Although he didn’t mention Rick Santorum by name, Mitt Romney emphasized in his speech last night that he was the only candidate in the race who was not a Washington insider. Santorum was dismissive of Romney’s outsider claim this morning, reports The Hill:
“Gov. Romney, ‘Mr. Outsider,’ was for government takeover of healthcare, was for government takeover of the private sector in the Wall Street bailout, and was for the government takeover of industry and energy with cap-and-trade,” Santorum said on CNN. “So ‘Mr. Private Sector’ was ‘Mr. Big Government’ when he was out there running.”
…
Santorum blasted Romney for running as a Washington outsider, alleging that the circumstances that led Romney to leave government were different from how they have been portrayed.
“I ran for the U.S. Senate the same year Mitt Romney ran for the U.S. Senate, and I won,” Santorum said. “It’s not that Gov. Romney didn’t want to be Sen. Romney — he wanted to be Sen. Romney, but he ran as a very liberal Republican in Massachusetts who had just become a Republican, and he lost. He lost badly in a year when Republicans had one of the biggest Republican sweeps in history, when the Republican revolution occurred.”
And on Fox this morning, Santorum responded to the Romney campaign’s attacks on his earmark record. “He says I earmark. He’s for the biggest earmark in the history of the country — he’s for the Wall Street bailout,” Santorum said, per GOP12.
Hammer time. It's a wonder it's taken this long. I guess he now thinks he has a chance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTARP wasn't an earmark. Just sayin'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSemantics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was a heck of a lot bigger than an earmark, which I think is the point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's as may be, but it's not an earmark. Earmarks are legislative bribes to congressmen so they can bring pork back to their states in exchange for their votes on other pieces of legislation.
TARP may be a hugely unpopular thing, but also remember at the time fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan reluctantly supported it because they felt it was necessary.
None of that excuses Santorum's earmarks. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEarmarks are also constitutional and help rein in the power of the executive branch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, especially when "the Executive Branch" doesn't want to widen a highway that leads to a piece of real estate a congressman's brother just bought on the cheap and wants to develop into a subdivision.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo it comes to who is more representative of the nation's will, the House of Representatives or the President. Historically, this would have been an easy choice, but since we now have one representative per 700,000 Americans, our house is hardly representative anymore. This is an are where I agree strongly with Jonah Goldberg:
External Link
We also need to change to a voting system which allows for third-parties and doesn't punish someone for voting his conscience, such as IRV.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs opposed to what? A legislative bribe paid out to General Motors? TARP (and the stimulus that followed) was nothing but a massive transfer of wealth to Democrat constituencies combined with a nationalization of the US banking system. No "toxic assets" we're purchased...banks were purchased.
The nature of TARP made it a nationwide pork barrel program. We got robbed blind.
I do think it is unfair to judge pols by whether they "supported" TARP. By its original plan, TARP was a reasonable approach to a very big crisis, and was smaller than the S&L bailout. The issue with TARP was and is the use of that money for things it was not legally authorized to be used for...something Bush/Paulson started, and Obama expanded upon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease get your facts straight on TARP and the stimilus. The first was designed to prevent a breakdown of the global banking system. The money was paid back. The second was a Keynsian attempt to get the economy moving and its money was directed to companies by Obama. Romney supported bankruptcy for the auto companies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGM was bailed out using TARP money. TARP money was not used to buy toxic assets as the original legislation required. President Bush signed an executive order in Dec 08 that essentially "rewrote" the TARP legislation giving Paulson authority to use TARP money for whatever was needed. At the time, it was decided it would be better to buy preferred stocks in the crippled banks rather than the so-called "toxic assets". WE BOUGHT BANKS. The "repayment" of TARP yielded a profit as the share prices of the banks improved. Although the government's share of those banks has declined in terms of total ownership, I think there is no doubt in anybody's mind that the banks in this country are now simply subsidiaries of the federal government.
TARP money was later used to bail out GM, and GM featured prominently in the TARP IG reports. In fact, when GM ran a commercial claiming they had "paid back" their TARP money (claiming they had paid back the taxpayers), all GM had really done was take one bucket of taxpayer loans and used it to pay off another bucket of taxpayer loans (TARP). A GOP congressman (I forget who) blew the whistle on this lie, and produced the TARP IG Report to prove it. The GM CEO commercial was quickly pulled off the air. It was a lie. Just like TARP was a lie.
Use of TARP to bail out GM was a process initiated under Bush, but implemented under Obama. I made no comment to suggest that Romney either did or did not support bankruptcy (most Republicans favored Chapter 13(?) I think). The stimulus doubled-down on TARP, and between the two they constitute the greatest theft of the public treasury in the history of the world.
And they were both giant "earmarks" absolutely loaded with pork and favors for Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting...
You really have to have spent time in DC to make the silly claim that "running for office" makes you an insider. Romney is the only candidate left that hasn't been a part of the DC system.
How many republicans lost to Ted Kennedy in Mass.? (Can you say all of them.)
So now the "Wall Street Bailout" is an earmark. Does Santorum really not know the difference ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRombots blast Santorum for being whinny in three, two, one ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre there any quotes from Santorum *at the time* about TARP? I can't find anything on Google, and the earliest thing I found was from two years ago at CPAC, which seemed kind of "I-was-for-it-before-I-was-against-it"-ish:
External Link
Considering he voted for unbalanced budgets, debt ceiling hikes, the prescription drug benefit, etc., I have a hard time believing that he wouldn't have voted for TARP if he hadn't lost his re-election bid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's easy to take a principled position about an event in the past.
Just like Romney couldn't be a career politician because he couldn't win his Senate race, Santorum didn't have to take a position on TARP because he couldn't win his reelection. But I agree, Keith, there's no doubt in my mind he would have voted for TARP. And frankly, I don't care. Hindsight is 20/20.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBravo! Wish he'd been talking like this from the start. Maybe it's not too late.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Although he didn’t mention Rick Santorum by name..."
Hit dog hollered.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess attacking Santorum comes easier to Mittens than, you know, speaking with conviction about his own principles and putting forth bold policy proposals to address our nation's challenge.
Yeah, just unleash a few million dollars worth of attack ads calling your challenge a dirty, rotten scoundrel. It's so much more... presidential.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis line of attack from Rick Santorum is a little ridiculous.
Yes, Mitt Romney lost. But he was running against Ted Kennedy. In Massachusetts.
That is very tough competition.
Attacking Romney for doing a very challenging race and losing sends what sort of message? That if you don't want it to be held against you later, you shouldn't run when you have tough competition?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe attack is not for running and losing, it is for running on a rather liberal platform - pro-abortion and the like.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse