I’m inclined to agree with Bill Kristol that Romney’s attacks on Santorum are lame, but mainly because it is Romney who is making them. I cannot imagine Mitt voting against any of the things he (or the Romney super PAC) now chastises Rick for voting yea on — which is why trying to zing Santorum over them results in such embarrassments as Romney-backer Jim Talent blasting Santorum for voting in favor of the Bush prescription drug entitlement . . . just like Talent did. For much of the time Rick was in Congress, Mitt was in his progressive incarnation, and a big part of Romneycare involved figuring out how the make Uncle Sam pick up the tab for Massachusetts’s medical costs — the sort of thing that drives up federal spending, which, in turn, creates pressure to raise the debt ceiling.
I deeply disagree with Brian’s “double-dipping” argument, though. As he put it, “Yes, you can fault Santorum for voting in favor of big-spending programs such as No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D. But it’s hard to blame him for voting for legislation that honored the obligations the government had already incurred.”
I don’t think it’s hard to blame him at all.
To be sure, the debt limit ought to encourage politicians not to over-spend in the first place. Nevertheless, voting for profligate, under-funded entitlement programs, or any other huge federal expenditure, is not an implicit agreement that the debt-ceiling has to be raised. It ought to be understood as saying, “Despite the credit limits we’ve established, I now believe X expensive federal program is a priority; if X pushes us to our credit limit, that means we need to cut or eliminate programs that are not as pressing a priority so that we stay within our credit limit.” If a politician cannot come up with the cuts, that is a reason to vote against X unaffordable program, not to raise the debt limit.
The double-dipping rationale is how we got to our present untenable straits. It is also classic Washington. We see it, for example, in the foreign policy realm, too: Presidents make absurd commitments (“X dictator must go . . . even though he was our valuable ally ten minutes ago,” or “We’ll gladly spend a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to turn your basket-case country into a sharia-democracy that continues to work with America’s enemies against America’s interests”); all manner of right-of-center pols and analysts then rally to back the president, reasoning that “America’s credibility is now at stake” so we must honor the commitment no matter how foolish (or even unconstitutional) it may have been.
Mistakes are always going to be made. If our logic of governance is that making Mistake No. 1 dictates that I must make Mistake No. 2, and so on down the line, then we can never fix our monumental problems. What ever happened to the notion that, if you find yourself in a hole, step one should be: stop digging?
I’m a Rick fan. Whatever he may have been thinking at the time — which, as Brian points out, was many trillions of debt-ceiling dollars ago — I hope he would now say that hitting the debt limit is an occasion for revisiting and repealing irresponsible spending, not for green-lighting more irresponsible spending.
Nope, you miss the point. On one hand Santorum says Romney has no credibility debating on Obamacare mandates because Santorum sees a federal and state mandate as the same thing (on this apparently he and Obama agree!)
But on the other hand he thinks he can debate Obama on spending when Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling. Obama can merely say, "Hey Rick, where were you when I voted against raising the debt ceiling and you voted to raise it? Just a few years ago you were for it, suddenly you're against it?"
Santorum is simply playing politics and it's working in the primary, but he better not criticize Obama's spending because then Obama can point out he was against raising the ceiling when he was in Congress and Santorum was for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you're willing to give Santorum the benefit of the doubt... rationalizing his past votes... but you're not willing to give the same benefit to Romney for his? Even Reagan changed views over his political life. Why do you expect such purism only of Romney?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of these guys ought to pick up Andrew McCarthy to run his campaign, because whoever does is going to get the nomination. And then he needs to make him Chief of Staff, Attorney General, or Secretary of Defense. The next administration needs this guy's talents. Sorry NRO, but you/'re going to have to let him go for a while.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven notice that when the same arguments that are used against Mitt are made against Rick & Newt, the neo-con/theo-con alliance will simply brush them aside.
Thus, we are told to accept without question Santorum's argument that ObamaCare can't be used as an issue if Romney is nominated.
But when it's pointed out that Rick will have a tough time making spending arguments against Obama because he was in the leadership of the biggest spending Congress in American history, we are told these arguments are "lame."
Considering Romney had no actual involvement in the passage (or support) of Obamacare... but Santorum did actually vote in favor of huge spending bills, including huge manufacturing and BigAg subsidies and billions of pork barrel pet projects.... I'm not exactly sure how Santorum has a better argument on spending than Romney has on Obamacare.
Then again, I'm not a neocon or a theocon; so that may explain it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree. If Santorum is preaching populism and more importantly that we was a tea party guy before there was a tea party, the votes on the debt ceiling go to the heart of that as do the double dipping.
