#UnravelTheSweater: Big Government Rick Santorum is NOT the One

Alternate Title: Why I Love Vanilla: A Few Reasons Big Government Career Politician Rick Santorum is NOT the One

Rick Santorum - Unravel the Sweater

The GOP FroYo Sweepstakes

I liken the GOP race to a trip to one of those self-serve frozen yogurt shops where you can sample the flavors before you decide. I usually try all the flavors I can without embarrassing myself before I fill up with my final selection. It’s not infrequent it’s the flavor I kind of thought I wanted in the beginning, and frankly quite often that’s vanilla.

Of course I do like the toppings, too.

“Vetting” Santorum

It takes a candidate some time before they’re deemed important enough to be vetted. Perry, Cain, Bachman and Gingrich all had their turns rising in the polls, only to come crashing back down after the media focused the spotlight on them. Meanwhile Mitt Romney has been steady, and in fact improving as all the “not-Romneys” have been dismissed. Well, Santorum is the last possible “flavor of the month” the GOP can sample before it finally decides it really does like Mitt’s brand of vanilla. I love chocolate, peanut butter cup and the rest, but vanilla is, after all, the best-selling flavor of ice cream (and I’d guess frozen yogurt). And it’s no insult that people try other flavors, but in the end there’s just something particularly satisfying about vanilla!

I must admit I’ve not taken Rick Santorum terribly seriously to this point. Perhaps that’s “my bad.” To me he’s been a bit like the flavor Tutti Frutti. Tastes good, and maybe even a nice change of pace, but not my steady diet. As a result I, and it appears many others, have avoided “going negative” with him. Why point out a guy’s weaknesses if it doesn’t serve a purpose? I kind of had the impression he’s a nice guy, liked some of what he said on social issues and have a level of respect for a man with seven children. But if Rick really wants to be our nominee, I for one want a sample. And it appears there are a reasonable number of people lined up to try Rick’s flavor, so if he’s a serious candidate, it’s time to take a taste.

A Bit of an Aftertaste

Upon examination I’m not quite sure Rick really is the flavor for me. A look at his past drew up accusations of fiscal irresponsibility, ethics questions and just an angry guy. Witness Rick’s ad he released today, characterizing Governor Romney as Rambo, taking mud-slinging shots at Santorum.

Interestingly, the Romney campaign has not run negative ads on Santorum. So Santorum has now done what he accused Mitt of doing, unprovoked.

It seems a serious tactical error to accuse your opponent of what you’re doing to him, but Santorum, to use a Rambo phrase, has now “drawn first blood.” He may not like the response he gets.

Rick’s new ad and what I found on the internet reminded me of the man I saw during the debates who got unexpectedly angry, who’d launch unprovoked attacks on fellow Republican candidates, and who Mitt even had to remind to settle down at one point. But I digress.

Short Version of “Why Mitt”

To go positive, my first instinct was to draft a post about why I support Mitt, though I did want to compare the two candidates (which I think is fair). I posted that article last night, entitled “Why Mitt Is (Still) the One” (immediately below this article). One of my main contentions is that Mitt is head and shoulders over Rick in one very important area: executive experience, in particular regarding the economy. Mitt’s executive experience speaks for itself. President of successful companies. Saved the 2002 Olympics from ethical scandals (see below about Rick’s ethical challenges). Acknowledged turnaround expert (doesn’t our government and economy need a good turnaround expert right now?)

Conservative Governor of Massachusetts. Universally recognized as running the only national Republican campaign, and that being a well-oiled machine. The man has vision, can lead and manage! We already elected one inexperienced, ideologically driven senator as President, and I don’t want to make that same mistake again. Not with the problems we’re likely to face over the next 4 years, principally with the economy.

One major element of that? The budget deficit. Mitt’s an expert: let me repeat, expert, in identifying waste, eliminating it, and returning organizations to top form. He wants the chance to do it with our government because he loves our country and knows we have so much more potential. I for one want to give him that chance. If he likes to fire unproductive people, please turn him loose on the bureaucracies in Washington!

Our national debt is a HUGE issue. Literally and figuratively. $15 trillion and counting. Obama wants to add another $1 trillion in next year’s budget alone.

Let me digress a bit further. Obama is the first Democratic candidate running openly as a liberal big spender. In the past Dems have tried to hide that fact. Not anymore. Obama wants to spend, and without proposing a realistic budget, there is no plan to deal with not only the exploding deficit, but that $15 trillion debt we keep adding to.

Let me say it again: Obama wants to keep spending and has no plan to pay for it. Our country may not be able to survive this. Investors are lending the US money because we’re viewed as safer than other places like Europe. But if Europe fixes its problems, we won’t be safer, and interest rates will rise, stunting growth and killing jobs. And if they don’t get their house in order in Europe, we won’t be able to print money fast enough to get out of the mess it would create. And if we can’t spend as we’re used to in our military, as Mitt says it invites problems. I don’t feel I’m exaggerating when I say our security as a nation depends on our ability to reduce spending and reduce our debt to historically sustainable levels. So we need a plan to fix this mess.

If we re-elect Obama, the problem will only compound. His “plan” is to take from Peter to pay Paul, but soon we’ll run out of Peters and will have to convince the Pauls to give up their freebies. Witness the riots in Greece to see how that story plays out. Once hand-outs are the norm, they become permanent–you can’t get people to give them up without a real fight, sometimes a literal fight. It conveniently sets up the Democrats to permanently be in power as the party of the freebie.

So should we ask the rich pay their “fair share?” If you haven’t seen it yet, I’d suggest watching this video, which shows if you take *all* the money from the wealthy, we only make a tiny dent in the debt. Meanwhile the productive Peters move offshore, stop working so hard, and the incentive to become a productive member of society is reduced. This and other reasons are why the economy is growing more slowly than it should, and this problem will only compound if we don’t address this problem. This isn’t a tax issue. It’s a spending issue. Please watch the video at the link above if you still don’t believe me.

If you look at our national debt as you would with a household budget, the chart below shows where we were a little while ago (the numbers have now increased: see Stossel’s blog for the latest):

In today’s numbers, the US’ income would be $23,300 (chopping off the extra zeros to put it in perspective), annual spending would be $35,980, and total debt $153,566. So it would take 5 years to pay down our debt if we only spent on that. Reducing spending $4 trillion over 10 years is the equivalent of reducing spending by $333 a month. But, at the same time, at the present rate, debt would increase by $130,000 to $283,000 over that period. This is based on numbers from today’s National Debt Clock. In February 2008, the debt total would have been $93,000. Hopefully this puts in perspective just how bad shape our “household” finances are in. Obviously this trend is unsustainable. At some point this hypothetical family’s credit card would be cut off (thanks to my friend Jim Perkins for the calculations).

So where do we turn for an alternative? Mitt Romney. Is Santorum even close? Not at all, if you look at his record. More on that below, and I believe to come, whether from Mitt’s campaign, the pro-Romney PAC or elsewhere. My research suggests Rick’s a quintessential big government Republican with some ethics “challenges.” Just one example is his support of the “bridge to nowhere” pork project, even after he knew it was a complete waste of government money. This cartoon (included in my prior post) tells it all:

Rick Santorum has a record as a big government, big spender who can’t resist an earmark. He’s part of the problem, not the solution.

Rick the Big Government, Career Politician.

You’ll be hearing much more about this one main element of Santorum’s career: he’s a big government Republican, the type that cost us the election in 2008 because the party establishment (yes, that’s Rick, not Mitt) spent like the Democrats. He’s “Mr. Earmark.” Funny how all the GOP candidates who spent time in Washington now vilify the “establishment” they helped create.

From Politico:

As Santorum tries to seize the tea-party mantle and paint Mitt Romney as the ultimate establishment candidate, the reality is Santorum became the ultimate Washington insider.

Santorum was popular with most of his GOP colleagues, emerging as the No. 3 Senate Republican, and he briefly considered a run for Senate GOP leader. He played a key role in the so-called “K Street Project,” an effort by top Republicans on Capitol Hill to fill the ranks of powerful lobbying shops with Republican supporters. He pushed for hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks for Pennsylvania projects and companies, then used those relationships to help his post-Senate career.

And he profited mightily from his Senate ties after he left the chamber in 2007, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars by cashing in on his insider relationships, including serving on a hospital management board that was accused of Medicaid fraud.

Sounds a lot like Gingrich to me. So is a big spender Republican what we want back in the White House given our nation’s no. 1 problem of out of control spending? We literally can’t afford it anymore. Our problem is that our current president considers himself to have a blank check to spend our money with. We can’t solve that problem with a big spending Republican! To borrow Santorum’s line, that’s not enough of a “bright line contrast with Obama.” The rest of the nation shouldn’t (and I believe won’t) stand for it. Rick is who Obama’s talking about when he says we can’t return to the failed policies of the past. I disagree with Obama on a lot, including that Republican policies are failures, but I do agree that Republicans, particularly Congressional Republicans like Santorum, failed conservatism while in office. And Rick wasn’t just a part of the problem, he was emblematic of the problem. See an article yesterday in the Washington Examiner entitled “Santorum’s Big Government Parochialism.”

As a Senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum took earmarks, pushed a support program for dairy farmers, sided with unions and backed steel tariffs. In these instances, when free market principles clashed with local concerns, he abandoned limited government conservatives.

The problem is that one of the biggest obstacles to shrinking government is politicians protecting their home state interests – such as farm state representatives fighting to maintain agricultural subsidies that analysts from across the political specture acknowledge are terrible policy. Even if Santorum pledges to be a limited government president, if everybody in Congress followed his example, we’d never be able to shrink government.

Did everyone catch that? On our number one problem, if everyone acted like Santorum, our problem would only get worse.

Rick’s Electability

As a result of his record, and his positions on social issues, Rick will not win the independents. It’s more than an October surprise, we know now. He’s very socially conservative, and while I may agree with him on a few points, our country is not truly far right, but center right, and, I believe, on the whole more interested in fiscal conservatism than social conservatism, which is a complete mismatch with Rick (big government spender).

A Bit of Due Diligence

To do my own due diligence and better acquaint myself with Rick’s past, I took the risk of Googling him. Be careful if you follow suit, but I thought I’d throw out some of the more family-friendly facts I found:

1. The K Street Project. In 1995 apparently some Republican leaders told lobbyists in Washington that they would have to fill top lobbying spots with GOP friends to continue to enjoy privileged access to GOP members of Congress. Take a look at this Wikipedia entry. According to Wikipedia, Santorum acted as a liaison between Republicans and lobbyists during his last senate term. Explicitly selling influence is now illegal, and I’m not saying Santorum was doing so, but it was clear that Rick’s goal was to fill lobbying positions with GOP approved lobbyists, which only works with an implied quid pro quo that the lobbyists would have the GOP’s ear when the time came. And who’d be first in line to listen? The guy that coordinated that effort, Rick Santorum. So is Rick really not “establishment?” Come on. He’s more tied to the lobbyists than arguably any other of the GOP candidates, possibly even Gingrich, since he would have had to make promises to these lobby firms to convince them to hire who he wanted. Those promises were improved access to lawmakers to get the quid for the pro quo. The piper will some day come calling. Which is fine if you’re a big government spender and can afford the pork. But not if you need to cut trillions from the deficit.

Some have wondered if there’s any connection between Santorum and the quintessential lobbyist, convicted felon Jack Abramoff. I don’t have the answer to that question or what Rick did, but encourage people to look into that on their own. Rick has apparently denied meeting with Abramoff, but there’s evidence they likely did meet at some point, even if they never had any dealings. But Rick’s proximity to the blatant “distribution” if not “sale” of access to influence casts doubt in my mind on his altruism. Rick has denied involvement with this project, but his doing so earned two Pinocchios from the Washington Post. Click on the link for more info about the entire affair. I can’t say Rick did anything wrong. In fact perhaps it seemed like a good idea in the 1990s to have friends in high places. But in hindsight, it looks like Rick has some favors to pay back. There’s a bit of a stink there and Santorum is standing next to it.

2. Rick endorsed Arlen Specter, a Republican who switched sides to become Democrat, and who cast a deciding vote to pass Obamacare.

This act argues strongly against any claim Santorum has that he’s a “pure” or “principled” conservative. This article in the National Journal indicates it’s a big problem for Santorum (emphasis added):

The endorsement infuriated the state’s conservative activists, and the hard feelings persisted two years later when Santorum desperately and fruitlessly tried to hold off a challenge to his Senate seat by Democrat Bob Casey. (He lost the race by nearly 20 percentage points.) The grassroots supporters did little to help him then, and, indeed, many of them to this day regard him as a member of a Republican political establishment who isn’t sufficiently committed to conservative principles.

And as much as the endorsement rankled eight years ago, it looks even worse now. Specter, of course, was a decisive vote in favor of President Obama’s economic stimulus in 2009, and soon thereafter, switched to the Democratic Party.

Santorum’s support of Specter in 2004 weakens his argument that he’s a “conviction conservative,” someone who puts principle ahead of politics.

“Member of a Republican establishment who isn’t sufficiently committed to conservative principles….” Does that sound “tea party friendly?” If Rick’s tea party, it appears to not be out of principle but political expediency. Why would we want to nominate someone whose own state rejected by nearly 20% in his last election?

3. Santorum’s personal finances raised questions in this 2006 article in the American Prospect. Among the questions were the use of the funds donated to Rick’s “leadership PAC,” America’s Foundation, for unusual expenses versus its incredibly poor record of meeting its stated goal of donating to GOP candidates. According to the article, these “leadership” PACs were originally used by Congressional leaders, not junior members of Congress like Rick Santorum, but most troubling, the use of funds by Rick’s PAC appeared to be for everyday expenses, not support of other candidates. In fact, a paltry 18% of contributions actually went to candidates over a five year period. The rest? Pages and pages of receipts to Starbucks and fast-food restaurants (I wish I had that kind of expense account):

The Prospect decided to heed Santorum’s advice by taking “an honest look at the family budget” — his family budget. What we found is that Santorum’s exurban lifestyle is financed in ways that aren’t available to the average voter back home in Pennsylvania — namely a political action committee that lists payments for such unorthodox items as dozens of trips to the Starbucks in Leesburg, a number of stops at fast-food joints, and purchases at Target, Wal-Mart, and a Giant supermarket in northern Virginia. Although a Santorum aide defends those charges as legitimate political costs, good-government experts say the expenditures are at best unconventional, and at worst a possible violation of Senate rules, and the purchases appear to be unorthodox when compared with other senators’ filings. Santorum’s PAC — a “leadership PAC,” whose purpose is to dispense money to other Republican candidates — used just 18.1 percent of its money to that end over a recent five-year period, a lower number than other leadership PACs of top senators from both parties.

From this article it appears the funds donated to this PAC, to a very unusual extent, were used for everyday expenses, including items such as ice cream cones, coffee and fast food, rather than contributions to candidates. Is this fiscal responsibility? Is this wise use of others’ funds? Isn’t the role of the President to be the ultimate steward of our tax dollars? Has Santorum earned this privilege by his past actions? I don’t think so

It’s not clear from the article who made this extraordinary number of small purchases arguably unrelated to the PAC’s purpose, but even if not Santorum but staff, if that level of inefficiency existed in business, the CEO in charge would be terminated immediately. Something tells me Mitt Romney wouldn’t stand for it, and that whether intentional or not, use of funds set aside for one purpose for something altogether different would not be tolerated in a Romney administration. Unlike Rick, who has not proved faithful in small things, Mitt has been faithful in large things and his expertise is in holding people accountable for results. Please, let’s send him to Washington and not a guy who, at best, appears to have wasted up to 82% of his contributors’ money, and at worst looks to have been using those donations as his personal ATM.

4. Santorum also appears to have otherwise benefited financially from his time in the Senate, including some special treatment. If so, that would be a violation of ethics rules.

One example was the refinance of his home in 2002 with a loan from the Philadelphia Trust Company, a finance company that self-described as catering to “affluent investors and institutions,” whose principal business was not mortgages, and only gives loans for those that maintain investment portfolios with them. Oddly, the Santorums applied for and were given a loan, though they did not maintain an investment portfolio there, reported little income above Santorum’s then $162,000 Senate salary, and had at the time told the New York Times Magazine they were “living paycheck to paycheck.” Why would a Trust Company go against its published guidelines to loan to Rick? It seems easy to conclude that if you were a bank or investment company and a US Senator came to you asking for a loan, you’d be happy to give it to him given his status, even if not wealthy at the time, so you could market his involvement. It may be sad but true that a Senator would likely be wealthy at some point in the future, and it’d be a good relationship to have. But as I understand it, it would have been a violation of ethics rules for Rick to accept such special treatment. Keep in mind this is from 2006, but hey, if you’re defeated in an election at that time, information from that period (which Rick also brings up to demonstrate his legislative “successes”) may be all we have to go on:

Rick and Karen Santorum do not appear to fit the profile of customers to whom the financial institution would normally issue a loan of any kind. According to information currently posted on Philadelphia Trust’s Web site, banking services “are offered at no additional charge to our clients” and “are available only to investment advisory clients whose portfolios we manage, oversee or administer. Interest rates on loans and deposits are competitive. Loan payments will be customized to match each client’s specific needs. Approved loans will be collateralized by your investment portfolio.”

Santorum’s financial disclosure forms filed with the clerk of the Senate show that he has never maintained an investment portfolio with Philadelphia Trust. For that matter, the senator would hardly fit the profile of the “affluent investor” that the Philadelphia bank seeks — namely, people with investment assets of at least $250,000. On his 2002 disclosure form, Santorum listed liquid assets, primarily retirement accounts and life insurance, in a range no greater than $140,000.

Perhaps only coincidentally the officers of the Philadelphia Trust donated approximately $24,000 to the Santorum Senate campaign. Rick was, at the time, also on the Senate Banking Committee.

It was a new private bank catering to “affluent investors and institutions” — whose officers have contributed $24,000 to Santorum’s political action committees and re-election campaign — called Philadelphia Trust Company.

But government ethics experts said that even if Santorum didn’t take any action on Philadelphia Trust’s behalf, the mortgage deal carries the appearance of special treatment, which would violate the Senate ethics rules that Santorum is now charged with reforming. “Anytime he gets something that a regular person couldn’t get, that’s an improper gift,” says Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who now heads the Washington-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Sloan said the senator’s unconventional mortgage is the latest in a series of actions — including his role in the so-called K Street Project to place Republicans in lucrative lobbying jobs — that show “he’s seriously ethically challenged.”

Would you or I have received that loan without maintaining an investment account there, having assets only meeting 2/3 of the required minimum, and not maintaining an account at that institution? It doesn’t appear so. If that’s the case, it’s an improper gift that Rick looks to have accepted, perhaps rationalizing it was the Trust Company’s decision who to loan to, and not his, even though such loans don’t appear to be this company’s business. For more info on this story, check this link at Daily Beast as well entitled How Corrupt Was Santorum? Again, there’s a pile of stink and Rick’s standing next to it.

5. Santorum’s irresponsible spending of others’ money isn’t limited to his PAC: it bleeds over into the budget process. From Redstate recently (emphasis added):

Rick Santorum has never been a leader when it came to bucking the party leadership on anything – most especially including spending. On every major spending issue – Medicare Part D, earmarks, etc., Santorum was complicit with the worst aspects of the Bush administration’s fiscal profligacy.

I defy any of Rick Santorum’s supporters to point out to me one instance – even one – of Rick Santorum battling other Republicans on spending. Maybe it happened and I missed it; I certainly don’t pretend omniscience.

I don’t suppose this would matter so much, except that the people who are now flocking to Santorum are the same people I hear constantly telling me that another go-along, get-along Republican is completely unacceptable, and that they’ll stay home if one is nominated. It isn’t enough, I am constantly told, for the nominee to oppose Democrats now and then – we must have someone who will also oppose feckless Republicans. What good will it do us to march toward socialism a little slower than the pace preferred by the Democrats? It boggles that mind that, as an electorate, we rejected Rick Perry because his voice sounded too much like George W. Bush’s, and yet we stand on the verge of nominating George W. Bush’s true ideological successor, Rick Santorum. Bush’s fundamental problem was that he lost his veto pen until the Democrats took control of the Congress and let the Republicans run all over him on spending; who can say with a straight face that Santorum would not have this exact same tendency?

On spending, Rick Santorum has spent his entire career as a follower rather than a leader. In light of this, I am at a loss as to how he has suddenly become the choice of so many who loudly proclaim that only a crusader on spending issues will do.

Yes, we need a leader, not a follower. Mitt Romney is a leader. See my post from yesterday for examples. Plus he never lost his veto pen in Massachusetts, using approximately 600 times. Try running government waste past Mitt. No go. He lives to cut inefficiency and provide a return to his investors, in this case the American taxpayer. If you’d like to be an investor in one of Mitt’s endeavors, for which he made so much money in the past, now you can. It’s the United States of America.

6. Rick’s History isn’t Completely Consistent with His Current Socially Conservative Positions. As cited in my article yesterday, Rick’s history on social issues is spotty. He appears to have only come to a conclusion about his pro-life stance after running for office, to the point the article cited in my prior post called him a “political survivor” for changing positions. An article in the typically liberal website (yuck) Huffington Post goes into more detail, though I’ll spare you their usual liberal bent and the more personal attacks on Rick’s wife, which I am purposefully avoiding (people’s spouses are off-limits in my mind unless it somehow reflects on the candidate). But I do think it’s noteworthy that reportedly Karen Santorum told her former boyfriend on the way out Rick was “pro-choice”:

“When she moved out to go be with Rick, she told me I’d like him, that he was pro-choice and a humanist,” Allen [Karen's ex-boyfriend] told Philadelphia City Paper. “But I don’t think there’s a humanist bone in that man’s body.”

As a lawyer I know enough to realize this is “hearsay,” and possibly sour grapes. But it’s not without some substantiation from other contemporaneous sources. Giving Rick the benefit of the doubt, he appears to have had a “conversion” at some point on life issues. The point is we shouldn’t necessarily think Rick’s somehow a more “pure” pro-life candidate than anyone else, especially Mitt. Again converts to the pro-life camp are welcome, but one’s vote shouldn’t be based on thinking Rick is a superior conservative on that point. In fact Mitt has a track record in Massachusetts, not just a campaign speech, of being pro-life. The article cited above goes on to note that some pro-life groups aren’t sold on Rick’s commitment to pro-life issues, saying some protesters were putting pro-life flyers on cars at Santorum rallies (interesting for a guy whose primary claim to fame is social issues):

The flyers decry Santorum as soft on abortion rights, despite his opposition to embryonic stem cell research and to all abortion, including for victims of rape and incest. He spoke about his strong commitment to life at an event on Wednesday held by the anti-abortion group Personhood USA.

Santorum has been targeted at events by anti-abortion groups before. Flyers were posted on cars during a campaign event in Ames, Iowa, on Dec. 30 saying he “has a long and storied history of campaigning for radical pro-abortion candidates for political office,” mentioning former Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey.

Conclusion

In any event, Rick’s conservative cred is worth examining rather than taking at face value. Rick’s got his issues and, since Mitt has the real track record of executive experience and waste-cutting, Mitt’s my man. Particularly because in my view the transformational issue of our time is whether we can turn away from our entitlement society to a merit-based society, which we need to do immediately by cutting the national debt. I guess it comes down to I just don’t trust Rick Santorum. No experience in doing what we desperately need done (in fact having added to the problem), questionable past, possibly not as solid on the issues as I thought he was. And this is just what I found in one Google search. I’m sure there’s more to come. But I thought it important to start digging into what and who Rick Santorum really is. I’d encourage everyone to do the same before reaching conclusions on who they’ll vote for. And remember, I posted last night a positive article about Mitt first, so there should be no argument Mitt doesn’t have his own positive message. But I’m not sure when people really get to know Rick that they’ll conclude Tutti Frutti really is the flavor they’ll fill their cup with. For me I’m going with vanilla.


Please Check Out These Other “Threads” in the #UnravelTheSweater Series:

Unravel The Sweater - Rick Santorum

About Paul Johnson:

Paul Johnson is an attorney for venture capitalists and their portfolio companies by day, husband and father of three teenage boys by night. He’s an avid supporter of Mitt Romney for president and, as a graduate of Brigham Young University, a BYU football and basketball fan. Paul also enjoys competing in triathlons. Because he’s in the “Clydesdale” (over 200 lb.) class, he has even had podium finishes from time to time. Paul also has the distinction of being a big enough U2 fan to be willing to travel to Dublin to see them in their native environment.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to #UnravelTheSweater: Big Government Rick Santorum is NOT the One

  1. Debra L. Temple says:

    Thanks so much for sharing the information..If this is true then please get this information out right away where the public can see it and make an intelligent decision…Rick has the same charm that president Obama has and they both are capable of fooling alot of people…I prefer a Washington outsider and a successful businessman…with excecutive experience….Mitt is getting better, and his speech at CPAC was super…THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO HEAR MORE BITS OF INFO..from Mitt with his solutions for stronger military, lower taxes, Iran and the middle east, Israel, prices at the pump and the grocery story…MITT needs to win peoples hearts by coming across caring and warm and in tune…Like a good big brother or a kind uncle…thanks, again

  2. jerrell curtis says:

    This is great information—get this out to the public—-it needs to be heard!

  3. stan says:

    I hope all this info is going out to the public. Going out broadly enough so it can be viewed by many.

  4. Robert and Helen Wells says:

    I agree with Debra. This needs to go viral….public….national. So someone DO IT! And Mitt needs to use his CPAC speech as his template—and show O’Reilly that he is a very sincere and passionate Conservative!!

  5. freda hartman-gales says:

    Mitt Romney is the real package we need for America! TY for this valuable info, I hope many,many read and digest this information!

  6. Tim Shaw says:

    If you havn’t read Mitt’s book “Turnaround” you must. It is THE book that convinced me he had all the talents we need NOW in our beloved America. Get it from Amazon. I couldn’t put it down when I started reading it.