• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Santorum discusses Iran

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/nbcs-gregory-defends-obama-mideast-policy-vs-santorum-defends-election-win-muslim-brotherhood

Santorum is sounding better all the time....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Prediction from the Votemaster site:
Santorums problem, like Huckabee's in 2008 is lack of money, lack of organization, and no crossover appeal. If Santorum does win Iowa, or come in a close second, the media will have a new hero and Wednesday half the publications in the country will have headlines like: "Can Santorum Stop Romney?" The answer is: No. The Romney juggernaut is too powerful for an underfunded candidate like Santorum.
The fourth quarter fundraising totals have not been released yet, but in the third quarter of 2011, Romney raised $33 million to Santorum's $1 million. The fourth quarter is not likely to be much better for Santorum. He is not likely to do well in New Hampshire because the state's Republicans are more libertarian than conservative although he might have a shot at winning South Carolina if enough of his rivals drop out. But then comes Florida, a big, expensive, state where he won't be able to compete with Romney in the air war.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TRENDING: Ron Paul: Santorum is 'very liberal'

Posted by
CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - Ron Paul dinged rival Rick Santorum Monday for being a "very liberal" candidate, saying the former Pennsylvania senator and staunch social conservative voted for too much spending during his time in Congress.

Speaking to CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash before a campaign event with his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the White House hopeful said his rival had taken positions counter to true conservative ideas.

"I mean, have you looked at his record? Go look at his record," Paul said.

He continued: "He spends too much money. He wasn't leading the charge to slash the budgets and vote against big government."

Rand Paul added that Santorum's vote history proved he wasn't a true conservative.

"He voted to double the size of the Department of Education," Rand Paul said. "He voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs for senior citizens and he has voted for foreign aid. Those are not conservative principles. Seventy-seven percent of the American people are opposed to foreign aid and Rick Santorum has voted for it every time it's come down."

Paul also spoke in some of the strongest terms to date about the potential of a third-party bid should he fail to secure the GOP nomination.

"I have no plans in doing that," Paul said. "Tomorrow is a big day. We'll see what happens but I have no intention of doing that, no plans and no desire."

"Former United States Senator Rick Santorum represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. If dismantling big government is now a primary concern, Santorum has spent a career promoting big government. If stopping massive spending is now a top priority, Santorum has a lifelong record of championing massive spending. If our debt is now considered the greatest threat to our national security, Santorum has always considered everything but the debt a greater threat. "

“Indeed, if conservatism means limiting government, the many ways in which Santorum has been the consistent enemy of conservatism are virtually unlimited."

- Jack Hunter, The American Conservative, 09 May 2011
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Citizens for responsibility and ethics list of most corrupt members of congress- 2006

CREWS most corrupt Congressmen

Senators:


Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Members of the House:

Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Richard Pombo (R-CA)
John Doolittle (R-CA)
Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Katherine Harris (R-FL)
John Sweeney (R-NY)
William Jefferson (D-LA)
Charles Taylor (R-NC)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Gary Miller (R-CA)
Curt Weldon (R-PA)

Five Members to Watch:

Chris Cannon (R-UT)
J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
John Murtha (D-PA)
Don Sherwood (R-PA)

Looks like the perfect candidate for Repubs to want to send to D.C to "clean" things up- and cut spending- especially when many of the allegations were over his receiving kickbacks for tax payer home pork projects ... :roll: :p

At least he got beat out by a top taxpayer ripoff artist- Conman Burns- who Montanans smartly sent packing because of it.. :)
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
The difference between OT and others on Ranchers, is that they don't jump on the bandwagon because someone is in the lead, but because they believe in his/her policies and principles, and not whether they have been divorced or not.........
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Oldtimer said:
Citizens for responsibility and ethics list of most corrupt members of congress- 2006

CREWS most corrupt Congressmen

Senators:


Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Members of the House:

Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Richard Pombo (R-CA)
John Doolittle (R-CA)
Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Katherine Harris (R-FL)
John Sweeney (R-NY)
William Jefferson (D-LA)
Charles Taylor (R-NC)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Gary Miller (R-CA)
Curt Weldon (R-PA)

Five Members to Watch:

Chris Cannon (R-UT)
J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
John Murtha (D-PA)
Don Sherwood (R-PA)

Looks like the perfect candidate for Repubs to want to send to D.C to "clean" things up- and cut spending- especially when many of the allegations were over his receiving kickbacks for tax payer home pork projects ... :roll: :p

At least he got beat out by a top taxpayer ripoff artist- Conman Burns- who Montanans smartly sent packing because of it.. :)

Where is the link to the above?? Or is that just another one if your fabrications..
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
hypocritexposer said:
The difference between OT and others on Ranchers, is that they don't jump on the bandwagon because someone is in the lead, but because they believe in his/her policies and principles, and not whether they have been divorced or not.........

