Santorum, 1/1712: “We don’t need someone who supports lies and promotes lies and stands behind those lies in order to get elected president. We need someone who’s going to tell the truth to the American public, not someone who’s going to deliberately lie and stand behind those lies to get elected.”
Of course, that should apply to him....
He rails against negative ads but he insists on doing the equivalent himself (speeches, appearances) - and total, outrageous falsehoods that people should look into when considering voting for him.
Someone who tells untruths and is strong about it and acts sincere about it is still an untruth teller.
________________________________________________________________________________
SANTORUM IS ACTUALLY...
One could easily make the case, and back it up with examples, where Santorum is a:
Mudslinger
Teller of falsehoods
Twister of facts
Master at negativity, while cleverly disguising it
About Santorum's ads that sling mud about Romney slinging mud: "You always accuse the other guy of what you're doing yourself."
_____________________________________________________________________________
- Endorsed Romney in 2008.
- Endorsed individual mandate (before he was against it)
Speaking as if being righteous, while actually not telling the truth and while doing definite mudslinging in the form of falsehoods, makes him a hypocrite at best, in my assessment of him.
The 8th Commandment says “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
UNTRUE ASSERTIONS, CLAIMS, AND "FACTS" PROFERRED
Claims Romney promoted individual mandates for fed. Proven False. See below.
Claims Romney was a top down government medicine program. Proven false. See below.
Other claims of facts that were not correct about "RomneyCare", including "provided abortion funding", failing to note it was the courts that inserted it in. All proven false. See below.
Claims Romney a liberal on climate change. (Romney vetoed bill saying it was too expensive for businesses.)
Claims he is tough on Iran, but...
Terry Shiavo government intervention
I'M A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE:
"In a single session Santorum co-sponsored 51 bills to increase spending and zero to cut spending."
"And he voted against an amendment proposed by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to specifically defund the Bridge to Nowhere (and another Alaska bridge) and redirect the funding to rebuild the Interstate 10 bridge that was destroyed in Hurricane Katrina."
ROMNEY SUPPORTS CAP AND TRADE (NOT!)
Santorum's Claim That Governor Romney Supports Cap-And-Trade Was Rated "False":
PolitiFact: "When Asked For Evidence Of Romney's Support For Cap And Trade, The Santorum Campaign Failed To Produce Any. We Rate The Claim False." "When he could have signed it into law, he declined. And more recently, Romney has repeatedly said he's opposed to it. And when asked for evidence of Romney's support for cap and trade, the Santorum campaign failed to produce any. We rate the claim False." (PolitiFact.com, 2/14/12)
TERRY SCHIAVO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION
Tonight, Mr. Santorum said he “didn’t call for Congressional intervention, I called for a judicial hearing” to review a case in which the parents, who were constituents of his from Pennsylvania, and Ms. Schiavo’s husband were on different sides.
But a New York Times Magazine article in May 2005 about Mr. Santorum said he “not only pushed the Senate to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, but he also traveled to Florida and prayed with her parents.”
"The problem is that we have a candidate who is running, who is now seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in this field to put up on this most fundamental issue of this campaign and this is Governor Romney," Santorum said during the speech in Rochester, Minn.
"Governor Romney is simply dead wrong on the most important issue of the day and should not be the nominee of our party," he added.
Santorum Has a History of creation Gross Exaggerations and absolute Untrue Statements about Governor Romney’s attempt to Reform Health Care in Massachusetts:
Santorum wrongly accuse Governor Romney on Federal Insurance Mandates
“Santorum went on the unpleasant Thursday night next to his rival Mitt Romney, reproachful the former Massachusetts governor of ‘deliberately’ misrepresenting his record on health care … ‘That he never advocated for an person mandate, that government at the central level require people to buy insurance, and now we find on several occasions, just in the past week, article after article, interview after interview, where Governor Romney did just that in 2009.’” (Lucy Madison, “Santorum: Romney ‘Deliberately’ Misrepresenting Health Care Record,
The Washington Post: “Romney Has Been reliable In Saying That He Would relate A_State-Based Approach to Health Care … He Has by no means Advocated Or Supported A Federal Mandate.” “Romney has been reliable in proverb that he would apply a state-based move toward to health care.
I looked for evidence of what Romney said and it is consistent - he never proposed a federal mandate, but only that if there were a federal law it should be based on free market and conservative principles, such as in his
But his own stance was...
“Santorum and [his opponent] would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits,” The Morning Call (Pa.) reported in 1994. The Morning Call noted that Santorum had also called for a MediSave account and had opposed so-called “sin” taxes. (In multiple articles, undenied by Santorum)
If true, the distinction between requiring people to buy health insurance and an individual mandate might be lost on the voters who have heard Santorum excoriate Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for their support of the individual mandate — which, in Gingrich’s case, dates back to the early 90s.
For several years, Santorum has promoted a Republican alternative. It would require workers to buy their own health insurance and allow monthly tax-free contributions into "Medisave" accounts to pay for routine medical services.
Santorum and Watkins both oppose having businesses provide health care for their employees. Instead, they would require individuals to purchase insurance. Both oppose higher taxes on alcohol or tobacco to help pay for care.
See below the other related facts, at the bottom.
Top down government run - A huge "untruth"
Called Massachusetts law: a "top down government run medicine in Massachusettts"
It was actually an "either buy health care or pay one's fair share - no free riders...
Free riding went up - Untruth
He claimed that free-riding has gone up five-fold in Massachusetts under Romneycare. People would rather pay the fine than purchase care.
Out and out untruths: "I'd be happy to give you the study - free riding went up 5 times" Nowhere hear the truth!!! (Washington Post on this: About 0.6 percent of Bay State adults under 65 paid a fine for not carrying health insurance in 2009, the most recent year for which data are available from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.)
"What governor Romney said was factually incorrect, it is the same as ObamaCare" That is just an assertion, though a common one, but a 70 page plan cannot be the same as a 2700 page plan and RomneyCare actually was only directed at free riding! See the comparison of RCare and OCare - huge difference.
In one of these bills, those who go without insurance are penalized, but only in that they are excluded from participation in government-run high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions. That bill was also sponsored by Newt Gingrich.
Claim Romney said it was a good model for the nation - Not!
Santorum and Perry were both off base in claiming that Romney once touted his Massachusetts plan as a model for the nation. He didn’t. He said it wasn’t necessarily right for all states. (When Perry was challenged to bet $10,000 on his assertion, in the debate, he backed down by saying he wasn't a "betting man" - he would have lost the bet! See Politifact and FactCheck.
SANTORUM SUPPORTING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
"Santorum and Watkins both oppose having businesses provide health care for their employees. Instead, they would require individuals to purchase insurance."4/7/94
Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits. 5/2/94 Article Allentown, Pa paper,
A cogent comment: "This is what gets me: the absolute moral indignation candidates like Newt and Santorum show when they act as if they’d never consider such an “unconstitutional concept.” Though this is no doubt a show for the red-meat conservatives who’d rather someone shake a fist in the air than propose actual solutions, it’s still disheartening.."
FALSE AND MISLEADING, BUT DEFINITE
The old saying "he's not always right, but he's never uncertain" could apply to Santorum (and a lot of lawyers) - and he also said it of himself:
(Romneycare) was the basis of Obamacare and it was an abject failure.” RomneyCare was lauded by conservatives for its design and for its using conservative principles and it was very successful though a daring experiment. See RomneyCare Lauded By Conservatives.
MORE ON HEALTH CARE, MANDATE
In a bill Santorum cosponsored:
"However, the bill required that an employer that chose to offer coverage must also offer a consumer-driven health plan consisting of high-deductible insurance and a health savings account. Section 201 of the bill states that employers who failed to do so would “not be allowed” to deduct “the expenses paid or incurred by an employer for a group health plan.” [That's a mandate, where there are penalties imposed for not complying.]
However, Section 601 sought to prevent free-riders from taking advantage of these subsidies: “Any individual with family income exceeding 200 percent of the income official poverty line…or who is eligible for [subsidies] to purchase a catastrophic health insurance plan…but who fails to purchase coverage…shall not be eligible for the insurance pool program under title V of this Act.”
In addition, individuals with income above 200% of the federal poverty level would not be allowed to file for bankruptcy, or receive federal assistance, unless they first spent down their assets on health care. However, Gramm-Santorum did not reverse the 1986 EMTALA law that requires hospitals to care for anyone irrespective of their ability to pay.
Hence, Gramm-Santorum did not require all individuals to buy insurance, or face a penalty: rather, it disallowed such individuals (above 200% of FPL) from receiving federal assistance for pre-existing conditions or bankruptcy protection.
During his 1994 Senate campaign against opponent Joe Watkins, Rick Santorum called for a “comprehensive restructuring” of health care that included a government mandate to purchase health insurance, according to an old article from The Morning Call.
“Santorum and Watkins both oppose having businesses provide health care for their employees. Instead, they would require individuals to purchase insurance.
“Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits.”
He’s barely able to contain his contempt for Gov. Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts - but he is doing it on false premises, as Romney himself only put in the provision to have free riders "cost share", but did not put in (vetoed) any employer fees, insisted on free markets, and no new taxes. See RomneyCare to get actual facts (possibly just scan top items listed as The Bottomline)..
TOUGH ON IRAN?
The prime sponsor of Senate legislation to close the sanctions loophole with Iran, Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), reacted to Santorum's falsehoods today.
"Rick Santorum has repeatedly refused to close the loophole in our sanctions law which allows the Iranian Government to generate more revenue that they can pass on to terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah," said Senator Lautenberg. "Rick Santorum tries to give the impression that he is tough on Iran, but when its time to stand up to powerful companies like Halliburton, Rick Santorum stands down."
PROBLABLE UNTRUTH
But last night, when Romney accused Santorum of being responsible for Obamacare because he supported Arlen Specter in his primary fight in 2004, Santorum stated that he did so because he exacted a promise from Specter to support all of the Bush nominees for SCOTUS if he became Chairman of Senate Judiciary.
So Michael Smerkonish gets Arlen Specter on the telephone, and Specter says no such conversation ever took place. No conversation remotely similar to it.
Now, certainly there are plenty of people who don't particularly like Arlen Specter - you've got plenty of reasons, and good ones at that.
But why would Specter tell anything but the truth about this?
