I’ve noticed many folks here have been comparing Rick Santorum to Barack Obama and other pro-life Democrats.

Such a comparison is worthy of “the weirdest claim made yet against Rick Santorum” award.  They seem to have forgotten that there are no true pro-life Democrats for even Democrat “staunch pro-lifer” Bart (Mark) Stupak had agreed to put his pro-life stance aside in order to provide Obama with the final vote for Obamacare.  Those who compare Santorum to Democrats like Obama have also obviously not watched this video in which Senator Santorum fought against federal funding for partial-birth abortion in 1998.

Social issues aside, let us see just how similar Santorum is to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. We all agree that to beat Obama one must be able to draw a strong contrast between their record and Obama’s. Is Santorum able to do that?

Let’s check it out:

TARP – Government Bailouts

Rick Santorum had opposed TARP right from the start. He didn’t merely pay lip-service in opposition, but railed out against it several months later in ’09 at CPAC.

TARP had received support not only from then-candidate Obama but also by a majority of the GOP establishment including Newt and Mitt. Santorum also opposed Obama’s stimulus, the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.

(Note to Mr. Leon H. Wolf; I hadn’t heard you protest Club for Growth as an unreliable site when Erickson cherry-picked the handful of negatives against Santorum. In any case, I provided another link to an article which quoted his opposition in 2008 & 2009)

Needless to say, Obama is the King of the Bailouts.

Next.

Government Reform – Reducing Spending and Dependency on Government

In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, Rick Santorum was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system.

Yes, you read that right. As a Congressman, Santorum had started the fight for welfare reform in the House, and once in the Senate he combined forces with his old buddies, actually wrote the bill, and successfully fought the left and ensured its passage. To give credit when credit is due, Newt who was speaker of the House at the time, voted in support of the bill.

Santorum also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies.   When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed.  Santorum voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.

Santorum strongly believes in a bottom-up economy and in keeping government out of the private sector in most cases.

Obama obviously strongly opposes all reform to the federal government since, as we all know, he wants us all dependent on government for our health-care and every-day needs. He has successfully vastly increased the number of individuals collecting unemployment, Medicaid, and Food Stamps.

Okay, they clearly differ on role of government. All right, let’s try something else.

Health Care Mandates – Obamacare

Oops! Here’s a video from Rick Santorum in 1994 where he clearly and passionately spoke against government mandating individuals into buying health-care or anything else for that matter. This is a direct quote from Rick Santorum spoken in 1994 when health-care mandates were on the table;

“I think what the role of the federal government is to provide opportunity for everyone to get what they want, to live their dreams and not to dictate what everybody should have.”

Sounds like Obama to you? Not to me. Let’s also remember that in 1994 both Newt and Romney amongst many other Republicans had heavily supported and pushed for health-care mandates.

Still convinced he’s a carbon copy of Obama at least in some way? Let’s continue!

Global Warming Hoax

The entire Democrat Party has adopted “saving the environment from us bad people” as the reason they’ve been created, and many Republicans have also fallen for the hoax including … Mitt and Newt once again. Newt in a debate with John Kerry actually took the more liberal position than Kerry, arguing that government intervention is necessary in order to effectively regulate the environment while Kerry wanted the private sector to do it!

Rick Santorum, though, is included in the minority of people who had always opposed global warming, as is Rush Limbaugh and many other prominent conservatives. His record shows he’s always voted against it. As the years go by, increasingly more information keeps on surfacing which prove that global warming was a hoax from the start, and even a decade or two ago one was able to see the truth if they searched for it.

Barack Obama and his henchman in the EPA are still in the belief that the polar bears will die if you don’t use their energy-saving light-bulbs.

Polar opposites indeed.

However, Santorum MUST have something in common with Obama; I’ve seen folks here on Red State say so! All right; let’s move on!

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

Hmm. Santorum opposed Bush’s amnesty plan, something a majority of the GOP establishment had supported, and had received an A+ rating for his stance against Amnesty. Newt, no longer in the Congress, attempted to convince members of Congress to vote for it.

Obama’s stance? In 2010, during the mid-term primaries, Obama sneakily whispered to Latinos that they should punish their enemies on November 2^nd. He also believes he’s done all he can to secure the border according to original Republican demands, and that Republicans won’t be satisfied until he puts a moat filled with alligators at the U.S.-Mexican border.

We covered all the major issues of the day, and they don’t seem to agree on anything!

Oh, wait!