For him to be a socalled libertarian and not worry about someones bedroom life he sure dwells on the reps a heck of a lot. That claim of being a libertarian goes out the window.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The newly ascendant Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, has come under fire from his GOP foes for his unapologetic defense of the earmarking process, which he says is simply a power granted to Congress under the Constitution.

McCain, a fierce and longtime opponent of "pork-barrel spending," joined Romney for a rally in Charleston and set about attacking Santorum's record of securing earmarks.

Romney was silent on the matter, and let McCain do the talking.

"Earmark spending is the gateway to corruption, and that was practiced when Republicans were in the majority," McCain said, flanked by Romney and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Romney's leading backer in the Palmetto State.

"Sen. Santorum and I have a strong disagreement, a strong disagreement that he believed that earmarks and pork barrel projects were good for America," he said.


McCain called earmarks "wrong for America" and said that South Carolina's two senators, Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, agree.

This fits into the time when Santorum made the most corrupt Congressmen list... Old McCain is talking more sense then he ever did...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
"I mean, have you looked at his record? Go look at his record," Paul said.

He continued: "He spends too much money. He wasn't leading the charge to slash the budgets and vote against big government."

is this the same Paul who submitted as many earmarks as he could?

I find it amusing that some complain about what others are doing while feeding at the same trough..
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Oldtimer said:
The newly ascendant Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, has come under fire from his GOP foes for his unapologetic defense of the earmarking process, which he says is simply a power granted to Congress under the Constitution.

McCain, a fierce and longtime opponent of "pork-barrel spending," joined Romney for a rally in Charleston and set about attacking Santorum's record of securing earmarks.

Romney was silent on the matter, and let McCain do the talking.

"Earmark spending is the gateway to corruption, and that was practiced when Republicans were in the majority," McCain said, flanked by Romney and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Romney's leading backer in the Palmetto State.

"Sen. Santorum and I have a strong disagreement, a strong disagreement that he believed that earmarks and pork barrel projects were good for America," he said.


McCain called earmarks "wrong for America" and said that South Carolina's two senators, Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, agree.

This fits into the time when Santorum made the most corrupt Congressmen list... Old McCain is talking more sense then he ever did...

You failed on that. CREW is not a credible source. Only radical leftwingernut bunch funded by liberal radicals who once in a while jump on a lefties to try and make themselves look balanced. They have a long history of targeting Reps.
ot you failed again
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Larrry said:
Oldtimer said:
The newly ascendant Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, has come under fire from his GOP foes for his unapologetic defense of the earmarking process, which he says is simply a power granted to Congress under the Constitution.

McCain, a fierce and longtime opponent of "pork-barrel spending," joined Romney for a rally in Charleston and set about attacking Santorum's record of securing earmarks.

Romney was silent on the matter, and let McCain do the talking.

"Earmark spending is the gateway to corruption, and that was practiced when Republicans were in the majority," McCain said, flanked by Romney and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Romney's leading backer in the Palmetto State.

"Sen. Santorum and I have a strong disagreement, a strong disagreement that he believed that earmarks and pork barrel projects were good for America," he said.


McCain called earmarks "wrong for America" and said that South Carolina's two senators, Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, agree.

This fits into the time when Santorum made the most corrupt Congressmen list... Old McCain is talking more sense then he ever did...

You failed on that. CREW is not a credible source. Only radical leftwingernut bunch funded by liberal radicals who once in a while jump on a lefties to try and make themselves look balanced. They have a long history of targeting Reps.
ot you failed again

And is your cults chosen Champion of the last election wrong too- and not a credible source... :???:

Earmark spending is the gateway to corruption, and that was practiced when Republicans were in the majority," McCain said
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
A new website out today delves into the realm of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). You may remember CREW from previous posts on this blog as well as from the recently dismissed charges against Christine O’Donnell. Like most CREW complaints, the one against O’Donnell was dismissed by the U.S. Attorney because they were completely fabricated. As we broke here on this blog, CREW violated their IRS mandate to remain non-political when they attacked Christine O’Donnell during the campaign and they violated federal law when they filed a knowingly false affidavit signed by David Keegan whose entire smear campaign of lies was simply designed to keep Christine from running again.

