Mitt Romney found it relatively easy to take down Newt Gingrich, targeting the disgraced former House Speaker's controversial past. Going after Rick Santorum isn't quite as easy.
Here's what Romney's come up with so far.
Associated Press
Romney spoke for about 10 minutes with Sen. Rob Portman, R-[Ohio], at his side, the highest-ranking Republican in the state to endorse his candidacy.
Romney took a brief shot at his principal opponent in the March 6 Ohio primary, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, saying that while Santorum was in the Senate, "he voted five times to raise the debt ceiling."
There were a few other criticisms, but it's the debt-ceiling votes that have apparently become a favorite of the Romney campaign.
This is, to put it mildly, bizarre. Romney apparently hopes to prove that Santorum's routine votes to raise the federal debt limit will make the former senator look like a less-than-reliable conservative. As Jon Chait recently noted, "I continue to enjoy Romney's sheer contempt for the electorate. Raising the debt ceiling and voting for earmarks are things that everybody does in Congress, including Republicans. Whereas supporting abortion rights, establishing universal health care, and calling yourself progressive are not things that Republican governors normally do."
Yesterday's remarks in Ohio were especially jarring -- Romney was standing alongside Sen. Rob Portman (R), who not only repeatedly voted to raise the debt ceiling himself as a member of Congress, but also served as George W. Bush's budget director when the Bush/Cheney administration repeatedly raised the debt ceiling.
In other words, Romney was condemning Santorum for taking the same position his closest Ohio ally also took.
What's more, there's no evidence whatsoever that Romney has ever been bothered by these debt-limit increases before. Under Reagan, the U.S. raised the debt ceiling 18 times, and under Bush/Cheney, it was raised seven times. I can't find any record of Romney ever complaining at the time about any of these increases.
Now, however, Romney apparently considers this policy deeply troubling. So, here's the follow-up question for the former governor: if elected, you'll have to raise the debt ceiling several times, just as every modern president from both parties has done. Will you balk, pursue default, and trash the full faith and credit of the United States, or will you do what Santorum and Portman did?
This really isn't a hypothetical issue, and if Romney is serious about debt-ceiling demagoguery, he has a responsibility to explain how he'll handle the issue in office.
Leave a Comment:
So because the GOP is bereft of ideas, and have NO PLANS for "governing the nation", these attacks on the "stands" that these people took while in office have become their "Achilles heel" with which to beat each other down in the effort to appear "more conservative"! What's really frightening is that after last summer's temper tantrum by the reich that down-graded the American credit rating - that anyone even in jest wants to "go there" again is an anathema to my mind, and should be a waving red flag to every American with even a smattering of thought processes!!
" he has a responsibility to explain how he'll handle the issue in office"
-there goes Shirley, jesting again. . .
Steve, Steve, Steve, you're looking for consistency. Since when has Romney ever been bothered by THAT?
That whole party has been bizarre for a while now. I expect it to be even more so at the convention. I hate conventions. I think they are more for the parties, lining pockets and affairs than for anything else, but it might just be amusing this year.
There's no question that he knows he's lying on this one, just so he can throw out a red-meat line to the ignorant base. Think of it as a gullibility test -- if you're still dumb enough to think that the debt ceiling has something to do with controlling deficit spending, Romney thinks he can convince you to vote for him.
This years deficits is next years debt. We have to keep raising the debt ceiling because we keep spending too much (deficits). You statement that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with deficit spending is a little misleading. We have the debt because of the deficits AND if we have to keep increasing the debt ceiling we are obviously NOT controlling deficit spending. I have heard that fancy statement before trying to seperate the debt ceiling and the deficit. It's like saying "Just because I got a couple more credit cards because I am maxxed out on all the others doesn't mean I am not trying to control my overspending". It sounds good, but it is laughable when you really think about it.
While obviously a deficit adds to the debt, the debt ceiling is a hard dollar limit, not indexed to inflation, not indexed to growth. The only ways to not hit the debt ceiling year after year are:
That's it. If you insist on the (very flawed) credit card analogy, the Debt Limit is like the strategy of freezing your checkbook in a block of ice. Yes, it will make you do something before writing a check, but that thing you are doing - chipping away the ice - doesn't make you any less likely to spend money, and eventually you have to write the mortgage payment and chip the checkbook out anyway. It was a Bad Idea when it was first enacted, and it continues to be a Bad Idea today. In the intervening 95 years it was merely a useless nuisance; thanks to conservative demagoguery on the issue, now it is an active threat to the functioning of the US budgetary process.
Tom interesting points. My take on these:
1. Unlimted debt? I think 16,000 Billion is too much already. I do like the mange the surplus part - like that will happen in the near future. Passing a budget would be nice but I won't hold my breath.
2. See number 1. I just can't believe that most people think that owing as much as our entire GDP is no big thing. Let's just increase it more...to no end. I guess the accountant in me is coming out.
3. Of course that won't happen
4. I do like this one. But again - budgeting a surplus will not happen anytime soon. We have had deficits for years and now at a Trillion plus per year pace. Simply mind-blowing. But again, no real concern by most folks.
5. Acutally they counld. You have to agree with me that there is a TON of waste and fraud in government. Not sure how to cure that entrenched way of doing business but I believe it would equal hundreds and hundreds of Billions a year. Not to mention getting the government out of a lot of things that the federal government has no business being in. Stick to the NEEDS of the country and not the WANTS.
And I do disagree with you on my credit card analogy. The government, just like us spends a lot on frivolous or unneeded things. Yes you have to pay the mortgage, but you don't have to have the deluxe cable package or the 56in plasma TV or the $5 coffee 5 days a week UNLESS you have the surplus cash to get it. There are a lot of "56 in TVs" so to speak in the government.
Well, the perfect opportunity comes up tomorrow. And, because the debate is CNN sponsored rather than FOX, the question is sure to come up. If it doesn't, then the fix is in...
Romney, like almost all other candidates will say whatever will get him elected. Case in point:
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child," Obama said on July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.
"That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic," said candidate Obama
Now that he added about $6 Trillion more on his "lonesome" (in three plus years instead of 4 Trillion in eight :)) that comment in 2008 is pretty hollow. I'm sure you believed it then. They're politicians, that's what they do. They promise things based on the audience du jour.
There is no substance to the republican candidate's talking points. It's as if they are talking to a bunch of morons. This has got to be insulting to their base. Perhaps this accounts for their low caucus turnout. Very blah,blah,blah.
It is interesting to take a look back at the Presidencies since the Kennedy era and see how the various gentlemen that inhabited the White House handled their fiscal responsibilities when it came to the national debt. As shown in this article, the President that is responsible for accruing the largest cumulative annual percent growth in the debt may surprise you:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/08/americas-presidents-who-was-biggest.html
Perhaps supply side economics was not the success that the Reagan Administration claimed.
Romney touts the drug Nexium in Cincinnati.
Is Mitt Romney really a snake-oil salesman in drag?
Here’s what Consumer Reports had to say in its article on the drug. It headlined the story “Overprescribed and overpriced: Just say ‘no’ to Nexium.”
Nexium is produced by British owned AstraZeneca, the 2nd largest drug manufacturer in Great Britain.
Rich Fante, president of the U.S. division of AstraZeneca, announced in Dec. 2011 the company will reduce its U.S. sales force by 24% - or 1,150 U.S. jobs.
"The changes we are making, however, will help us deliver better results for our business and, most importantly, continue delivering on our mission of patient health," said Fante.
Rich Fante doesn't read Consumer Reports.
So Mitt Romney, who loves America and says he knows how to and will create jobs if elected president, is shilling for a foreign company that is in the process of destroying 1,150 jobs in the America he loves.
Has the real Mitt Romney finally stood up?
Is this guy really that stupid? Really?
Or does he just think we are?
Yesterday in Cincinnati, Mitt Romney inexplicably touted the drug Nexium.
Here’s what Consumer Reports had to say in its article on the drug. It headlined the story “Overprescribed and overpriced: Just say ‘no’ to Nexium.”
Nexium is produced by British owned AstraZeneca, the 2nd largest drug manufacturer in Great Britain.
Rich Fante, president of the U.S. division of AstraZeneca, announced in Dec. 2011 the company will reduce its U.S. sales force by 24% - or 1,150 U.S. jobs.
"The changes we are making, however, will help us deliver better results for our business and, most importantly, continue delivering on our mission of patient health," said Fante (doesn't read Consumer Reports?).
So Mitt Romney, who loves America and says he knows how to and will create jobs if elected president, is shilling for a foreign company that is in the process of destroying 1,150 jobs in the country he loves.
Has the real Mitt Romney just stood up?
Is this guy really that stupid? Really?
Or does he just think we are?
Well now if GW had not got us into two wars and if the republicans had not deregulated banking and industry and if the Congress and US commerce department had not rewarded outsourcing and if....
Yup we are in debt, have been since Reagan took us from a half trillion to over two trillion. Heck our taxes pay more on interest than principle. But raise revenue? Never! Toss granny on the street(SSI is not a part of the debt), end welfare(Corporate welfare?) ...plenty of arguments no real solutions because both sides refuse to raise taxes on the upper crust both sides refuse to do anything but blame the other. It's the wifes fault you're in debt,no it's your fault wait it's the kids fault!If we quit feeding the kids,quit buying their school books and put them to work digging ditches to pay off the house ...
here's the thing...will anyone ask Willard if HE would raise the debt ceiling?
Why in all of these debates have they not asked the completely obvious question: "Will you veto attempts to raise the debt limit?" They always ask questions about spending and they all blah about how they will cut spending, but this is a real issue that will arise in the first days of the next administration, no matter who it is. Why are the debates not addressing this?