higher than average score for a Republican senator. It’s worth noting both his strengths and weaknesses so you can decide for yourself if you can support him.

GeorgiaBuckeye on January 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Sterling Holobyte on January 5, 2012 at 2:53 PM

The problem is your boy wants to do it from the federal level. Abolish the Dept. of Education and return control to local communities. That will solve the problem, not mandating some sort of national religious indoctrination.

Look Polish on January 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM

“What planet have you been living on??!”

Ah, a social conservative has surfaced. Care to defend this, oh-holier-than-thou creep?

Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

The people in Pennsylvania knew what they were doing when they sent Santorum packing in 2006.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I would like to hear what everyone thinks? Is Santorum electable in the general? How would he play to indies?

brhoton on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

When I saw his interview on BOR and he was asked about the earmarks he started in on the Historically Black Colleges and University grants that he had gotten.

That reminded me that he is a supporter of the Dept. of Education.

His going through how he would be able to send those from HBCU’s to the ‘right people’ to get a grant process going then reminded me that this a back-scratching phenomena common to all earmarks. It is corruption, seeking to do favors in the expectation to get favors. It isn’t the amount of spending, but the spending done in a way that enables corruption and politicians to get into bed with organizations (be they business, academia, lobbyists, activists) via the federal government loan/contract/grant system. Such a system breeds corruption with earmarks.

It is not defensible no matter how ‘good’ the intent is.

And when Presidents (it doesn’t matter which party does it) puts political hacks into positions in the bureaucracy (not just at the top but enabling hiring into the lower levels) the entire thing becomes a crony-based system where the only way to weed out the corruption is to end the system involved. No matter how ‘nice’ or how ‘good’ the idea is behind a given agency or program, the idea is that if it isn’t mandated by the constitution then government at the federal level shouldn’t have it.

Why?

It limits the opportunity for further corruption.

That is what small and limited government is all about.

Santorum is process oriented and utilized the current system. Unless he says he will use his insider knowledge to pull it down and end it, then why should anyone believe he will ‘reform’ it?

The guys who did something like that? Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge.

Yeah, tough standards and all that.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Saying you’re not going to demand reciprocal terms in trade agreements is like being asked to be punched in the face. Likewise, yes, people in the private sector do need a living wage to sustain them. We’ve done a great job at killing off that ability by ensuring that we import low-skilled, illegal labor, and by signing trade agreements that allow for outsourcing by putting American workers in direct competition with those operating out of sweat shops.

Consequently, we’ve killed both jobs and salaries. The idea that these are worthy goals is moronic.

Stoic Patriot on January 5, 2012 at 2:36 PM

A social conservative in practice is really nothing more than a Progressive.
Think POTUS Wilson.
Human nature is, what it is.
All that needs to be done is actually go by the Constitution as the law of the land.
Let the states do what they will.
You cannot force a living wage to magically happen.
That is for the nature of the market itself to sort out.
And it has nothing to do with being nice or compassionate.
It has to do with reality.
You taking resources from one source so that you can force these things to happen will only result in injustice to some other group or person, thereby acting like a dictator.
That is not what this Republic is about.
You can do this sort of thing through your church and community to help people.
But you have no business asking the federal govt to do it, as the Constitution prohibits so much of what is already being done.
That is why we’re in this mess.
A social conservative is not in total support of the Republic as it was set up.
So this group is no better than a liberal when you really get down to black & white.

Badger40 on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

“What planet have you been living on??!”

Ah, a social conservative has surfaced. Care to defend this, oh-holier-than-thou creep?

Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Forget the “sexual acts” part of this argument for a moment, because that causes all kinds of other issues to come into play that make the debate more heated. Let’s just deal with the “right to privacy” in general, if we can.

Those on here who preach the more libertarian version of conservatism, and who dismiss us social conservatives as not true conservatives, constantly preach about the need to stick strictly to the Constitution and follow it exactly, which I agree with.

So please tell me where in the text of the Constitution — not an interpretation of it by a court such as in Roe v. Wade — the right to privacy is mentioned. We have mention of numerous rights the government is obligated to protect. Heck, we have an entire portion of the Constitution known as the “Bill of Rights” for just that reason. Those rights are detailed explicitly and specifically.

Where is the right to privacy?

Shump on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Yeah, tough standards and all that.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I can’t say it enough: I am not looking for someone “perfect.” I am looking for someone who will abide by the constitution. And if that’s what we consider “perfect,” then we deserve whatever we do get, and we deserve to get it good and hard (h/t Mencken)

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I’m not looking for anyone perfect, either.

Just someone who is not a lesser of two evils, as I will no longer vote for evil.

If our politicos want to keep on sending us lesser devils, I’ll say know and we can all go to hell in a handbasket. All these lesser evils have gotten us a lot worse off.

How about someone who is pretty good?

I’m not looking for Washington or Lincoln, mind you.

Chester Arthur or Calvin Coolidge would do.

I know, tough standards… the guy with the booze and parties, and Mr. Tightlipped. Saints I’m not looking for.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM

After voting for Medicare part D now he’s concerned about entitlement spending?

as i’ve said before-i’m a pharmacist and i’ve dealt for many years with seniors before Part D began and after.

It is a godsend for seniors-lets face it most people don’t save enough for their old age. some drugs can be hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

if your relativly healthy you can survive old age without drug coverage.

but if your not prices can be the killer.

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Anyone else notice that coming off of the 2010 midterms, many were chest thumping here and talking about how they “would not settle for the lesser of two evils,” but now that it’s coming down to that, this is exactly what they are trying to justify?

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM

We talk about “social conservatives” and “fiscal conservatives” without discussing what they actually want to “conserve.” Is the “constitutional conservative” an extinct breed?

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Nobody seems to understand this.
I weep for the loss of this Republic. It died out in the early 1900s from what I can tell.

This scumbag is comparing consensual sex acts between adults to incest, sodomy, and bestiality, for Christ’s sake. This guy wants to dictate how you should live. This is the quintesential evil.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Never mind my question on my other post. I just discovered you get your facts from Wikipedia, of all places. Enough said.

Btw, strange what you will describe as “evil”.

Woe to you who call good, evil, and evil, good.

Sterling Holobyte on January 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I may not agree that Santorum is a scumbag. But, is it not evil behavior, even if you’re being sweet & nice when you engage in it, to steal a person’s property and liberty from them?
I find that behavior disguised evil.
We used to call these people nosy busybody do-gooders.
And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And isn’t hell an evil place?

Badger40 on January 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I think Obama would win in a landslide. Indies will run from Santorum, once they realize how much of a social ideologue he is. His extreme homophobia won’t play well at all.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

some drugs can be hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

if your relativly healthy you can survive old age without drug coverage.

but if your not prices can be the killer.

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 3:23 PM

I understand. My grandmother has benefitted.
But I think we need to take a look at WHY drugs are expensive.
I’ll wager it has quite a lot to do with the federal government.

Badger40 on January 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM

You can wax as poetic as you want about Santorum’s Catholicism, but the man voted for the bridge to nowhere, and just about every other outrageous spending bill that came across his desk. He not only voted for them, but made sure to add a few earmarks of his own to fatten them up.

jan3 on January 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The more I hear from Santorum, from his own mouth, the more I like him. He is consistent and you are going to get exactly what you hear from him. Unlike Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, etc., you’re not going to get a different person after the election than you are before the election. To me, his honesty and integrity to his beliefs is refreshing. Maybe it’s because I’m Catholic…but I’m a converted Catholic so it’s possible others may convert too.

HoosierStateofMind on January 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Yup.

Here is the simple thing: this election is about the size, scope and power of the US federal government.

We currently have an authoritarian government turning into a tyrannical and totalitarian government.

I’m not looking for Saints.

Someone with a clue… yes, that is necessary to get my vote.

Not enough cluebats are being distributed, it appears.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM

I’m not looking for Saints.

Someone with a clue… yes, that is necessary to get my vote.

Not enough cluebats are being distributed, it appears.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM

As much as I refuse to accept the results of a process I don’t participate in (which is why this will be my first presidential primary in 16 years), I don’t trust any of the current field. None of them. I have no faith at all that anything important will change in any meaningful way post-2012.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:31 PM

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:31 PM

What’s the sign over the country store cash register? In God We Trust, All Other Pay Cash.

How can I trust people to do something they have never done before, never tried to do before, never attempted to do before and only know to talk up a good game? You can’t.

Now I have to look for someone unafraid to do the right thing.

Damn I’ve run out of candidates to vote for.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Hollywood, gays and the mainstream media are going to gather together like the perfect storm to destroy Santorum. They hate him. He’s the poster boy for homophobia and religious bigotry as far as they’re concerned and they will savage him like no other. The GOP abandoned Herman Cain after a just few unsubstantiated accusations of adultery. How fast do you think they’re gonna abandon Santorum once the NYT, Letterman, Jon Stewart and Lady Gaga begin the daily assault?

jan3 on January 5, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Now I have to look for someone unafraid to do the right thing.

Damn I’ve run out of candidates to vote for.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM

We live in interesting times, don’t we?

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Where is the right to privacy?

Okay, suppose that a right to privacy is not explicitly spelled out in the constitution. Fine.

Getting back to specifics of the one issue that I’ve raised (they’ll be more but for now I’ll stick with the homophobia). Santorum is an extreme bigoted homophobic. He wears it like a cachet. I am not okay with that. And I am not okay with regulating sex acts between consenting adults. To influence behavior is one thing, to impose it is another, and imposing behavior in the bedroom is as intrusive as it gets.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Okay, suppose that a right to privacy is not explicitly spelled out in the constitution. Fine.

Getting back to specifics of the one issue that I’ve raised (they’ll be more but for now I’ll stick with the homophobia). Santorum is an extreme bigoted homophobic. He wears it like a cachet. I am not okay with that. And I am not okay with regulating sex acts between consenting adults. To influence behavior is one thing, to impose it is another, and imposing behavior in the bedroom is as intrusive as it gets.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

In fairness to Rick Santorum, I haven’t seen any behavior on his part to my knowledge that I would consider proof-positive that he would try to regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults at the federal level. The question then becomes, if the federales do not have the constitutional authority to regulate such behavior, can the states? I think that Santorum would be doing a lot better if he would cite the constitution as the bedrock of his governing philosophy, which he has utterly failed to do.

A promise to abide by the constitution along with showing an understanding of what the constitution actually means would go a long way in convincing voters such as myself that Santorum is worth voting for. I’m not sold yet.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:49 PM

We live in interesting times, don’t we?

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM

We sure do…

Canned goods secured.

Guns? Yes… need a few more for variety but just that, the basics are ready.

Ammo? Lotsa, lotsa.

Gold? If you need gold its because you aren’t ready to start making things. I got tools and skill. When you need to buy something I’ll take your gold for it, tyvm. Plus I got guns and ammo.

Hell I even have a couple years of meds stockpiled now.

Now tell me what is actually GOOD about a candidate and I might, just, vote for them. Don’t tell me about how they are ever so thrifty with an authoritarian government. That is a no-vote from me.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Forget the “sexual acts” part of this argument for a moment, because that causes all kinds of other issues to come into play that make the debate more heated. Let’s just deal with the “right to privacy” in general, if we can.

Those on here who preach the more libertarian version of conservatism, and who dismiss us social conservatives as not true conservatives, constantly preach about the need to stick strictly to the Constitution and follow it exactly, which I agree with.

So please tell me where in the text of the Constitution — not an interpretation of it by a court such as in Roe v. Wade — the right to privacy is mentioned. We have mention of numerous rights the government is obligated to protect. Heck, we have an entire portion of the Constitution known as the “Bill of Rights” for just that reason. Those rights are detailed explicitly and specifically.

Where is the right to privacy?

Shump on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Just because a right isn’t enumerated textually, explicitly and specifically, it doesn’t mean it’s not constitutionally protected. In any case, the First Amendment grants the right to privacy of beliefs. The 3rd and 4th, privacy of home and possessions.

Social conservatives can be or not be true conservatives. Was the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, strongly supported by many Catholics priest and bishops, conservative? Is Castro’s regime conservative? In fact, many communist regimes were socially conservative. Just like you have plenty of democrats who are socially conservative.

If you believe that there is no right to privacy, that politicians have the right to interfere with your personal autonomy to enforce a certain worldview, then you aren’t a conservative. Regardless of how socially conservative you are.

Btw, it’s quite bizarre to read social conservatives arguing there’s no constitutional right to privacy. That was the argument made by progressives on their attempts to close religious and parochial schools (see Pierce v Society of Sisters).

The problem with social conservatives who don’t adopt a more libertarian stance about the role of the government is one of short-sightedness.

joana on January 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Gee, who woulda thunk that Santorum has a long record of supporting anti-gun legislation and politicians.”

How nice.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Good grief, do you really think that Santorum is going to make regulating sex acts the hill upon which he plants his flag and die polictically to defend? Really? Give me a break. There is no politician or political party who will ever be able to overturn R v W, at least not in my lifetime. And states can pass whatever marriage laws they like. So do you really think there is a serious politician who really cares what you do in your bedroom and would try to pass laws to regulate sexual activity in this day and age? Having an opinion and actually sponsoring or proposing legislation are two different things. Please do stop taking yourself so seriously!

GeorgiaBuckeye on January 5, 2012 at 4:00 PM

So do you really think there is a serious politician who really cares what you do in your bedroom and would try to pass laws to regulate sexual activity in this day and age?

Yes, and his name is Rick Santorum.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Where is the right to privacy?

Shump on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Amendments IX and X.

In case those ‘penumbra’ thingies get put out in a slight wind.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Santorum has frequently stated that he does not believe a “right to privacy” exists under the Constitution, even within marriage; he has been especially critical of the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which held that the Constitution guaranteed the aforementioned right, and on that basis, overturned a law prohibiting the sale and use of contraceptives.[80] He has described contraception as “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”[81]

Culled from Rick Santorum’s Wikipedia page

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

We used to call these people nosy busybody do-gooders.
And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And isn’t hell an evil place?

Badger40 on January 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

We still call these people ‘nosy busybody do-gooders’. That’s exactly what Santorum is and it scares the hell out of me. I’m Catholic and, other than his anti-abortion stance which I obviously agree with completely, I see absolutely nothing Catholic at all about Santorum. All I see is an anti-individualist control freak who wants to tell others how they can live. And is willing to use the force of government to do so.

Nelsen on January 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Good grief, do you really think that Santorum is going to make regulating sex acts the hill upon which he plants his flag and die polictically to defend? Really? Give me a break. There is no politician or political party who will ever be able to overturn R v W, at least not in my lifetime. And states can pass whatever marriage laws they like. So do you really think there is a serious politician who really cares what you do in your bedroom and would try to pass laws to regulate sexual activity in this day and age? Having an opinion and actually sponsoring or proposing legislation are two different things. Please do stop taking yourself so seriously!

we trust santorum as much as you trust Romney

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I’m Catholic and, other than his anti-abortion stance which I obviously agree with completely, I see absolutely nothing Catholic at all about Santorum.

Nelsen on January 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Given the pope’s stance on OWS, you’d better rethink your Catholicism if you really believe that.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Early on, I was liking Pawlenty till he flamed out.

I’ve been sniffing around at the candidates since then.

Just decided that Santorum passed the test and sent him $15.

Good luck, Rick. You’re going to need it.

Deafdog on January 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Having conservative social values is not the same thing as being ideologically conservative. That means seeking to preserve the ideology of limited government laid out in the Constitution, the declaration of independence, and the bill of rights. “Social” concervatives need to wake up and realize that promoting big government intervention simply enables progresivism. Why is that hard to understand?

Resolute on January 5, 2012 at 6:05 PM

How would he play to indies?

brhoton on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Not very well, I suspect. Can’t find a fresh poll, but there are dozens of websites with claims that Romney will run much better against Obama with Independents.

IMO, Santorum comes off as a whiny, one-issue, social conservative, but with a weirdly overcompensating and aggressive military hawk tone, as well. Both of these positions seem to be very badly out of touch with the electorate right now.

Jaibones on January 5, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Laura Ingraham is doing the same (shilling for Romney)

KBird on January 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

..and are all of the people here telling us that The RWD (Santorum) is the second coming of Reagan shilling for him? Again, no partial credit issued. Show your work.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Ii difference being, we here are not being PAID to voice our opinions, whereas she IS.

mom29js on January 5, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Oops…. *The* difference being…

mom29js on January 5, 2012 at 9:42 PM

So let me get this straight…libertarians & those who call themselves “Constitutional conservatives” would rather put the inspiration for ObamaCare….the single largest DUMP on the Constitution and individual liberty in our nation’s history….you’d rather install Romney in the WH than Santorum because Santorum is too socially conservative for you? Really?!?! Like an earlier poster said, “What planet do you live on?”

We need to stop whining about Santorum’s social conservatism and get behind the ONLY candidate still standing who will help overturn ObamaCare. That should be our #1 PRIORITY! Once we get that monkey off our backs, THEN we can address other Constitutional issues like earmarks, entitlements, right to privacy, etc. Because if we don’t get rid of ObamaCare first, our nation is toast and the earmark/entitlement/right to privacy issues are moot.

mom29js on January 5, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Rush speaks out on “Big Gov”

PuritanD71 on January 5, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Rush speaks out on “Big Gov”

PuritanD71 on January 5, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Sorry here is the link http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/04/mantra_santorum_is_a_big_government_conservative

Have not figured out the “link” yet but the old copy/paste does work

PuritanD71 on January 5, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2