The new website also delves into the partisanship of CREW. A quick look over the founders of CREW shows the partisan angle. Norm Eisen who was Deputy General Counsel to Obama’s transition team joined Daniel Berger, a massive donor to Democrat campaigns (including Christine O’Donnell’s opponent Chris Coons) and Clinton pollster Mark Penn to start CREW in 2003 as a way to compete with the conservative ethics groups that had questioned Bill Clinton’s philandering in the White House. They needed a face for the organization and so they tapped another ultra-liberal Democrat to head up CREW, Melanie Sloan. Sloan came with plenty of leftist credentials, she’d worked for Representative John “Read the bill” Conyers in the House, she then worked for Senator (now VP) Joe “Stand up Chuck” Biden and she also worked for NY Democrat Chuck “3 branches of government?” Schumer when he was in the House of Representatives. Sloan isn’t the only leftist in the mix, in fact, the website finds that “there isn't a single current or former CREW staffer with comparable experience working for a conservative organization or Republican politician.”

As if that weren’t enough, the new site exposes CREW’s record of attacks against Republicans over Democrats. The chart below clearly shows that CREW files more complaints against Republicans than Democrats and it clearly shows that the actions taken by the ethics committees lean more toward Democrats than Republicans. What does that mean? It means that CREW is either REALLY ineffective as a “watchdog” or it’s just out to be a Democrat Attackdog.

Let’s look at the Senate ethics complaints as an example. As you can see above CREW’s Senate ethics complaints are around 90% against Republicans. Meanwhile, the Senate ethics committee actions are 60% against Democrats 40% against Republicans. This is simply a perfect illustration of the reason why Christine O’Donnell’s complaints about CREW are entirely valid. They are a partisan group out to destroy Republicans, prop up Democrats and do the bidding of radical leftist donors like George Soros. Their list of donors reads like a Who’s Who of radical leftwing groups. The Open Society Institute, the Democracy Alliance, the Tides Foundation and the Silberstein Foundation to name just a few are all major donors to CREW. Interestingly, CREW was also a MAJOR advocate for the DISCLOSE Act (written by Delaware’s own Mike Castle) which would have required groups to disclose their donors if they engaged in any political activity. However, CREW refuses to disclose its own list of donors.

In the end, the new site shows the bias and hypocrisy of CREW at a time when their legal status has come into question. With O’Donnell fighting back against their lies, this new website exposing CREW’s left wing motivations is yet more evidence that CREW is everything O’Donnell says they are. Mean, nasty, partisan hacks doing the bidding of left wing billionaire extremists like George Soros and left wing political machines like the Democrat Party. Kudo’s to The Center for Consumer Freedom for standing up to CREW and calling them out on their hypocrisy.

while researching the list Santorum was on,.. I found this...

BTW,, ..why weren't all the others who voted for the same two bills put on the list as well?

their rational was he cosponsored the bill, and a company that stood to make a profit had donated a small amount to his campaign?

and that the other bill was a really bad bill in their view.. but he voted for it.

yes OT let the witch hunt begin....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
And is your cults chosen Champion of the last election wrong too- and not a credible source..

who McCain.. is now your credible source?

the same guy in the great commercial slamming Romney on the same day he endorsed him.. the timing of the ad was merciless. ,

On Wednesday, a super PAC backing Gingrich welcomed McCain’s endorsement of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) by seizing on a Web ad, “Two Mitts,” that the Arizona Republican had run against Romney during the 2008 GOP nominating battle.

The spot juxtaposes clips of Mitt Romney stating contrasting positions on issues including abortion rights and gun control throughout his political career.

The move by Gingrich to use McCain’s words from four years ago against Romney may well be a preview of things to come in the next six days. While McCain’s endorsement of Romney is doubtless an influential one, there’s also the potential for the move to backfire, as other candidates on the trail remind primary voters of McCain’s previous attacks on Romney as well as of McCain’s own record as a Senator
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/gingrich-super-pac-uses-mccain-08-web-ad-two-mitts-to-slam-romney/2012/01/04/gIQAmO64aP_blog.html

ouch that had to hurt...



oh well back to the Santorum witch-hunt..

(thankfully Massachusetts outlawed witch-hunts.. so Romney can get a pass)..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
And is your cults chosen Champion of the last election wrong too- and not a credible source..

who McCain.. is now your credible source?


Na- but it is funny watching your cults leaderless/clueless direction cut each others throats - while often confirming exactly what the Dem cult was saying was/has been happening...

Earmark spending is the gateway to corruption, and that was practiced when Republicans were in the majority," McCain said.

"Sen. Santorum and I have a strong disagreement, a strong disagreement that he believed that earmarks and pork barrel projects were good for America," he said.

McCain all but calls Santorum a crook- and gives veracity to the Corruption List and why Santorum and so many Repubs are on it at that time....

If I had made up the list Santorum would have been 4th- as Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska would have been running neck and neck for the 1-2 spot with Conman Burns...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
McCain is just one person and no one gave him the authority to speak for them. To do so on your part is really grasping at straws, just as your CREWS bs that you tried.

The funniest thing is you condemn any and all the Reps for things, but you have the obama regime doing things a hundred times worse but yet you still have your nose plastered up his azz
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Thank goodness there are getting to be fewer and fewer people who's vision is not as clouded as oldtimers whiskey dimmed brain makes him.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Must be the combination of the whiskey and the methane gas from the obama regime and leftwingernuts azz. It just puts ot in quite the stupor
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is one of the home pork issues that got Santorum on the Most Corrupt in Congress List...

Rick Santorum's campaign could be clouded by 7-year-old attack on National Weather Service

By BOB KING | 1/5/12 6:53 PM EST
Will Rick Santorum’s lost crusade against the National Weather Service rain on his suddenly hot presidential campaign?

While a seemingly obscure issue next to abortion, gay marriage and tax cuts, weather forecasting inspired a defining controversy for the tail end of Santorum’s U.S. Senate career: his sponsorship of a 2005 bill aimed at hobbling the federal agency’s ability to compete with commercial forecasters like AccuWeather.

The bill went nowhere but brought Santorum a nationwide pasting from bloggers, weather enthusiasts, airline pilots and other critics. Some of them noted that executives from AccuWeather — a company based in State College, Pa., in Santorum's home state — had donated thousands of dollars to his campaigns over the years.

Doubling down later in the year, Santorum also accused the weather service's National Hurricane Center of flubbing its forecasts for Hurricane Katrina's initial landfall in Florida, despite the days of all-too-prescient warnings the agency had given that the storm would subsequently strike the Gulf Coast.

In contrast, fellow Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who was chairing the Senate Commerce Committee's Disaster Prediction and Prevention Subcommittee, called the agency's work on Katrina “one of the most accurate hurricane predictions we have ever seen.”

Weather doesn't show up as a top issue on Santorum's presidential campaign website, and AccuWeather doesn’t appear in his 2012 campaign donations. But some of his opponents, such as the liberal website Daily Kos, have tried to revive memories of the 2005 legislation this week — including with headlines claiming inaccurately that Santorum had tried to “abolish” the weather service.

In fact, Santorum's failed legislation would have left the weather service intact, although with significantly reduced ability to distribute its information directly to the public.

Critics of the bill say the legislation reflects an outdated worldview — one that says government data should flow through profit-making middlemen, rather than being released freely to one and all.

“I think what you see out of Santorum — in particular the weather data thing — is that some private businesses should be anointed to make tons of money off the taxpayers,” said open-government advocate Carl Malamud. “That's a very 1970s, 1980s mind-set. That's a pre-Internet mindset.”


Malamud, who has pushed federal entities such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Patent and Trademark Office, Smithsonian Institution and court system to make their data more freely available, called Santorum's bill “one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.”

Attempts to reach Santorum's campaign spokespeople about the issue were unsuccessful this week.

Under the bill, commercial weather providers like AccuWeather would have continued to get access to the weather service's data, while the federal agency would have been prohibited from providing “a product or service ... that is or could be provided by the private sector.” The legislation would have counteracted a 2004 policy change by the George W. Bush administration that had broadened the weather service's ability to create new products and release data, including over the Internet.

At the time, Santorum said the bill was needed to prevent the weather service from driving competitors out of business.

“It is not an easy prospect for a business to attract advertisers, subscribers or investors when the government is providing similar products and services for free,” Santorum said in a statement when he introduced the bill. He said the bill would also force the weather service to focus on its “core missions,” such as improving its forecasts of hurricanes and other severe weather.

Opponents, including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), argued that the bill threatened to deny vital information to residents of hurricane-threatened states by reverting the weather service to a “pre-Internet era.”
 

Latest posts

Top