Furthermore, Santorum's argument that he is the only one that didn't support TARP is what Gingrich would call pious baloney. Santorum didn't support TARP because he was out of office at the time. Given the track record of approving Medicare D, No Child Left Behind and other big Bush era stuff and even his argument for supporting judicial appointments (I sum it up by saying he was a Bush era yes man most of the time), it is logical to assume had he not lost his Senate seat, Santorum would have voted for TARP too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are exactly right. Santorum voted for bills that increased spending 51 times, and never once voted for a bill that cut spending. That is 51-0. The claim that he would have opposed TARP is incredibly dishonest.
Is this party really willing to re-elect Obama on the basis of "principle", when the guy they are backing isn't that principled to begin with?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney is just following the Obama playbook. Obama ran for president decrying the massive spending of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress. And he's still doing it. When you have contempt for the voters, there need be no logic in your statements.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK...forget for a moment that Ron Paul posted Santorum's voting record to promote his own candidacy. It is, nonetheless, a factual accounting of Santorum's record.
How is Santorum a "consistent conservative"? He is for Big Government all the way down the line.
External Link
....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight. Romney has forfeited ALL credibility exposing Santorum's rock solid statist record because McCarthy conjectures that he "just can't imagine" Romney voting against any of the things Santorum voted for. How wishful thinking lame-brained is that?
In fact, while key senate GOP Fannie & Freddie promoter Santorum was adding trillions to the national debt with his senate votes to massively expansion the size of the federal government--Romney was balancing budgets at Bain & Company, Bain Capital, the Olympics, and in Blue State Massachusetts with a 3 billion rainy day fund & 4.7% unemployment to spare.
Keep in mind, during the years earmark addict Santorum represented PA in congress that state took in more federal dollars than it gave. While Romney was the governor of Massachusetts that state gave more dollars to the federal government than it took.
Bottom line: It was Beltway establishment hacks Santorum & Gingrich promoting their statist agendas at the federal level that beget Obama--not Governor Romney.
By the way, pre-Romneycare Uncle Sam was already subsidizing the cost of Massachusetts' healthcare. Welcome to the status quo--nothing has changed. The difference, post Romneycare, is that 98% in Massachusetts are now insured. In fact, it's "No Healthcare Mandates" Texas with it's 25% uninsured & illegals in their millions that depends more on the federal government to subsidize it's healthcare expenses (ditto deficit shorfalls) than any other state. It is taxpayers nationwide who are picking up the vast majority of that state's Medicaid & illegal immigrant healthcare costs exploding the national debt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou sir have clearly not been informed. Santorum is the "consistent conservative". (Bill Buckley's defintion be damned.)
In fact, all of US will be damned as Obama's Billion $ War Chest destroys Rick's paper thin disguise as somehow being less Big Gov than The One.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a woman, Santorum's record and views that are just now coming to light are what I find the most disturbing.
When a presidential candidate starts talking about the importance of the president taking the lead on the evils of birth control, he seems to believe this to be within the proper functions of the executive. He himself says these are important "public policy issues."
Yooza, the fact that Santorum thinks contraception, how and when I have sex is 'public policy issues' is deeply frightening. I don't want someone like him leading my party.
While I disagree with what Obama is doing regarding contraception & teh Catholic church, I don't want our country to swing in the other direction like I believe Santorum would take us.
I knew Santorum was religious but I'm finding out he is way to religious and pious for me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo now Romney not only has to justify his own record, but the record that Bill Kristol imagines he would have had if he were Santorum? That is absurd.
Santorum has a record, and he should have to answer for it. Romney has nothing to do with it.
P.S. How long does it take to get one of those star things? I have been posting here for almost a year now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight, let's nominate Santorum, he has no money, no organization, no ground game, no infrastructure, no executive experience.
Worse, the GOP should NEVER nominate a senator for president. Senators have a long congressional voting record that the Dems and the MSM dissect, distort, and tear to pieces. GOP candidates who are elected president are governors (Reagan, Bush 43) or vps (Nixon, Bush 41). When the GOP nominates a senator, they LOSE (Goldwater, Landon, Dole, McCain -- and now Santorum?).
If Santorum is the nominee, David Axelrod will transition this election into a referendum on sex, reproductive rights, and right-wing social engineering. Obama's economic performance will be given a pass. No wonder the MSM is cheering Santorum on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe, and I mean those of US who believe removing Obama from power is the Prime Directive of our generation, cannot sit by quietly as Santorum wins the GOP nomination.
The magitude of damage an Obama 2nd term portends, must lead US to the most sober reflection on our votes and our actions going forward.
Mitt Romney is the right man at the right time to turn around our current Obama induced death to American freedom spiral. You know it, I know it.
Let's get to work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse