In an ad airing in Michigan, Arizona, and Ohio, the pro–Mitt Romney super PAC, Restoring Our Future, is hitting Rick Santorum on his voting record. You can watch it below. By my observation, the ad’s claims are on firm ground. Let’s take them one by one:
“Santorum voted to raise the debt limit five times . . .” True, as I wrote earlier: “(You can seethevotesyourselfhere.) The difference between the debt limit before the first vote ($5.5 trillion) and after the last one ($8.965 trillion) [was] $3.465 trillion.”
“. . . and for billions in wasteful projects, including the ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’” Also true. The ad cites Roll Call Vote No. 220 on July 29, 2005, when Santorum voted with the majority for a transportation bill that included funding for the infamous earmark. Santorum later defended his vote:
I went with the federalist argument, which is: “Who am I in Pennsylvania to tell Alaska what their highway priorities should be?” You had a city that was separated from its airport and of course in Alaska, you have to travel by air, and you had to have a ferry. There were times when they couldn’t get across.
“In a single session, Santorum co-sponsored 51 bills to increase spending and zero to cut spending.” True, according to the Club for Growth, whose paper on Santorum the ad cites. The club argues that Santorum went easy on spending before his 2006 campaign:
In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican — sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.
It’s worth mentioning the club applauds Santorum’s earlier record:
In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, he was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system. He also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed. He also voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.
“Santorum even voted to raise his own pay . . .” Again, true. Here are the threevotesmentioned. In each case, Santorum voted to kill an amendment, offered by Senator Diane Feinstein, “to provide that members of Congress shall not receive a cost-of-living adjustment in pay” during the fiscal year.
“. . . and joined Hillary Clinton to let convicted felons vote.” And, true. Santorum was one of three Republicans (the others were Arlen Specter and Mike DeWine) to vote in favor of an amendment “to secure the federal voting rights of certain qualified persons who have served their sentences.” The amendment failed 31–63, and the 28 other senators voting in favor were Democrats, including Clinton.
UPDATE: GOP 12’s Christian Heinze compiles some of the reactions from other conservatives such as Bill Kristol and Byron York. Kristol calls Romney’s attacks, particularly on Santorum’s votes to raise the debt ceiling and for the congressional-pay increases, “juvenile.”
If Romney succeeds in knocking Santorum down, the last not-Romney standing will be Paul. Has the GOP never heard the admonition "be careful what you wish for"? No matter how it turns out, I will vote for the GOP nominee in the General. But all of my money and all of my efforts will go into whoever is running for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin and into the Walker recall election (if it goes forward).
I'm no Santiorum supporter, but to call this post a fact check and then to fail to mention the fundamental dishonesty and cynicism of Romney's add is to perform a disservice to both Romney and the NR's readers.
Yes, the claims are technically accurate in that Santorum voted as claimed, but there is context that renders Romney's claims basically meaningless.
On the last vote for the bridge to Nowhere, when it was added to a Transportation Bill, it passed 91-4. here are some of the Senators who voted for it along with Santorum:
Mitch McConnell
Jim Demint
Orrin Hatch
Obviously, with a 91-4 vote the list could go on and on.
We all know that earmarks are often added to larger bills and, as much as we might dislike the idea of funding pet projects, have been standard practice that Republicans of all stripes have used to deliver federal funding to their states for decades.
To use earmark votes in this way, especially when it isn't even the Senator's own earmarks ( the Bridge to Nowhere was the pet project first of Republican Lion AK Senator Ted Stevens and then Repub VP candidate Sarah Palin) is dishonest and cynical.
Why let Romney off the hook for his cynical and dishonest use of Santorum's record?
Its the same thing with the Debt limit votes.
Not until August 2011 were debt limit votes anything but a purely procedural act, until August 2011 debt limit votes had no partisan meaning and legions of very conservative and very admirable Republican senators voted multiple times to raise the debt limit.
NR commentators do no service to Romney or the Republican Party by implicitly lending credibility to these kind of cynical ads.
To only go so far as to call Romney's technically accurate without to fail to mention that every single Republican senator voted the same way on these and similar measures just lets Romney off the hook.