National Security

Surely they think the same in regard to the defense of this country. Umm, Obama wants to cut our nuclear heads to a number lower than that of China. He has bowed and apologized to all our enemies, while alienated and insulted all of our allies.

What about Santorum? Rick Santorum has warned about Iran over a decade ago and is very clear with who our enemies are and who our friends are. He doesn’t think Ahmadinejad will love us if we’d only bow a bit deeper and understands the importance in keeping a positive relationship with our allies like Great Britain, Canada, and Israel.

Sorry, strike that one out as well.

Perhaps they are similar in position on the next vitally important topic? Let’s see!

Energy Independence

Obama is doing all he can to create jobs yet refuses to allow the Keystone Pipeline to go into effect due to environmental concerns. Never mind that we already have numerous pipelines running beneath our grounds for many years. Who cares that it would employ tens of thousands of unemployed Americans? What difference does it make to Obama that it would help lower the price at the pump or that we’d be less reliant on foreign oil from hostile countries?

Where is Rick Santorum in this picture? Rick Santorum’s grandfather worked in a coal mine in Pennsylvania and Santorum speaks strongly about the importance for energy independence for the multitude of reasons involved. Santorum is aware of the dangers in being reliant on foreign oil which funds terrorism. He is also highly attuned to the need of manufacturing good here in the US, and explains that energy creation has been and can be once again a major source of jobs.

He’d therefore grant permission to execute the Keystone Pipeline immediately and also increase permits for Hydraulic fracturing, offshore drilling, onshore drilling, and everything else that will help us become energy independent and isn’t really dangerous; not “liberal/environmental-style” dangerous.

What’s left?

War  against Terror

Obama refused to credit the surge in Iraq for its success even when directly questioned about it and the facts were clear to (almost) all. In Honduras, President Obama joined Chavez and Castro in siding with the bad guys. In Iraq and Afghanistan he provides timetables that fit his political calendar ignoring the advice of his generals who are on the battlefield.

Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and helped oust our decades-long ally Mubarak who helped keep the region stable in the name of Democracy yet looked the other way when Iranian protestors pleaded for freedom from Ahmadinejad.

On the flip side, Rick Santorum supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan from the start and expressed strong support for the surge which Obama and Newt opposed.  He warned of the dangers of allowing terrorist reaction go unanswered and warned about the threat Al Qaeda poses to the U.S. several months prior to 9/11. He criticized Obama’s handling of Iran and Egypt as appeasement for terrorism and stifling of Democracy.

Sorry but I raise my hands in defeat. Santorum is the direct opposite of Obama and not at all similar to the Democrats. Those who have made this silly comparison have also called Obama a socialist and the worst president ever. Making such a comparison minimizes all the bad Obama has done, for it leads one to think that perhaps Obama not so bad-after all … he’s like Santorum.

False.

Leon H. Wolf and many others have also been greatly bothered by Santorum’s lack of executive experience in comparison to Romney’s 4 years of Governor in Massachusetts. Executive experience is truly an important asset to any candidate but in this scenario it needs a bit of closer inspection. Romney ran for Senate and lost. He then ran for Governor, won one term, and didn’t run for reelection since he knew he wouldn’t win. He was an executive but not a very successful one.

Rick Santorum ran for the House, and won twice. As a freshman and newcomer to the House, Santorum was appalled at the level of corruption taking place, and he together with six others stood up and exposed the actions of senior members of BOTH PARTIES in what become known as the “Gang of Seven.” Compare Santorum’s actions to that of the over three hundred others who either took a part in the corruption or turned a blind eye towards it. Santorum then ran for the Senate and won twice as a conservative in the blue state of Pennsylvania. In the Senate he took the initiative and led the fight against the left in many scenarios including stopping funding for partial-birth abortion, reforming welfare, and reforming social security.

Rick Santorum is human, has made mistakes in the past, and isn’t perfect. No one is. However, after reviewing all of the above, it is clear he provides the strongest contrast to Barack Obama and I wish to go as far from Obama as possible. This therefore leads me to support Rick Santorum in the primary and definitely in the general election.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

The political scene is packed with pundits and predictors who despite being wrong most of the time don’t pause their endless flow of predictions across the media waves, which unfortunately influence the votes of many Americans who tune in to the news for a couple of minutes a day and form their decision based on their meaningless gibberish.

