The Widdershins

The Republicans are at it again.

The latest polls show Santorum edging out Romney both in Michigan and nationwide.  Imagine that – the man who said that he would have let Detroit go under isn’t leading any more. 

Fear not.  Romney, if nothing else, is the Rajah of Re-invention.  Now he claims to have been a “severely conservative” governor of Massachusetts despite being tarred with the brush of Romneycare.  Of course, if der Mittster could bring himself to point out that the origins of Romneycare might be found in that most conservative of right-wing think tanks, the Heritage Foundation, he might just pull out of the quicksand.  Somehow, that part of the message appears to be forever lost in the avalanche of Republican drivel.

Romney apparently lowered taxes, but seems to have made up for it by applying and increasing fees.  One of my friends who lived in the Boston area during the Romney years refers to him as Fifi.  He explains his lack of overwhelmingly conservative accomplishments by noting that he had a Democratic legislature.  That part is true.  What he’s having a hell of a time explaining is the statements made while running against Ted Kennedy – that he was more liberal, that he was the best friend that gays and lesbians ever had,that he was pro-choice, etc.   Of course, if you are a Republican, it’s absolutely possible to explain all those pesky facts away by claiming to have had an epiphany.  That always seems to wow the Evangelical crowd.

I think that we can pull up a chair and wait for the fun to begin. As we speak, the Romney oppositional research team (probably cheered on by Karl Rove) is working its way through Rick Santorum’s life and times, preparing to open up an entire six-pack of political whoop*ss all over him.   They have loads of material from which to choose.

First and foremost, Santorum was notoriously fond of pork.  He was reviled by Rick Perry for this propensity, and had promised serious spending cutbacks, but history is history folks.  Check this our from Yahoo:

As he campaigned in Iowa, Santorum vowed to push for deep cuts in federal spending should he win the White House, but that pledge drew only renewed scorn from another candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Perry took a jab at Santorum while promoting himself as a Washington outsider. He labeled Santorum a “serial earmarker,” a charge he’s made before, and ticked off pork-barrel projects like an indoor rain forest and the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska.

Santorum, who has surged in many polls in Iowa, was asked about the criticism at a town hall meeting in Marshalltown.

“I see a little bit of hypocrisy,” said the former congressman and senator from Pennsylvania. “He had a paid lobbyist in Washington looking for earmarks.”

Santorum said he’s already apologized for the use of earmarks, but he also defended them as a tool to force bureaucrats to follow the will of Congress. The right thing to do, he said, is to listen to constituents about their priorities for spending federal money.

“You can’t just trust the bureaucracy to make the right call,” he said.

Yep. Listen to your constituents. I know that I would like every cent that I pay in taxes spent right here in my hometown.  Furthermore, ol’ Rick did pretty well by himself whilst doing well by Pennsylvania businesses, as the New York Times notes:

A review of some of his earmarks, viewed alongside his political donations, suggests that the river of federal money Mr. Santorum helped direct to Pennsylvania paid off handsomely in the form of campaign cash.

Earmarks, long a hallmark of a pay-to-play culture in Washington, have become largely taboo among lawmakers of both parties. But that element of Mr. Santorum’s record has mostly gone unexplored, in part because transparency rules governing earmarks did not go into effect until after he left office.

In just one piece of legislation, the defense appropriations bill for the 2006 fiscal year, Mr. Santorum helped secure $124 million in federal financing for 54 earmarks, according to a tally by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. In that year’s election cycle, Mr. Santorum’s Senate campaign committee and his “leadership PAC” took in more than $200,000 in contributions from people associated with the companies that benefited or their lobbyists, an analysis of campaign finance records by The New York Times shows.

Then there was the K Street Project.  Rick Santorum vigorously denied participation in the infamous effort to pressure lobbying firms into hiring Republican operatives, insiting that the operation was basically a jobs bank.  Although the initiative was launched by Tom DeLay, many believe that Rick Santorum was the Senate liason.  Although he met regularly with Grover Norquist to review openings at lobbying firms, he denied that the meetings were of any significance.  By the time that the Jack Abramoff scandal erupted, Santorum barely remembered Grover Norquist.  Fact Checker reviewed his participation:

 “The K Street Project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town,” he told the Post-Gazettein 2005. “From my perspective, it’s a good government thing.”

The former senator later said he had thought of the term as a generic reference that could include his outreach efforts, suggesting he believed Norquist’s initiative was separate from his own.

The Senate ethics committee issued a letter in 2002 warning lawmakers not to use the lobbyist dossiers to block people from government access or jobs based on party affiliation, which would violate Senate rules.

Santorum ended his routine lobbyist meetings in early 2006, as the Abramoff scandal sparked public contempt for coziness between lobbyists and politicians, and after Democrats targeted the Pennsylvania senator for a takedown in the upcoming election — they succeeded.

Santorum defended his lobbyist meetings during an interview with the Post-Gazette, saying they involved “no pressure to put Republicans in those roles, period — no pressure.” He added, “I absolutely abhor that.”

Fact Checker rendered a verdict of two Pinocchios:

THE PINOCCHIO TEST

We can’t prove definitively whether or not Santorum collaborated on the K Street Project. He did and he did not, depending on how you define the initiative.

No one has established that the surging GOP candidate threatened to limit government access for Democrats, but we know that he took steps to improve the odds of a strong Republican presence in the lobbying game.

Still, Santorum’s remarks about Norquist don’t match the facts. Norquist himself acknowledged that he attended at least one meeting with the former senator to discuss the K Street Program. Santorum earns two Pinocchios for denying his connection with the lobbyist initiative and one of its primary leaders.

Maybe it’s just me – between these facts, the desire to outlaw birth control and criminalize adultery, taking the dead baby home and a few other little odds and ends it would appear that Rick Santorum might just not be the guy to appeal to swing voters.  If nothing else, the forthcoming commercials courtesy of the Romney super-pacs will be fascinating.  The whole thing is a car crash.

This is an open thread.