Romney as a candidate is having a hard time coming across as authentic and trustworthy, and ads like these just make that problem worse.
Demand more from Romney than superficial "gotcha" ads, make him elevate his game between now and the Fall.
The NR appears only too happy to just let a mediocre candidate slide by on a tidal wave of cynical negative ads funded by Super PAC spending without ever finding an authentic and winning message.
Hold him to a higher standard,make him work to craft a winning message, because this ad isn't it, and NR should come out and say so.
Taking this further, the ad is a rant against good government.
Take the debt ceiling: It has to be raised because otherwise the government will default. Let me put this differently for those who cheer government default: all the spending that led to the need to borrow already has been approved. The government has already promised to make X payments on loans it is taking out. The only question is whether the government will honor those promises. Voting not to honor them is hardly noble, or even smart.
The other voting crimes silly. Whenever you propose something, there's spending involved. Santorum was not a fiscal conservative, but any overall budget that passes has at least one cut. An individual Senator does not handle the overall budget. And if he did, his proposed cuts would not necessarily be in the form of legislation.
First of all, it behooves us to be more precise in our language. I am just as upset with the super-PAC nonsense as anyone else. McCain–Feingold has been ruinous! That said, it isn't Romney's PAC so let's be careful with our words.
Secondly, a red warning light turns on in my mind whenever I see paragraph upon paragraph imploring me to keep decisions “in context”. When this is compounded with relativistic arguments suggesting that things are okay because others have committed the same mistakes, I cringe further.
Santorum's 16-year Washingtonian career has plenty of blemishes and warts and I think he should be accountable for his record. I see nothing wrong with a little sunshine – wherever it might come from.
Disclaimer: I am an equal-opportunity sunshine advocate; I want all their records scrutinized and explained.
The problem is that you *can't* demand more from Romney. He can't be himself--because that would mean owning up to the fact that he's a self-described moderate with progressive views who voted for Paul Tsongas in 1992. It would mean owning up to the fact that he hasn't actually done anything conservative while serving in office, but only campaigned as one.
The felon voting issue came up in an earlier ad, too. Santorum is just wrong on this issue, as I discussed on NRO at that time: External Link
In the first place, Santorum was wrong to vote for this bill because it was unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the authority to the states to decide if felons can vote or not.
In the second place, if you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone has completed his sentence. Read more about this issue on our website here [ External Link ] and our congressional testimony here: [ External Link ].
"[Santorum] also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed."
I have to say, this bit here gives me a teensy bit of hope concerning Santorum. Recall it was Clinton in the White House when the Freedom to Farm Act passed and it was that famous Compassionate Conservative Dubya Bush AND a GOP majority congress "that couldn't live up to that promise" and re-established farm subsidies which was one of the many transgressions Republicans claimed to swear off after getting their clocks cleaned in '06 and '08.
That Santorum bucked that trend so early impresses me in this very unimpressive field of candidates.
I'm not surprised that the ad is accurate, even if it is fairly weak tea. Romney's electability has been the core argument many of his supporters, both declared and undeclared (you know who you are!) Part of that electability has to be core competencies like making sure your attack ads don't bite you at the wrong time.
If Romney's ads start getting things wrong, then it's a story.
Actually, it was conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation that fathered (& endorsed) Romneycare.
Try to grasp that there is a significant difference between the constitutionally protected right of states to mandate their own liability mandates vs. a federal "one size fits all" healthcare mandate imposed on the states at the federal level.
Keep in mind, Romney opposes federal healthcare mandates. Gingrich PROMOTED the Individual Mandate at the federal level from 1993 through May 2011 until he flipped expediently after becoming a GOP candidate. Ditto phony Santorum ENDORSED Romney enthusiastically for President in 2008, post Romneycare.
There isn't a chance in hell that D.C. hacks Santorum or Gingrich will prevail once Team Obama and their MSM get their hands on their carcasses. Translation: A vote for either of these Beltway establishment trainwreaks during the GOP primary will ultimately translate a vote for Obama's re-election.
Santorum and Gingrich aren't the cures, they are the problem with Washington.
The media and punditry have fallen in love with the phrase "the conservative alternative to Romney" and it seems they believe that, if repeated enough, it becomes true.
