Diary

Santorum, redux

In anticipation of enhanced scrutiny regarding his POTUS-candidacy, it is desirable to vet him candidly.

 

His social-position quotations [marriage- and homosexuality-related] would antagonize liberal-leaning “independents.”  They abound and have been recounted broadly.  Here is how he was vetted on the Terri Schiavo case:

 

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rick-santorum-lies-about-calling-congressi

 

He has a track-record of having defended earmarks aggressively [on video]; it matters not that the “culture” was not focused on that issue during his four years in the House and dozen years in the Senate, for some contemporaries were “getting it right” [e.g., McCain].

 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/29/9807620-santorum-proud-of-earmarks-amid-perry-attack

 

For documentation of his “negatives,” consult “The Liberty Blog,” where Guzzardi has compiled a multi-part series [he’s up to “22”] compilation.

 

http://thelibertyblog.org/?s=santorum&submit=Search

 

For documentation of is fiscal-liberality, read his book “It Takes a Family” – pages 151-153 – which details his REDISTRIBUTIONAL “Individual Development Account” concept.  He cites a bill co-sponsored with Lieberman which would devote taxpayer-$ to matching deposits by poor citizens, an idea only BHO would adore.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Development_Accounts

 

He then discusses his CARE initiative [“Charity Aid Recovery Empowerment”] also co-sponsored with Lieberman and his ASPIRE initiative [“America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education”] co-sponsored with Corzine.  It would create a KIDS [“Kids Investment and Development Savings”] account which would be endowed by the Feds to the tune of a $500 “contribution.” [etc.]

 

Then recognize the depth of his pro-union sentiments [reflected in campaign contributions from unions], as manifest during the Fox Debate in S.C..  He was asked to explain his pro-union vote regarding “Right to Work” legislation.  He rationalized-away his decision to force people to unionize if they want to work.  He said, “I represented the state of Pennsylvania, which is not a right-to-work state. If you look at who voted for the right-to-work bill in the Congress, those who came from right-to-work states voted for it.  Those who came from non-right-to-work states represented their states. I wasn’t going to vote in Washington, D.C., to change the law in my state.”

 

This was not true.  Regarding the Cloture Vote on July 10, 1996 on Senate Bill 1788, he voted “Nay” to free workers from being forced to abide by union bosses.  He should have voted “Yeah, as did Senators representing four states just like Pennsylvania that were not right-to-work states:  Colorado (Senator Smith), Indiana (Senators Lugar and Coats), Montana (Senator Burns), and New Hampshire (Senators Gregg and Smith).

 

He has no signature-accomplishments in his Congressional career, other than having collaborated with Clinton on Welfare Reform; he’s “good” on Iran, but so is The Newt [and Perry].

 

He will rise/fall, serving only to enhance Mitt.