Romney going back after Santorum on earmarks

posted at 9:50 am on February 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Don’t think that Mitt Romney didn’t notice the Rick Santorum hat trick on Tuesday, despite his protestations that those races didn’t amount to much anyway. His team seems to have executed a ballet like pivot in only 24 hours, abandoning his attacks on Newt Gingrich and training his sights on the former Pennsylvania Senator. For those of use lashed to the presidential press train, this quickly became apparent in our e-mail in boxes. I awoke this morning to find a love note from Mitt, once again proclaiming his bona fides as a “Washington outsider” and leading with the following graphic.

Rick Santorum Went To Washington

The text which followed was a link rich list of media bites, hammering Santorum relentlessly on his alleged history as a big government spender, going so far as to borrow a quote from Will Rogers, saying that Rick “never met an earmark he didn’t like.”

Santorum Voted To Add Trillions To The National Debt As Spending Soared During His Time In Washington:

“Santorum Acknowledged Voting To Raise The Federal Debt Ceiling At Least Five Times While In Congress.” (Charles Babington, “Gingrich Defends His Attacks,” The Associated Press, 1/15/12)

Federal Spending Increased By Roughly 80% During Santorum’s Tenure In The Senate. In 1995, Santorum’s first year in the Senate, federal spending was approximately $1.516 trillion. By 2007, when Santorum left the Senate, spending had increased to approximately $2.729 trillion. (“Fiscal Year 2012 Historical Tables Of The U.S. Government,” Office of Management and Budget, 2/14/11)

Santorum Brought Over $1 Billion In Pork-Barrel Spending Back To Pennsylvania. “In all, Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated, Mr. Santorum helped secure more than $1 billion in earmarks during his Senate career, which stretched from 1995 through 2006.” (Michael Luo and Mike McIntire, “Donors Gave As Santorum Won Earmarks,” The New York Times, 1/15/12)

Club For Growth: “Santorum Was A Prolific Supporter Of Earmarks, Having Requested Billions Of Dollars For Pork Projects In Pennsylvania While He Was In Congress.” (“2012 Presidential White Paper #4: Former Senator Rick Santorum,” Club For Growth, 6/6/11)

That’s just a taste of the laundry list contained in the note, with plenty more following. But the message from the Romney camp seems to be clear in two regards. First, they are absolutely taking Santorum seriously now, and the contest in Missouri ran up a big red flag as to what could happen if Newt changed his mind and bowed out, leaving Mitt in what would effectively be a two man race against the long dreaded, but never fully defined, single “Not Mitt” candidate. It wasn’t pretty.

Second, Romney knows that attacking Santorum from the left for being “too conservative” on any social issues would be an absolute disaster and very likely sink his chances. Rick also lacks the depth of “baggage” that Newt has, so it’s hard to claim he’s an easy target for Team Obama on that front. So his best – and possibly only – avenue of attack is to try to paint Santorum as a big spending, big government, earmark loving Republican who can’t be trusted to keep a tight hold on the national purse. Expect to see a lot of Romney cash dumped into precisely that message from now until Super Tuesday, as well as a highlight of the Feb. 22nd debate.

EDIT: (Jazz) Yes,that should have been Will Rogers. I guess I was just hungry when writing it…


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 3 4

Romney is pro abortion how exactly?

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:41 AM

ABC has reported:

Romney Attended Planned Parenthood Fundraiser in 1994.

ABC also reported that that event

“was the occasion where Ann Romney wrote her $150 check — drafted on a joint checking account she had with her husband — to Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.”

Yes, there is a smoking checkbook.

“At the time, Romney, R-Mass., was locked in a tight Senate campaign with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and was touting his support for abortion rights.”

Emperor Norton on February 9, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I’d rather have Ned Flanders than Mr. Burns.
Norky on February 9, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Excellent.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:40 AM

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 10:53 AM
But what *is* it, then?

A moby? A Ronulan??
Or maybe just a Mitt-wit?

Number34 on February 9, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Gotta give me time, I’m new at this…I’m working on it.

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Santorum is pretty clean and this must be driving Romney to distraction, since politics of personal destruction is his only modus. It was hilarious to see Romney reach for his blue collar roots in his Denver speech. Can you believe it! His dad did something with aluminum paint, a regular Tin Man. There are no limits to Romney’s panderability.

kenny on February 9, 2012 at 11:42 AM

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I would be shocked to find out that you do support Obamacare. My point was that your argument is the exact same one used by those who do:

Now what they did in the privacy of their own bedrooms affects the populace who has to pay for it.

I actually agree with you on the government part of this:

I don’t support 3rd party paying (government or private insurance) as beneficial to our health system.

but thanks to Reagan that ship has sailed and ain’t never coming back. So now what are you going to do about it?

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:44 AM

It would be an unusual legislator who never voted to spend any money. It would be an unusual governor who never signed a spending bill. We can play this silly finger pointing game until the general public thinks all the Republican candidates make Santa Claus look like Ebenezer Scroog. The truth is the legislature will determine more of the actual budget details than the President. If the GOP controls the House and the Senate, any of these Republican candidates will have reduced spending from the level we are at now.

KW64 on February 9, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Do you seriously want to argue that years spent in the senate are better preparation to be president than years spent in high level leadership roles in the private sector?

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Neither are necessarily indicators of how good or how poor they will perform as a President. We have had business leaders become President and for the most part they have been ho-hum. One even managed to precipitate the great depression. We have had a few Senators become president and again for the most part they have been ho-hum.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 AM

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Fair enough, point taken.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:49 AM

So his best – and possibly only – avenue of attack is to try to paint Santorum as a big spending, big government, earmark loving Republican who can’t be trusted to keep a tight hold on the national purse.

I never understand why certain politicians think we the voters have dementia??? Mittens has the gall and apperently the straight face to send this out after he passed the mother of all big government spending bills ever…Romneycare? Yeah Mitty we really are going to take you seriously on this …dream on…

CCRWM on February 9, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Why was Santorum so emphatically campaigning for Romney back in ’08 but says he is now unelectable? Seems a bit odd to me.

leftophobe on February 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Are you not old enough to remember the state of the SLC Olympics before he took over? He certainly rose up and slew the leviathan of international corruption that was the established culture of the Olympic games.
gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Ummmmmmm Yes. In fact I lived right next door.
Mitt might have deleted the thieves among his clan, but he is, after all, a “saint”.
How many “mud people” (Blacks) did Mittens purge from the ranks?
None because Blacks were not allowed to hold ANY positions of authority among “latter-day saints”.
Mormons are the most racist clan on the planet.
History is hard apparently.
The “baptism” of dead Jews is downright hilarious and hateful.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:44 AM

That is fatalism at its best. If it is true that we can’t change the health care debate then why are we even discoursing about who would be a better president for our nation. Might as well leave Obama in and let what is, be.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Karl Magnus on February 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Watch out. Your stupidity is showing. You may want to button up.

leftophobe on February 9, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Are you not old enough to remember the state of the SLC Olympics before he took over? He certainly rose up and slew the leviathan of international corruption that was the established culture of the Olympic games.
gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

He didn’t blaze that trail he walked one blazed by the Atlanta Summer games. The Atlanta Summer games operated at a large profit that is still benefiting amateur athletics through the AAF today.
That doesn’t take away from what he did with SLC.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM

That is fatalism at its best. If it is true that we can’t change the health care debate then why are we even discoursing about who would be a better president for our nation. Might as well leave Obama in and let what is, be.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I don’t ask what you’re going to do about it to be fatalist, but out of curiosity. Do you seriously think there is a chance in hell of EMTALA being repealed or even significantly changed?

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM

He didn’t blaze that trail he walked one blazed by the Atlanta Summer games. The Atlanta Summer games operated at a large profit that is still benefiting amateur athletics through the AAF today.
That doesn’t take away from what he did with SLC.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I’m glad you added that last sentence because implementing good working policy and procedure is certainly something he should be credited for.

leftophobe on February 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM

gotsig
FYI: I am not a supporter of any of the current candidates. I actually appreciate posters like you who are passionate, honest and generally civil about the candidates they support. Thanks for the conversation.
I was a bit uncivil with you and wish to apologize for that.

Got to get ready and go to the office.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Do you seriously think there is a chance in hell of EMTALA being repealed or even significantly changed?

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Given the way government works at this point no. I believe based on watching the government since 1972 we will not see any game altering changes until the last lender says no. Then every thing will change in a far harsher and crueler manner.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Wealthofnations

Romney the fiscal guy could not seem to escape the gov. trough. Mitt Romney – took $1.5B earmarks for Olympics, SenJohnMcCain said it was a “shell game of the greatest magnitude.”

One factoid you seem to like to overlook is the money used to help “off-set” the costs to Romneycare in which Mitt is all in on. That’s right FEDERAL funding, lots of it.

Mitt Romney has nothing to show for being fiscally conservative. How does supporting TARP demonstrate fiscal creed. It is just the opposite.

Romney did not fight his legislature when he could. He never fought for “conserv” judges; he buckled. Why do you think he wanted to be Gov. of Mass anyway?

He never spoke against top-down government run HC, which is the biggest financial flop in our country.

PuritanD71 on February 9, 2012 at 12:08 PM

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Agreed and thank you. Don’t work too hard – I obviously am not today :-).

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Only Rick Santorum and a bunch of evangelist aholes anyone who believes an unborn baby is a human life believe that a rape victim should have to carry a product of the rape to full term.

xxessw on February 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM

FIFY.

Shump on February 9, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Boy, has Donald Trump become a Fox News member? I can’t turn on the channel without his mug glaring back and snarling at us for allowing Santorum’s victories in the midwest. Give the clown more free air time and let Romney spend his millions slandering Rick. The more people are exposed to Romney and his “friends”, the more appealing Rick Santorum is. Even the odious, Karl Rove was on this morning shilling for his boy, Romney. Gloating how Santorum will never get the delegates he needs. Of course not, the republican establishment has already rigged the primaries just in case. Virginia and D.C. have upcoming primaries and Santorum has been disqualified from both. So how convenient that Romney’s money allows him to be in these primaries but disqualifies the next President of the United States, Rick Santorum. It’s a disgrace! But it will be worth it, when Santorum is sworn in, to see Coulter, Christie, Trump, McCains (Meghan and Dad), and Karl Roves’ heads explode! Sweet!!

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

This line of attack by the Romney campaign is accurate, consists of real substance, and desperately needs to be done. Santorum was a big porker when he was in the Senate.

This line is attack is welcome because it brings up the issue of spending, which hasn’t been discussed much during the campaign so far.

It forces both candidates to the right on this very issue.

JB-STLMO on February 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM

…Santorum will never get the delegates he needs. Of course not, the republican establishment has already rigged the primaries just in case. Virginia and D.C. have upcoming primaries and Santorum has been disqualified from both. So how convenient that Romney’s money allows him to be in these primaries but disqualifies the next President of the United States, Rick Santorum.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

So let me get this straight – in order to be qualify for the primary in VA you had to pay a certain amount of money that only Romney and Paul had?

Couldn’t possibly be that the criteria for getting on the ballot was published well in advance and Santorum just didn’t get the work done to qualify…

Making excuses and playing the blame game are for liberals.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I used to enjoy watching Greta, but his nightly visits have caused me to avoid her show.

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Yeah, Santorum sucks! Next thing you know, he’s going to say he’s not that concerned about the poor and that Obamacare will never be repealed!

Nethicus on February 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Gingrich and Santorum are big spending, big government candidates, where is the falsehood in that? ITS TRUE, they were that way in Congress.

Top_Down on February 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Priceless Big Dig (Mitt) biggest waste of taxpayer money mostly diverted to unions/democrats saying Rick spent too much. I have seen estimates that over 50% of the money for this was diverted straight into the coffers of Unions and their friends.

Of course this is just one example Mitt raised spending like crazy as Governor. Romney care added a huge cost mostly the hidden tax of higher insurance premiums citizens were forced to buy but also a huge cost in medicare we all pay. Yes we all pay for Romney Care.

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

So let me get this straight – in order to be qualify for the primary in VA you had to pay a certain amount of money that only Romney and Paul had?

Couldn’t possibly be that the criteria for getting on the ballot was published well in advance and Santorum just didn’t get the work done to qualify…

Making excuses and playing the blame game are for liberals.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM

They should not be penalized because they did not have the funds to qualify for the primaries. Only Romney and Paul did as millionaires. Now we have 4 very qualified candidates who should be included especially with the importance of this election. Or would you rather it just goes to the highest bidder? That seems very democrat-like.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Willard increased the rate of spending in MA by higher rates than his Republican and Democratic predecessors. He was only outdone by his successor the hyper spender Devalued Patrick. As usual Willard is talking out his rear hole.

kingsmill on February 9, 2012 at 12:25 PM

They should not be penalized because they did not have the funds to qualify for the primaries. Only Romney and Paul did as millionaires. Now we have 4 very qualified candidates who should be included especially with the importance of this election. Or would you rather it just goes to the highest bidder? That seems very democrat-like.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Who and where did they send their checks to in order to get on the ballot? Exactly how much was the entry fee?

The ability to meet the criteria to get on the ballot is part of proving they are a “very qualified” candidate.

And by the way, all of the candidates (yes, even Santorum) are millionaires.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Who and where did they send their checks to in order to get on the ballot? Exactly how much was the entry fee?

The ability to meet the criteria to get on the ballot is part of proving they are a “very qualified” candidate.

And by the way, all of the candidates (yes, even Santorum) are millionaires.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM

That was then and this is now. Your logic is fine if this were American Idol or a country club application, but this election is much too important to let it go to someone by default. If Romney has nothing to fear, the Virginia republican party should open the primaries to all qualified candidates. Not just the richest.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM

They should not be penalized because they did not have the funds to qualify for the primaries.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

And I shouldn’t be penalized because I’m not 6′ 8″ and able to jump out of the gym. Give me some of Lebron’s money!!!!!

Life ain’t fair and only liberals think it should be.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Only Romney and Paul did as millionaires.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Newton Leroy is a millionaire as well and he’s not on the ballot in Virginia either. There goes the “rigged” establishment theory about the primaries.

Slainte on February 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM

<Life ain’t fair and only liberals think it should be.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM

I rest my case :-)

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM

…the Virginia republican party should open the primaries to all qualified candidates. Not just the richest.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM

They did. All qualified candidates met the criteria to be on the ballot. That is the definition of qualified.

And what does richest have to do with anything? Unless you can show where there was an entrance fee to get on the ballot.

Damn rich people – hate them all!

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Newton Leroy is a millionaire as well and he’s not on the ballot in Virginia either. There goes the “rigged” establishment theory about the primaries.

Slainte on February 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM

beg to differ, he ain’t in the top four last time I looked.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Why Rick Santorum lost his Senate Seat by double-digits:

* In 2004, while serving as a United States Senator, Rick Santorum claimed his legal address was a house in the Pittsburgh suburb of Penn Hills, which was immediately next door to the home of his wife’s parents. During the spring and summer of that year — in the leadup to the presidential election — Pittsburgh news crews started investigating whether or not Santorum really lived in the house he claimed as his Pennsylvania residence. Several of these “investigative reports” showed the Penn Hills “Santorum House” as abandoned, with an unkempt lawn, peeling paint, and junk mail piled up near the front door – as if no one had visited the house in many months. When the cameras peeked inside the house, viewers saw room after room empty of any furnishings; it was clear that the Santorum family did not live at that residence at all.

* The Pittsburgh media made a great stink over this, which quickly spread to average men and women on the street who became upset that Santorum didn’t really live at his “official residence”. The reason this really hit home with Pennsylvanians was because Santorum had railed against Congressman Doug Walgren for moving out of his own district and not maintaining a real residence there. Pennsylvanians hate hypocrisy — and that’s just what Rick Santorum was…a hypocrite…for haranguing Walgren for not living in his district when Santorum himself didn’t even live in the state of Pennsylvania anymore.

* Records ultimately showed that Santorum lived exclusively in a $600,000+ near-mansion in Virginia. This is another thing you need to understand about Pennsylvanians to appreciate just how damaging this was to Santorum. On paper, Santorum claimed his residence was a $90,000 modest house in a suburb of Pittsburgh, when in reality that house was abandoned and Santorum was REALLY living in a house six times as expensive in another state. Here in Chicago, $600,000 can’t buy you a big house, but in Pittsburgh it would land you a palace…so the people who heard about Santorum’s residency scam were enraged that he “abandoned the state” and “lied to his constituents” by living in what they perceived to be a mansion instead of the Penn Hills residence he claimed.

* After the 2004 election was over, Santorum very quietly tried to eliminate the appearance that his Penn Hills home was abandoned by renting it out to unnamed individuals. This didn’t solve the problem, but only made things worse, because the renters registered to vote using Santorum’s Penn Hills address. It’s a similar situation to what Rahm Emanuel found himself in when he rented out his Chicago home when he moved to Washington, only to later try to claim he still lived there — technically — when he wanted to run for Mayor of Chicago. Just like with Emanuel, Santorum was able to survive the residency challenge because he paid $2,000 worth of property taxes a year on his Penn Hills home and still held its deed…even though he hadn’t lived there in many years and had no intention of moving back there (at least not until the lease expired with the people he rented it to).

* The net effect of all this was an ingrained sense amongst Pennsylvanians that Rick Santorum couldn’t be trusted, was a slippery snake, and that the things he did “just weren’t right, even if they were legal”.

* The other shoe to drop in all of this was the question of where, exactly, Santorum’s children were living and who was paying for their education — the people of Pennsylvania or the people of Virginia. Even though Santorum’s family was clearly living in Virginia, Santorum was billing the state of Pennsylvania — and the Penn Hills School District in particular — around $40,000 per child to educate each of his five children in the “Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School”. After the Pittsburgh local news stations started showing viewers the tours of Santorum’s empty and abandoned Penn Hills home, irate citizens started demanding an investigation into the legality of Santorum charging the Penn Hills school district for the expensive education of five children who didn’t really live there, and instead were living in Virginia.

* Things got incredibly ugly as this was all hashed out in both the media and in the court of public opinion. Ultimately, Santorum yanked his kids out of the “Cyber Charter School” program and had his wife Karen start homeschooling them instead — but he refused to reimburse the state for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spent “cyber-schooling” the Santorum children while they lived in the state of Virginia. When confronted about any of this, Santorum became incredibly brittle on camera, lashing out at those who questioned him, and earning a solid reputation as an insufferable and impersonable jackass.

* A paperwork error on the part of the Penn Hills School District resulted in Santorum never having to reimburse the state for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in “cyber tuition” money, because the school district missed a deadline in filing their complaint.

* In 2006, whoever was renting the Santorums’ Penn Hills house was moved out and the place became abandoned and unoccupied again. During his Senate re-election campaign, Santorum claimed when confronted on the residency issue that he and his family were commuting back and forth to Pittsburgh every weekend and that he was spending “every holiday” in the Penn Hills home. But, the Pittsburgh news crews went there again and found the place unkempt and unfurnished, the same way it was back in 2004 the last time this issue arose. Instead of admitting he didn’t actually live in that Penn Hills house and was so stupid that he allowed this to blow up in his face again, Santorum just became brittle and angry at anyone who challenged him on it — resulting in more bad press coverage for him and more Pennsylvanians believing he was an emotionally unhinged liar.

* In one of the debates between Santorum and Bob Casey, the Democrat Senate nominee, in 2006, Santorum admitted that he only spent about 30 days or less in that Penn Hills home. To this day, he’s never had a good explanation for where he actually lived when he was a Senator representing Pennsylvania — or how he could have spent even one night in that house without furniture, electricity, food, or other things people expect to find in an occupied house.

I invite you to watch what happens when the agenda-driven media pushes Rick Santorum for answers related to any of this, in particular why he never reimbursed the state of Pennsylvania for the cost of his children’s education when they were all residents of the state of Virginia at the time.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM

That is fatalism at its best. If it is true that we can’t change the health care debate then why are we even discoursing about who would be a better president for our nation. Might as well leave Obama in and let what is, be.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM

According to a headline at Drudge, 20% of Republicans are doing just that.

Al-Ozarka on February 9, 2012 at 12:34 PM

<Life ain’t fair and only liberals think it should be.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM

I rest my case :-)

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM

So you are admitting to being a liberal? Good, case closed.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I was actually talking about the idiot factor. So you might want to reconsider your question :-)

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Huh? Don’t know where the defending Newt comes in. But if you haven’t heard of OMB, Club for Growth, NYTimes or the AP you’ve may want to get out of that rock.

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

The first AP article uses a “Newt defends his attack”, piece, because it contains this :

Former Sen. Rick Santorum said he does not support legalized abortions in cases of rape or incest. But he supports the death penalty, he said, because it does not involve “innocent life.”

Santorum acknowledged voting to raise the federal debt ceiling at least five times while in Congress. But he said he consistently worked to reduce federal spending and to make the government more efficient.

Yet, his team is too dumb to realize – the remainder of the piece brings up more negatives about Bain, romney – etc. They are lazy and desperate – consideirng you have to get through 2/3rds of it for Santorum’s paragraph. Again – this is the Romney camp poutting it out there…

I will bet $10,000 – no more than 2 out of 100 people can tell you who and what “Club for Growth” and “Taxpayers for Common Sense” is.

You do realize AP/NYT are media aggregates using these so-called household names as “the proof”

Its a pathetic and desperate cut and paste collage of anti-Santorum fluff – including a piece that hammers Romney himself, bring Bain back up.

So in typical deep pockets Romney – they spent a ton to get a myopic rate of return. At least these clowns are consistent.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Impending political ad against Santorum?

Back in 1990, when Santorum first ran for Congress, he attacked his Democratic opponent, Doug Walgren, for living in McLean, Virginia.


Here’s how Roll Call described a 1990 Santorum television ad:

“Santorum’s spot is the essence of simplicity. Strange music plays while a picture of an attractive white house is shown. The announcer says, ‘There’s something strange about this house.’


The reason is because Walgren lives in McLean, which is ‘the wealthiest area of Virginia’ rather than his suburban district.”

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:47 PM

He supports the death penalty because it does not involve “innocent life?”

Is he stupid? More than 200 innocent people have been freed from Death Row due to exoneration by DNA evidence. Some others have already been put to death. This is not a good argument to put to Conservatives; but the truth is the truth. And, here’s another truth: Death Penalty cases COST state taxpayers $Millions of dollars to prosecute, so it’s a huge burden on taxpayers. Conservatives are on the wrong side of this debate. I wish they’d get real and start advocating the CONSERVATIVE side of this issue.

That said, Santorum’s either a liar [my vote] or he’s stupid. I report, you decide.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:51 PM

This line of attack by the Romney campaign is accurate, consists of real substance, and desperately needs to be done.

Compared to what? Romneycare is the model for Obamacare, which will amount in an extra expenditure of trillions. Here you are whining about hundreds of thousands in earmarks.

Records ultimately showed that Santorum lived exclusively in a $600,000+ near-mansion in Virginia.

Santorum could afford it. The price is about 4 times his Senatorial salary. But that house was nothing much compared to Willard’s sprawling oceanfront estate in La Jolla, CA which he spent $12 million to buy, and now plans to quadruple the size of it.

Emperor Norton on February 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Does it matter that Rick Santorum’s wife lived with an ABORTIONIST–40 years her senior–throughout her 20s?

[P]rior to marrying her husband, Karen Santorum was involved in a live in relationship — with a much older man, and one who also provided abortions, on top of that. “In fact, her live-in partner through most of her 20s was Tom Allen, a Pittsburgh obstetrician and abortion provider 40 years older than she, who remains an outspoken crusader for reproductive rights and liberal ideals. Dr. Allen has known Mrs. Santorum, born Karen Garver, her entire life: he delivered her in 1960. ‘Karen was a lovely girl, very intelligent and sweet,’ says Allen…’Karen had no problems with what I did for a living…We never really discussed it.’”

Karen seemed to have little interest in eliminating a woman’s right to choose, either, according to the article. It’s that post-candidacy conversion for both Santorums that critics think should be a pertinent issue, and the reason why Karen’s progressive past should be discussed as a campaign issue.

On one hand, why does the views of a candidate’s wife have to be a campaign issue? Other than the initiatives and special projects a First Lady tends to take on, she wouldn’t be creating policy. Like a politician’s children, shouldn’t spouses be off limits?

On the other hand, the Santorums have made abortion a personal issue, tying restrictions back not just to their religious views, but also the times in their marriage that many people would consider abortions, but they did not, arguing that since they did not chose to terminate a pregnancy no one else should need to, either.

Maligning Mitt Romney for altering his views on abortion while giving Rick Santorum a pass on the very same thing is a big Conservative hypocrisy. Some of us–the honest conservatives among you–HATE THE HYPOCRISY, STUPID.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Emperor Norton on February 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM

It’s not about the size of the house; it’s about the fact that Santorum committed FRAUD.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:56 PM

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Weak tea.

It is very unreasonable to expect Senators who have a full time Washington DC to live away from their family. Thus nearly all move the family close to work. Rick did better than most he moved his family about half way to Washington DC. It is very likely he lived in wives parents home when visiting home.

It is one thing to think about being a Senator and often people think it will be much different than it really is. I mean many think Senators really only work about three days a week. The reality is it is more than that and this is only when the Senate is in Session not counting Committees.

It is really kind of stupid the way we do this but it is the way it is. I would prefer going back to having Senators chosen by the States legislator as it was originally set up. But for now Senators serve 12 or more years and it is unusual for them not to move to the DC area.

I see it as a pluss that Rick managed to have his kids still in a Penn school it means they would have studied Penn State history and interacted with children in Penn. Though not sure how this cyber-school worked.

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I invite you to watch what happens when the agenda-driven media pushes Rick Santorum for answers related to any of this, in particular why he never reimbursed the state of Pennsylvania for the cost of his children’s education when they were all residents of the state of Virginia at the time.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I have lived in PA all my life. That was NOT the deciding
factor in his Senate race. He was struggling all along thru
2006, and his opponent Robert Casey Jr. had tremendous name
recognition. In the Fall of that year he ran an ad that portrayed
Casey as a shady politician with ties to organized crime in Philly.
The commercial was a disaster, mainly because it was not true.
Also, because of the qaulity of it….it was cheaply made, and
looked like it. It had Desperation written all over it. In PA
registered Dems outnumber Repubs by a considerable margin. Casey
ran against BUSH, and the rest as they say, is History.

ToddPA on February 9, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Hey Emperor Norton:

It’s not about the size of the house; it’s about the fraud that Santorum committed while living in it.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Hey Todd:

Santorum lost by 17 in PA. It was about SOMETHING.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:59 PM

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:55 PM

I don’t have a problem with Gov. Romney changed his views but this is interesting. You want to go after wives? Could you supply the link, please? Oh and I believe Barbra Bush is pro-choice, she was a fine first lady.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Newton Leroy is a millionaire as well and he’s not on the ballot in Virginia either. There goes the “rigged” establishment theory about the primaries.

Slainte on February 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM

beg to differ, he ain’t in the top four last time I looked.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Hate to break it to you, but there are only four GOP candidates left and Newton Leroy Gingrich is one of them.

Slainte on February 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Philadelphia Jewish Voice on Santorum’s fraud and lies regarding his residence:

http://www.pjvoice.com/v12/12003home.html

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Were it not for losing to Kennedy, Romney would still be in Wash.

Oh and I believe Barbra Bush is pro-choice, she was a fine first lady.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

So is the younger Mrs. Bush and her daughters, and her husband, actually.

Schadenfreude on February 9, 2012 at 1:03 PM

It’s not about the size of the house; it’s about the fact that Santorum committed FRAUD.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Tone down the rhetoric. Fraud has a legal meaning. It was never proven in this case and in fact was investigated but never charged. Rick was cleared.

Blame the stupid system we have. A person can not live in two places at once unless you are filthy rich like Mitt. Very few Senators can afford two fully furnished family homes. Thus what Rick did was the norm. In fact Rick made attempts to stay closer to Penn. and even managed to have his kids still in a Penn school. Seems to me like an attempt to stay better informed on his state. Something that in a sane world would be applauded. But this is an insane Mitt/Saul Alinsky world. Mitt sure is into Saul Alinsky tactics. Guess he got friendly with him when he visited his fathers house all the time.

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

NEWSWEEK ran the article within the past 2 weeks. Try doing your own research.

Do I want to go after wives? Not on your life. However, I say again:

To malign Romney for altering HIS views on abortion–Ronald Reagan, a Democrat until he was 50, did the same thing–and at the same time give Santorum a pass–is HYPOCRISY. IN Santorum’s Congressional run, he didn’t take a strong stand on abortion; post-campaign, he did. But he clearly altered HIS views. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with people giving Santorum a pass on it, while not giving other candidates the same.

The appropriate argument to make here is: We’re ALWAYS GLAD when anyone comes around to a PRO-LIFE position on the issue.

I hate hypocrisy.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM

It’s not about the size of the house

Don’t tell me what your issue is. I think the issue is really that you’re a paid staffer somewhere for Willard, assigned to muddy the waters and create doubts in peoples’ minds about Santorum. Or you’d like to be. Or you’re a Moromon, feverishly defending another member of your hive.

Why did comments like yours just happen to show up now on Hot Air? I’ll tell you why. Because two weeks ago, you were busy attacking Gingrich with your copy-and-pastes.

Apparently the Willard campaign will continue to be loathesome, hateful, and destructive. Willard is trying to do to other Republicans what Bain capital did to struggling companies–destroy them with large sums of money.

No good will ever come in nominating Willard, much less voting for the guy. Your campaign is disgusting. If Santorum did something wrong, why isn’t he in jail? Why didn’t it bother you two weeks ago? Wasn’t Santorum running then, too? The more you post this nonsense, the more committed I am to “Not-Romney.”

Emperor Norton on February 9, 2012 at 1:12 PM

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM

You stole a paragraph of their work and failed to give them a link or credit and you want me to research? Interesting!

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Fraud is fraud. Words have meaning. Rhetoric is in the eye of the beholder here; I am telling you a fact.

It was PROVEN–it is an undisputed fact–that Santorum cost the PA district $40,000 a year for having his children enrolled in the school, which they did not attend because they actually LIVED IN VIRGINIA and attended school in that state.

It is an undisputed FACT that Santorum has never reimbursed the PA district.

You are incorrect that “Rick was cleared.” He was not “cleared.” He simply refused to reimburse the school district.

Speaking of overblown RHETORIC, here’s a good example, from a HYPOCRITE who styles himself a “conservative” but is really just a poseur:

But this is an insane Mitt/Saul Alinsky world. Mitt sure is into Saul Alinsky tactics. Guess he got friendly with him when he visited his fathers house all the time.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Were it not for losing to Kennedy, Romney would still be in Wash.

Oh and I believe Barbra Bush is pro-choice, she was a fine first lady.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

So is the younger Mrs. Bush and her daughters, and her husband, actually.

Schadenfreude on February 9, 2012 at 1:03 PM

And G H W Bush. The father of GW.

The Republican Party is the Stupid Party. We are so stupid we constantly let Democrats pretend to be Republicans and become President having hijacked out Party because they lie that they are actually conservative.

Regan was also a Democrat that pretended to be Conservative but he still did some very Democrat things. This is probably why he lost his first run at President as would Mitt. No one believes Mitt is actually conservative. He is most assuredly just as liberal as Obama. Their actual records are nearly identical. Government run Healthcare. Free contraceptives forced on the Catholic Church. Free Abortion on demand. Gay Marriage. Strict gun control. Much higher taxes (including taxes disguised as fees) and spending. Giving Unions special treatment. I can not think of a real difference other than State vs Federal but now Mitt wants to screw us at the Federal level like he screwed Mass at the state level.

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Gingrich and Santorum are big spending, big government candidates, where is the falsehood in that? ITS TRUE, they were that way in Congress.
Top_Down on February 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM

They ALL are.

My ruling is “off-setting” penalties. Ball goes back to the original line-of-scrimmage, repeat (whatever) Down. Start the play-clock.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Are you not old enough to remember the state of the SLC Olympics before he took over? He certainly rose up and slew the leviathan of international corruption that was the established culture of the Olympic games.
gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Great, he can be the president of the next Olympics…running America is not the Olympic games…if it was than Peter Ueberroth would be president.

right2bright on February 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM

It’s not about the size of the house; it’s about the fact that Santorum committed FRAUD.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Can you link us to where he was convicted of fraud?
No? Than why would you even think of that?
Tell us about your child molestation…see how that works?

right2bright on February 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM

No it was not proven. Period. His children attend the Cyber School every indication is they were attending and doing great in it and they did have to attend in person a few times a year which they did.

You home school your children when you have seven one disabled. I admire Rick and his wife caring/loving so many children.

This is much ado about nothing.

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Emperor Norton on February 9, 2012 at 1:12 PM

A paid staffer for Romney? A “moromon?” Just showed up here on “Hot Air?!”

You’re paranoid, aren’t you. emperor?

Been here a while–YEARS in fact. Just piped up because of the rank hypocrisy and denial regarding Rick Santorum; which, to steal an argument from the anti-Romney-bots, will “ONLY MAKE HIM STRONGER IN THE GENERAL!”

Oh, yeah, that. You see, my comment has riled a few tempers, clearly. What’s the matter? Can’t take the truth about your candidate? Well, you’d better be able to deal with these issues and arguments NOW, because believe me, they will come up in the general. And, judging from the indignant responses from the Hot Air Cult Bots around here, it’s really going to upset your little red wagons when it does. Too bad; it will come up. So, if you’re going to pick your candidate based on sound conservative principles, you’d better think about whether or not Rick Santorum really has ‘em; because you hypocrites are going to be the cause of Obama getting re-elected, and I resent the hell out of it. You’re so busy grasping at straws you can’t see the arguments against Santorum–any more than you could see the arguments against Cain or Newt. Unfortunately for you, those of us who aren’t ideologues can see those arguments quite clearly, and we know they are coming to a political ad near you.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 1:18 PM

The simplest way I can describe the history of the parties is that Republicans tend to support business and Democrats support labor. The Republicans dislike the social conservative people who use their party as a vehicle and Democrats love the social liberals who use their party as a vehicle. It’s an interesting and depressing dynamic.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM

You do not defend Mitt.

Why?

Instead you go Saul Alinsky on Santorum.

Of course I know why.

Mitt can NOT be defended. He is a huge liberal just like Obama.

Romney the newest version of Obama. Romney = Obama V2

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 1:29 PM

mountainaires

So how much are you paid to spam? All of your content was taken from lib sites.

Romney better have more than this.

Pathetic.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Well if Mitt wins it will mean we just have two factions of one Party. Mitt was against business which suffered greatly under Mitt. Mitt is in every way a hard core Democrat. What those of us on the hard right would call Communist.

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Santorum was mired in a residence controversy after stating that he spent only “maybe a month a year” at his Pennsylvania home.[82] Critics pointed out that Santorum himself had once denounced his former opponent U.S. Representative Doug Walgren for living away from his House district.[83] Critics also complained that Pennsylvania taxpayers were paying 80% of the tuition for five of Santorum’s children to attend an online “cyber school”–a benefit available only to Pennsylvania residents.[84] After the Penn Hills school district challenged the Santorum’s residency and billed Santorum $73,000, he withdrew the children from the cyber school, and suggested they were being used as political pawns by his opponents.[84]

In the November 7, 2006 election, Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, receiving 41% of the vote to Casey’s 59%, the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980[92] and the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever.[93]

On April 12, 2007, political action committee America’s Foundation, Highmark and a former Highmark vice president were fined by the Federal Election Committee for providing Santorum with corporate money for campaign fundraising events.[94] The problem had been reported by Highmark, which uncovered the matter during an internal review.

NOT reported by Santorum–who clearly knew about it–but by Highmark! I repeat: NOT reported by Santorum.

And, then there’s THIS:

Santorum’s 2004 endorsement of his Republican Senate colleague Arlen Specter over conservative Congressman Pat Toomey in the 2004 primary for Pennsylvania’s other senate seat. Many socially and fiscally conservative Republicans considered the Specter endorsement to be a betrayal of their cause.[96][97]

Wiki on Rick Santorum–with sources for you Cindy Munford.

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:33 PM

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM

You ramble too much. And nobody’s buying it.

I pose this question to everyone who goes full nut mode when talking about a candidate they support:

Do you think you are positively influencing anyone for your candidate? If not, reset or shut up.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM

A “moromon?”

Of course, I meant “Mormon.” But in your case, “Moron” is also an acceptable spelling.

Been here a while–YEARS in fact. Just piped up . .

Yes, of course. How lucky you are. You piped up just in time to defend Willard, the Republican party’s abortion of a candidate. You have been lurking and waiting for just the right opportunity to promote Willard, who has supported abortion, socialized medicine, and gun control. Some conservative you are!

So, if you’re going to pick your candidate based on sound conservative principles

Yes, and you have to go step by step.

Number one, Willard is pro-choice, for socialized medicine, and for gun control. So he is NOT a Conervative. Willard is eliminated. Now we go to step two. That means, as a conservative, I must choose between Gingrich and Santorum. That’s a tough choice. So far, it’s Gingrich but I’ve said I may change my mind.

The important thing is, it’s not Romney.

Emperor Norton on February 9, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 1:33 PM

I’ll vote for Gov. Romney, I’m hoping that he’s “trainable”.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Do moderators do anything about spammers on this site?

moutainires is definitely spamming. And he is probably being paid to do so. Is that allowed?

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM

try to paint Santorum as a big spending, big government, earmark loving Republican who can’t be trusted to keep a tight hold on the national purse.

No need to “paint” Santorum as such. That’s what he is. Plus, pro-unions, anti-right to work and anti-free trade.

He’s a pro-life far-left democrat.

If the GOP runs someone like Santorum, it’ll be worse than 1964. Obama can very well win 45 states.

joana on February 9, 2012 at 2:05 PM

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Well said… brilliant in fact. I stand with you and thank you.

leftophobe on February 9, 2012 at 2:05 PM

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM

As long as he is on topic and doesn’t put the same info on every thread he is fine. I have a bit of a problem with him not providing links to his quotes, fair use, but other than that he isn’t breaking any rules

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Santorum wrote the Welfare Reform Act and got it passed through the senate which saved the American taxpayer BILLIONS of dollars. Santorum also had a hand in cutting and balancing the federal budget in the 90′s.

Go ahead and smear all you want. Santorum took on Teddy Kennedy and Pat Moynihan and won. Romney and his kool aid drinkers don’t have a chance. You Romneybots better buckle up; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

As I said before, Rick is not Newt.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Rush is on a roll and pointed out the article in the National Journal that’s the main story on Drudge at the moment about how Rick is on a roll also. He’s laying out his philsophy and ideas and contrasting himself with Romney. I can’t wait to hear his speech at CPAC this weekend. On the flip side, Romney has some ‘splainin’ to do especially about that pesky contraception, birth control, abortion(?!) mandate on religious institutions he initiated in Romneycare and why the Obama administration is already singling that out.

mozalf on February 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The truly evil George Soros stated last week that “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between the J@ck@ss-In-Chief and RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite). Either Americans are really, really STUPID, or a lot of them have been infected by the RepublicRAT establishment with the dreaded LEMMING disease, MHIT-FOR-BRAINS!?!
To prove Evil George’s theory, note that Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) is utilizing Axelrod’s “Destroy Your Opponent” campaign strategy. Willard’s got NOTHING to run on, so the only way he can succeed is right out of the J@ck@ss-In-Chief’s playbook!?! WAY MORE SIMILARITIES than dissimilarities!!! America, PROTECT YOURSELVES FROM MHIT-FOR-BRAINS before you cast another vote!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I’ll vote for Gov. Romney, I’m hoping that he’s “trainable”.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Hey Cindy, you don’t have to answer but is he your first choice?

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Santorum has a proven record as a unreliable fiscal conservative. In fact, one of the worst. Anyone who claims he is such, is not only a liar, but a fool.

rubberneck on February 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Can he even win his home state? Oh wait…

rubberneck on February 9, 2012 at 2:37 PM

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM

No, but to be fair none of the choices are what I would like. I’m beginning to think such a person doesn’t exist.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Because “Social Conservatives” are a bunch of hypocrite liars. When you want government to be in people’s bedrooms and homes, you’re not conservative, you’re totalitarian. Thats why I stopped supporting the Tea Party. They went from “We want smaller government” to “We need government to make sure you live correctly”. I mean, WTF? No true republican should care who someone sleeps with, and no true Republican should care who someone marries. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you nor does it affect the populace. If you are worried about your families morals, then teach them what ever the hell you want. Thats not the governments job. If you think it is, then go ahead and be honest and support Obama forcing religious groups to sover contraceptives!

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I’m tired of this horse crap argument. If you want absolute libertarianism you’re advocating anarchy. The fact is the Gov’t has and must ‘legislate morality’. That’s what laws are. From murder to marijuana society makes determinations thru it’s government what is acceptable and what is not.

In the case of homosexuality, sodomy, gay marriage, and abortion, there are far more adverse effects(from them) than beneficial. It doesn’t matter that they’re ‘private’. They have consequences and they affect society negatively.

If you’re for even one single law that limits someone’s behavior then you cannot prop up the bar at some level subjective to your own whims.

In Rick Santorum’s case his bar is set according to the God he believes in. It does not change if he adhere’s to the Bible. At least with him you know what you’re getting. Someone else that believes in naturalism, humanism, evolution, etc etc etc cannot make that claim. Because at any time their subjective determination about what is ‘moral’ can and will change and you have a society burdened by a government with no moral foundation but the whims of it’s leadership.

That’s why we constitutionalists love the damned Constitution so much. It provides a bedrock. Nowhere in the Constitution does it claim that laws must be free of religious reasoning. It only prevents the governing bodies from establishing a national religion.

And please get off the ‘No True Scottsman” argument you sound like an @sshat.

StompUDead on February 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

No, but to be fair none of the choices are what I would like. I’m beginning to think such a person doesn’t exist.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I agree, I’ve got a bad cold no energy for this today. Think I’ll take a nap before the kids get home.

Interesting article I read today (wapo)? it was linked from another site, but it was talking about a possible Romney/Paul connection. Things that make you go hmmm…
ttfn

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 2:45 PM

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 2:45 PM

While I have no problem with Rep. Paul, I don’t see that as helpful to Gov. Romney. Not that he shouldn’t cultivate his supporters. I’m sorry you aren’t feeling tip top, I hope the rest will make you feel perkier.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Colatteral Damage on February 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Not a single defense of Mitt on this thread.

Saul Alinsky tactics only.

Vote Mitt a great choice for the Democrats in the Republican Party. He is the same as Obama. So vote for him then we win no matter the coin toss of the election.

Steveangell on February 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM

mountainaires on February 9, 2012 at 12:55 PM

I don’t have a problem with Gov. Romney changed his views but this is interesting. You want to go after wives? Could you supply the link, please? Oh and I believe Barbra Bush is pro-choice, she was a fine first lady.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Cindy, if the Romney campaign is already going after Mrs. Santorum’s actions of 20 years ago, then they’ve alredy lost. The more predatory stuff like this, the more voters will be turned off by it. Unlike against Gingrich, Romney is already way behind in the likability battle with Santorum, and this will backfire VERY badly.

P.S. Mrs. Santorum did date a much older doctor who performed abortions. It’s even weirder – this was the doctor who delivered her when he was 40 (they dated when she was 20 – do the math). Notice that the attackers usually leave the rest of the details out; personally, I think the story says a lot more about the doctor than about her. A doctor who dates a girl he delivers is really, really high on the eww gross scale.

AJsDaddie on February 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Mrs. Santorum’s actions of 20 years ago 30 years ago when she was in her 20s

fixed it for myself…

AJsDaddie on February 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM

AJsDaddie on February 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Whenever someone goes to the trouble to copy and paste a paragraph from a story but neither links or notes the source, it says all you need to know about the story and the person. The one thing we can be sure of, both the commenter and the original article were meant to minimize Sen. Santorum and I am sure it accomplished the goal on some level. Seems a touch desperate.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM

The one thing we can be sure of, both the commenter and the original article were meant to minimize Sen. Santorum and I am sure it accomplished the goal on some level. Seems a touch desperate.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Perhaps, but I think the people who would be swayed by that article would probably be swayed by anything. On the other hand, those who are trying to make an honest choice between two people may find the negative posturing very distasteful – I mean, really, who doesn’t have some youthful indiscretions?

AJsDaddie on February 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

AJsDaddie on February 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Gov. Romney needs to be careful. Not that he has much control over his most zealous admirers but he doesn’t need go on another mission of character destruction of his opponents.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

As long as he is on topic and doesn’t put the same info on every thread he is fine. I have a bit of a problem with him not providing links to his quotes, fair use, but other than that he isn’t breaking any rules

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I believe this is the link to the quote in question. There’s a blog that has the quote as well, but it refers to this one as the original. http://www.care2.com/causes/does-it-matter-that-rick-santorums-wife-used-to-live-with-an-abortion-provider.html

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Really interesting stuff about Santorum and fraud allegations didn’t know much of that. I knew he lost by a huge margin when up for reelection and I guess I know why now. It still amazes me to watch the social conservatives relentlessly attack Romney for some questionable financial decisions and policies while being governor of Massachusetts but gives Santorum a complete pass on his earmarks, big spending and anti right to work policies. You really think Santorum can win just because he’s very religious? I hope you’re not banking on the evangelical vote bailing him out as most Catholics I know arew unabashed socialists and populists and will probably turn around and voted for Obama in November when he reverses the contraception mandate.

1984 in real life on February 9, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 4:13 PM

So does it matter? About his wife? Always good to link the source, I’m sure the original commenter appreciates it.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Gov. Romney needs to be careful. Not that he has much control over his most zealous admirers but he doesn’t need go on another mission of character destruction of his opponents.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

First Mittens is wimpy- critics say “No way wil he attack oblamer”- NOW he’s got to “dial it back” and be more- shall I say – civil? Make up my mind here.
.
AGAIN- Whatever Mittsy does, Herr Axelcrud and LSM team media propaganda will do 10X worse. And THEY actually will get away with their lying.

FlaMurph on February 9, 2012 at 4:53 PM

FlaMurph on February 9, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Yes, yes, Gov. Romney is terribly put upon, bless his heart.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2012 at 4:31 PM

No, it doesn’t matter in the least. Didn’t matter before I found the liberal web site that it came from either. One thing’s for certain, Romney has an army of vicious henchmen out there, more than willing to do his dirty work.

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4