-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Former Sen. Rick Santorum, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, told me that he would have fought the Medicare prescription drug plan and other spending during the Bush administration if a Tea Party had existed to back him up.
By now, it’s become conventional wisdom that Bush era Republicans lost sight of their small government principles when they had unified control of power in the early part of the last decade.
Santorum was a leading Republican in this period, and during that time voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan and supported subsidies for dairy farmers. I asked him to respond to the criticism that he was part of the problem.
“I said this to a Tea Party group the other day,” he recounted in an interview at CPAC. “I was a conservative in Congress pushing for us paying for the prescription drug plan and cutting subsidies and doing everything that every person in the Tea Party I think would love to see done. Some guy asked me, ‘Why didn’t you do it?’ I said, ‘Because you weren’t out there helping me.’ It’s very easy for folks to say, ‘Well, 10 years ago, you should have done this.’ Where were the people at the rallies saying that we were spending too much? Where were the voters to come out and say, ‘We need you to do more of this?’ It didn’t exist. Look, Congress follows, it doesn’t lead. I saw that. I was out there trying to lead and getting as much as we could do done. But I could only go so far because owe didn’t have a Tea Party movement that was moving the country in that direction. “
He continued, “I look at my record and I’m very proud of what we were able to accomplish in the context of a country that was not out there clamoring for Social Security reform. You know, in 2005 when President Bush said ‘let’s do Social Security reform’ I jumped and tried to do it. And I got my butt kicked for doing it. And I did the same thing on Medicare. I did the same thing on Medicaid. I did the same thing on welfare. Is there was anyone who was out there trying to reform the real problems in Washington, the entitlements, it was me. But they weren’t exactly piling out in the streets saying, ‘Yay, Rick.’ In the end, I lost my election.”
I followed up by asking him about his support for dairy subsidies in the form of the Milk Income Loss Contract program.
“It was a different time, number one,” Santorum said. “Number two, the milk program, compared to Social Security and all the entitlement programs was a small program about an industry that was struggling in America — the small farmer in that part of the country. My feeling is, sure, we can have a milk program that has a concentration of milk into big super duper farms in the South and in the West, and we will continue to see the deterioration of rural Pennsylvania, rural New York, and other rural areas. And if people are fine with that, that’s fine. I think there’s something to be said for having viable businesses in that part of the country to compete.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/10/santorum-says-he-would-have-op
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Back in the Fray
- The Thatcher Legacy
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Al Adab| 2.10.11 @ 5:47PM
Is the proper translation that principles only exist if the public is there to enforce them? If so this is not a leader we desire. Principles are there even if no one is watching. That is why we elect representatives, to stand by principle on our behalf.
C Bowen| 2.10.11 @ 6:05PM
Santorum was going around saying that Iraq really had WMDS, and Rumseld has pretty much confirmed him as a liar, right? Why are we still talking about him and his milk subsidies?
Brad9883| 2.10.11 @ 6:26PM
There's a legitimate reason for why people weren't out en masse as Santorum says.
Those of us who want the government to spend our tax money wisely and frugally and to not meddle in every affair it sees fit tend to be the types who have jobs and work hard for our families. We simply didn't have the time. Our energies were focused on our families and earning an honest living.
The Left has a host of professional gripers, bitchers, whiners, and complainers, and they are all very vocal and very loud. There's a reason why there measly 20% of the public that call themselves "liberal" seem to have the loudest voice -- it's because they do.
While our energies are focused on bettering our lives and the lives of our families and communities, their energies are focused primarily on pushing a leftist socialist agenda. Now that we're truly staring the death of our Republic in the face, we've finally mobilized.
I don't blame Santorum nor conservatives for the lack of mobility in preceding decades. It's not a matter of where we WERE a decade a go, it's a matter of where we are and what we're doing NOW and how we're going to fix this situation.
Handy| 2.10.11 @ 6:39PM
Until I read this, I was kinda favorably disposed toward Santorum. No more. Wasn't he leading us to perdition when he voted for all those Bush spending intitives? He sure wasn't following the electorate. Hence, he lost.
He should stay on the sidelines.
Curly Smith| 2.10.11 @ 6:49PM
Isn't Santorum just saying "you should elect me President because I'm not a leader"? Isn't he just saying "I'll make the hard choices if they're easy"? Yeah, he a good candidate if you want somebody who'll boldly lead from 100 paces to the rear.
tatosian| 2.10.11 @ 7:42PM
Santorum backed Specter over Toomey in 04.
Nuff said.
Gold BC| 2.10.11 @ 9:55PM
Day by day Santorum is talking the talk and walking the walk of a proud liberal Republican. When you are under pressure your true nature comes out and Santorum's support of milk subsidies/Specter and expansion of Medicare proves the point. Keystone State voters smelled a rat in '06 and responded accordingly. He joins a line of other GOP rats like Daniels and Romney who have delusions of WH grandeur.
Tom Osterman| 2.10.11 @ 10:23PM
Excuses, excuses...
The refudiator| 2.10.11 @ 10:58PM
I thought the Tea Party was around back then, complaining about the constitutional abuse we suffered from Patriot Acts I & II, Military Commissions Act, & the part D giveaway. I remember quite a few of us pissin & moaning about the out of control spending. Am I misremembering?
George S| 2.10.11 @ 11:08PM
Santorum has a point. A Republican president sets the agenda, as he is the de facto leader of the Republican party. To go against the president takes either guts or a strong backing from the voters. I guess Santorum had a deficit of both.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.11.11 @ 5:26AM
Put some butter on him.
Kathy Carlson| 2.11.11 @ 10:46AM
Pray tell, why do viable companies and industries need subsidies? Viable means they don't need subsidies. Sure we all like to have local dairies and local businesses. However, when government is required to prop them up, they surely cannot be considered viable.
Rick| 2.11.11 @ 1:17PM
More lies from a politican.
Noam Sane| 2.11.11 @ 2:57PM
"By now, it's become conventional wisdom that Bush era Republicans lost sight of their small government principles when they had unified control of power in the early part of the last decade."
That's it? This statement, and then we move on? Really?
WHY do you think it is that this happened? What could be the cause of Republicans completely ignoring one of their "core beliefs"?
Since you didn't, let me! Republican "core beliefs" exist only insofar as they can be used to gain power and club enemies with (not mutually exclusive, to be sure).
"Small government principles" is right up there with deficit reduction, abortion, and family values for the right: important only to the extent that they can be used to get a leg up. Deep down, the only concern of the ruling right is the consolidation of power, and the hoarding of money, money, money.
It is to their credit, politically, that they've bamboozled so much of the American public into believing they really care about these issues. But that doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't help make America great.