What does this phrase mean? Does it mean Santorum has opposed expansive govt. spending? No. Does it mean he has opposed earmarks? No. Does it mean he opposes the role of government in picking winners & losers such as manufacturing? No. Does it mean he opposes sweeping entitlement bills such as No Child Left Behind? No. Does it mean he opposes an intrusive government that gets into the train business (Amtrak)? No.
If Romney succeeds in knocking Santorum down, the last not-Romney standing will be Paul. Has the GOP never heard the admonition "be careful what you wish for"? No matter how it turns out, I will vote for the GOP nominee in the General. But all of my money and all of my efforts will go into whoever is running for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin and into the Walker recall election (if it goes forward).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there any chance we can actually get a fiscal conservative in the White House?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLets' see...true, true, true, true, and true. Yet Bill Kristol hates it. Yeah, sounds about right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm no Santiorum supporter, but to call this post a fact check and then to fail to mention the fundamental dishonesty and cynicism of Romney's add is to perform a disservice to both Romney and the NR's readers.
Yes, the claims are technically accurate in that Santorum voted as claimed, but there is context that renders Romney's claims basically meaningless.
On the last vote for the bridge to Nowhere, when it was added to a Transportation Bill, it passed 91-4. here are some of the Senators who voted for it along with Santorum:
Mitch McConnell
Jim Demint
Orrin Hatch
Obviously, with a 91-4 vote the list could go on and on.
We all know that earmarks are often added to larger bills and, as much as we might dislike the idea of funding pet projects, have been standard practice that Republicans of all stripes have used to deliver federal funding to their states for decades.
To use earmark votes in this way, especially when it isn't even the Senator's own earmarks ( the Bridge to Nowhere was the pet project first of Republican Lion AK Senator Ted Stevens and then Repub VP candidate Sarah Palin) is dishonest and cynical.
Why let Romney off the hook for his cynical and dishonest use of Santorum's record?
Its the same thing with the Debt limit votes.
Not until August 2011 were debt limit votes anything but a purely procedural act, until August 2011 debt limit votes had no partisan meaning and legions of very conservative and very admirable Republican senators voted multiple times to raise the debt limit.
NR commentators do no service to Romney or the Republican Party by implicitly lending credibility to these kind of cynical ads.
To only go so far as to call Romney's technically accurate without to fail to mention that every single Republican senator voted the same way on these and similar measures just lets Romney off the hook.
Romney as a candidate is having a hard time coming across as authentic and trustworthy, and ads like these just make that problem worse.
Demand more from Romney than superficial "gotcha" ads, make him elevate his game between now and the Fall.
The NR appears only too happy to just let a mediocre candidate slide by on a tidal wave of cynical negative ads funded by Super PAC spending without ever finding an authentic and winning message.
Hold him to a higher standard,make him work to craft a winning message, because this ad isn't it, and NR should come out and say so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTaking this further, the ad is a rant against good government.
Take the debt ceiling: It has to be raised because otherwise the government will default. Let me put this differently for those who cheer government default: all the spending that led to the need to borrow already has been approved. The government has already promised to make X payments on loans it is taking out. The only question is whether the government will honor those promises. Voting not to honor them is hardly noble, or even smart.
The other voting crimes silly. Whenever you propose something, there's spending involved. Santorum was not a fiscal conservative, but any overall budget that passes has at least one cut. An individual Senator does not handle the overall budget. And if he did, his proposed cuts would not necessarily be in the form of legislation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an excellent post "politcal sceptic" - Great analysis. You should post more and get a gold star as commentator.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst of all, it behooves us to be more precise in our language. I am just as upset with the super-PAC nonsense as anyone else. McCain–Feingold has been ruinous! That said, it isn't Romney's PAC so let's be careful with our words.
Secondly, a red warning light turns on in my mind whenever I see paragraph upon paragraph imploring me to keep decisions “in context”. When this is compounded with relativistic arguments suggesting that things are okay because others have committed the same mistakes, I cringe further.
Santorum's 16-year Washingtonian career has plenty of blemishes and warts and I think he should be accountable for his record. I see nothing wrong with a little sunshine – wherever it might come from.
Disclaimer: I am an equal-opportunity sunshine advocate; I want all their records scrutinized and explained.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem is that you *can't* demand more from Romney. He can't be himself--because that would mean owning up to the fact that he's a self-described moderate with progressive views who voted for Paul Tsongas in 1992. It would mean owning up to the fact that he hasn't actually done anything conservative while serving in office, but only campaigned as one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat McConell & Hatch voted for the Transportation Bill boondoggle "Bridge To Nowhere" is no surprise. That Demint voted for it is NO EXCUSE.
Unfortunately, Transportation Bill--2005 was but one of dozens of Big Gov't programs Santorum promoted while advancing his statist agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKristol calling anyone juvenile is a real laugher
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can be technically accurate, yet still highly misleading.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately that's enough for Romney and his syncophants.
Apparently, it is sufficient for you & your Santorum ilk not to explain why a litany of facts targeting Santorum a Beltway statist are "misleading".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fact that you aren't willing to admit how misleading the ads are, says a lot about you. Either your intelligence or you knowledge of the issues.
Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary and look up the word context.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe felon voting issue came up in an earlier ad, too. Santorum is just wrong on this issue, as I discussed on NRO at that time: External Link
In the first place, Santorum was wrong to vote for this bill because it was unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the authority to the states to decide if felons can vote or not.
In the second place, if you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone has completed his sentence. Read more about this issue on our website here [ External Link
] and our congressional testimony here: [ External Link 
].
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"[Santorum] also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed."
I have to say, this bit here gives me a teensy bit of hope concerning Santorum. Recall it was Clinton in the White House when the Freedom to Farm Act passed and it was that famous Compassionate Conservative Dubya Bush AND a GOP majority congress "that couldn't live up to that promise" and re-established farm subsidies which was one of the many transgressions Republicans claimed to swear off after getting their clocks cleaned in '06 and '08.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat Santorum bucked that trend so early impresses me in this very unimpressive field of candidates.
I'm not surprised that the ad is accurate, even if it is fairly weak tea. Romney's electability has been the core argument many of his supporters, both declared and undeclared (you know who you are!) Part of that electability has to be core competencies like making sure your attack ads don't bite you at the wrong time.
If Romney's ads start getting things wrong, then it's a story.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI will vote in the primary for anybody who did not father RomnerCare and ObamneyCare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI will vote in general for anybody who is not Obama.
Actually, it was conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation that fathered (& endorsed) Romneycare.
Try to grasp that there is a significant difference between the constitutionally protected right of states to mandate their own liability mandates vs. a federal "one size fits all" healthcare mandate imposed on the states at the federal level.
Keep in mind, Romney opposes federal healthcare mandates. Gingrich PROMOTED the Individual Mandate at the federal level from 1993 through May 2011 until he flipped expediently after becoming a GOP candidate. Ditto phony Santorum ENDORSED Romney enthusiastically for President in 2008, post Romneycare.
There isn't a chance in hell that D.C. hacks Santorum or Gingrich will prevail once Team Obama and their MSM get their hands on their carcasses. Translation: A vote for either of these Beltway establishment trainwreaks during the GOP primary will ultimately translate a vote for Obama's re-election.
Santorum and Gingrich aren't the cures, they are the problem with Washington.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe media and punditry have fallen in love with the phrase "the conservative alternative to Romney" and it seems they believe that, if repeated enough, it becomes true.
What does this phrase mean? Does it mean Santorum has opposed expansive govt. spending? No. Does it mean he has opposed earmarks? No. Does it mean he opposes the role of government in picking winners & losers such as manufacturing? No. Does it mean he opposes sweeping entitlement bills such as No Child Left Behind? No. Does it mean he opposes an intrusive government that gets into the train business (Amtrak)? No.
The list goes on.
I am puzzled by the incongruity...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, according to that hack Bill Kristol, highlighting Santorum's big-spending record is "juvenile"?
The deficit is one of the biggest issues of this campaign and Rick Santorum has absolutely zero credibility on the matter!
If I were Romney, I'd riff on how Santorum's 5 votes to RAISE the debt ceiling takes the out of control deficit as an issue away from the Republicans.
How can Santorum argue with a straight face that he is some deficit hawk?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse