-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, one of the greatest rising starts of the conservative movement, put out some commentary recently that has good things to say about Rick Santorum and extensive criticism of both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney:
[T]he philosophical argument Romney made is a non sequitur. It doesn’t make sense to me to say pursuing a state takeover of health insurance is a good thing, but pursuing a national takeover of health insurance with a few more bells and whistles is a bad thing. As you can tell, I didn’t think that either Gingrich or Romney did particularly well.
And:
For my own questions, I pressed Gingrich on how he would filter out his many big-government ideas. He basically responded that he wouldn’t filter them out. I got the sense that he thinks every idea he has is a great one, yet his history makes clear that such is not the case. For example, did you know he wanted to get rid of the work requirement in welfare reform in the 90′s? He referred to the work requirement in welfare reform as, are you ready for this? “Right wing social engineering.” Sound familiar? During our debate, I was trying to get some confidence that a President Gingrich wouldn’t use government to pursue every idea he had. I got no such confidence. Actually, quite the opposite. He came across as another big-government conservative… whatever that is.
Cuccinelli, remember, is the first person to actually win a federal court victory in declaring Obamacare unconstituional (at the federal district court level). He’s an astute observer and participant in conservative politics.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/28/cuccinelli-up-on-santorum-down
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
PreemptivePaulbot| 12.28.11 @ 1:33PM
Cuccinelli also had this to say:
Another interesting element was Congressman Paul’s discussion of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. He takes the position that these programs are unconstitutional, and that the Supreme Court has been wrong in concluding otherwise. So I asked him if he’d sign a budget that provided funding for these programs that he believes are unconstitutional.
Somewhat to my surprise he said “yes.” To clarify, I restated part of my question to get more explanation from him. Interestingly, he basically said, ‘look, these things have been around a long time, and even though they’re unconstitutional, we’d have to work our way out of them, as cutting them off cold turkey would be too disruptive to too many people.’
Given the fact that Ron Paul is the standard for consistency in the race, one expects to hear him say ‘it’s unconstitutional, so we need to end it tomorrow.’ But he took a very practical approach, something that I don’t think some Republicans want to credit him with being able (willing?) to do.
Given his view of the constitutionality of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, his forward-looking explanation seemed very reasonable in accounting for all of the impacts that governance consistent with his views would entail.
Omni| 12.28.11 @ 2:30PM
I do hope that Mr. Cucinelli stays humble and grounded. What a refreshing thing that would be to have in an elected official who still speaks like a real husband and father of children who deal with what 95% of real Americans confront in home, work, school, FAITH, and vocation pursuits.
Mr. Hillyer, I hope that you get to interview Mr. Cucinelli (if you haven't already). Please include in the topics where he stands on home schooling issues. Virginia permits it, but once one looks into the matter, Virginia families that try to correctly and decently homeschool are under annual full-bore assault.
They need defenders with conscience and reasoned voice. Is Mr. Cucinelli that man?
Good for Mr. Cucinelli that he has taken a leading voice in decrying National Health Care/Obamacare.
It was good to see his questioning in the debate that Mike Huckabee hosted.
Now: Let's also see if Virginia Attorney General Ken Cucinelli will take any part in taking to task the Virginia GOP and State Election Board for not including candidates other than Mitt Romney and Ron Paul on the March 2012 Virginia primary day ballots. (this is completely excluding candidates Perry, Gingritch, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman from the primary day ballot)
Will Mr. Cucinelli weigh in? I think it inevitable.
One more thing: Yes, readers here will definitely be hearing more from Mr. Cucinelli as he has announced his year 2013 run for the Virginia governorship. Let us all hope and pray that he does not morph into a weaker, less convicted, more vanilla man as he starts ever more moving in bigger circles.
Dean Clancy | 12.28.11 @ 2:43PM
I am a big Cuccinelli fan -- so much so, I was a delegate for him in Richmond -- but I must differ with him a tad on welfare reform. I'm surprised a federalist of Cuccinelli's depth and caliber would take a view he takes in this quotation. I was involved in the '96 reform effort as a House GOP leadership staffer and part of my job was helping manage potentially damaging disputes within the pro-reform coalition. There was a faction that focused all its energy on securing tough federal work requirements, and a faction that wanted a block grant approach and didn't see the need for lots of federal strings. The work requirement in the context of a block-grant was in fact needless federal micromanagement, in my opinion; but it was included in the House bill at the insistence of conservatives like Jim Talent of Missouri, who were heavily influenced by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. If memory serves, Senate Republicans were weak on the whole issue, and Speaker Gingrich was prepared to take whatever approach would get a bill through the Senate to Clinton's desk. I have no doubt he was in fact willing to ditch the work requirements, but as I recall he was also willing to ditch the block grant approach, and in fact had to be persuaded to stick with it by the federalist conservative and former Reagan welfare reformer, Bob Carleson, with help from Paul Weyrich and other conservative leaders. Again, my memory made be failing me a bit here (it's been so long); and if so, my apologies to whomever I may be mischaracterizing. But in any case, the bill became law with both approaches included. I am convinced that the ultimate secret of the '96 reform's tremendous success was not the work requirement, which had big loopholes and has been largely evaded, but rather the block grant structure, which gave the state welfare bureaucracies a powerful incentive to shrink their caseloads. To hear Cuccinelli, a strong federalist (and again, a personal hero of mine) take the micromanaging position is a bit disconcerting.
Dean Clancy
Oldefarte| 12.28.11 @ 2:53PM
HUH?????:
".....A central pledge of President Clinton’s campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare, and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as ninety days. Gingrich insisted that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation....In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton..., Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. Introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government's responsibilities. It instituted the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements.....Gingrich and Clinton negotiated the legislation in private meetings. Previously, Clinton had quietly spoken with Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott for months about the bill, but a compromise on a more acceptable bill for the President could not be reached. Gingrich, on the other hand, gave accurate information about his party’s vote counts and persuaded more conservative members of the Republican Party to vote in favor of PRWORA.....President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme... As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act "gives us a chance we haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives."After the passage of the bill, Gingrich continued to press for welfare reform and increasing employment opportunities for welfare recipients. In his 1998 book Lessons Learned the Hard Way, Gingrich outlined a multi-step plan to improve economic opportunities for the poor. The plan called for encouraging volunteerism and spiritual renewal, placing more importance on families, creating tax incentives and reducing regulations for businesses in poor neighborhoods, and increasing property ownership for low-income families. Gingrich cited his volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity as an example of where he observed that it was more rewarding for people to be actively involved in improving their lives--by building their own homes--than by receiving welfare payments from the government......"
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 3:28PM
I can understand supporting Santorum.
But it does need to be understood, ab initio, when considering him, that he has no genuine executive experience, nor has he experience putting together vast numbers to support a widespread legislative agenda.
To be sure he's had experience trying to cobble together some to support particular pieces of legislation, but beyond that............ Nothing.
So is this the time to put forward a guy who is dead right on many significant issues, but hasn't had experience as an executive, nor has he the policy wonkery that would rectify such an absence of experience.
Occam's Tool| 12.28.11 @ 5:36PM
Yes, Dan, but he was a Senator. For awhile. He is probably the strongest policy wonk in the race, next to Gingrich.
Oldefarte| 12.29.11 @ 11:32AM
Again, I'll agree with Dan's point. Santorum is a great guy personally no doubt, but as president NO [he simply has no executive/administrative/political party leadership experience that is solely needed with the job of presidency]!!!!!!