An overwhelming majority of these pundits have pounced upon Rick Santorum as incapable of going forward immediately after his stunning Iowa victory. Did their declarations come after having foretold the Santorum victory for months and weeks prior to the Iowa caucus? Quite the contrary; these political pundits actually foretold Santorum would come in somewhere towards the bottom and would drop out right after Iowa. Despite the results having been the polar opposite of their punditry, they continued to spew their worthless predictions.

Overblown egos had led to bold-faced demands to Santorum he should drop out of the race in the hope it would boost Newt’s campaign, despite no proof that such action would yield their wished-for results. To their utter disappointment Senator Santorum hadn’t accepted their lovely advice and just look at the mess they have now landed in, face-down! Rick Santorum has won Minnesota and Missouri with landslide victories!

In Missouri, Santorum won with 55.2% while Romney came in a full thirty points behind Rick at 25.3%. In Minnesota, a state Romney won in 2008, with 88% precincts counted, Santorum won with 45%, Paul came in a distant second with 27.1% while Romney squeaked in at third with merely 16.9% of the votes. To top off the night-turned-morning, Santorum surprised everyone with an unexpected sweep in Colorado, another state Romney had won in 2008 and which he was expected to win once again. Santorum won with 40.2% while Romney received 34.9%. His victory in Colorado has brought the total states he’s won to four out of eight, while Romney won three and Newt won one.

Who is Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum grew up near the coal mines in Pennsylvania where his grandfather was a miner and understands the struggles of the everyday American. He served in the Congress for a total of 16 years, first two terms in the House and then twelve years as a Senator. As a freshman Congressman, Santorum was shocked at the level of corruption amongst both parties specifically in relation to the housing market, and together with six other Congressman, brought the information out to the public. They were dubbed the “Gang of Seven” for their courage, honesty, and refusal to let matters continue to slide downhill.

Rick Santorum is the only one, of the candidates left standing, who can and does provide a clear contrast to Barack Obama on all the major issues.

He has never bought into the nonsense named Global Warming. Despite having hailed from a liberal state, he opposed overbearing government regulation and intervention which were deemed crucial to the safety of the planet based on those bogus facts. He has also opposed government bailouts including TARP from the very beginning, and not simply when campaigning as a Tea Party Conservative. During the 1990’s, when many conservatives including Newt and Romney championed for health care mandates, Rick Santorum had stood up in Congress and denounced the concept of government mandates, arguing for the rights of each individual to make their own decisions.

Santorum is also the only candidate who has never wavered on family values no matter who the audience was or what was at stake. He had his very name disgraced because of his strong conservative social views and risked his career defending the lives of the unborn. One can actually credit his fearless defense of conservatism for causing his loss in 2006 since the Democrat’s turned their entire arsenal at him precisely because of his constant outspoken championship of conservatism. Yet, he hasn’t backed down or regretted taking a stand for conservatism. Quite the contrary, he continues to do so with his head held high.

In short, Rick Santorum is a proud representative of the conservative viewpoint on all major issues we wish to challenge Barack Obama including Obama’s trademark legislations – Obamacare, government bailouts, government takeovers, and Cap & Trade. Santorum also provides a clear contrast to Obama’s endless choking environmental regulation, stifling energy policies including the denial for the Keystone Pipeline, first-class insulter of our allies and apologist to our enemies.

This is the case, and would be so, even if he wouldn’t have won with landslide victories this night. His victories, though, highlight the strong positives he brings to the table, since he focused throughout his campaign strictly on substance and the issues.

It just so happens to be that Rick Santorum is also the only candidate currently in this race who is a conservative and has remained staunchly loyal to conservatism during his representation of the purple/blue state of Pennsylvania. We can therefore be confident with a President Santorum that he won’t engage in any rash moves which will contradict conservative principles even if he will come under extreme pressure and badmouthing of the Democrats. He’s already been there and remained rock strong in defense of conservative values.

Obama’s entire three years has been an endless play of pitting poor against rich, ethnic groups against one another and so forth. With Rick Santorum on the Republican ballot, his fight against the rich will fall flat, for Obama’s income exceeds that of Rick Santorum’s. Additionally, Santorum’s amazing ability to unite with average blue-collar hardworking Americans, as he’s proven repeatedly in liberal Pennsylvania, will help him carry the crucial swing-states one must win in a presidential election. He’s won Iowa in the primary and can carry it in the general, and is polling best against Obama in the important swing-state Ohio. He is also the only one on the Republican side who can make Pennsylvania turn red again after having gone blue in every election since 1988. He is also polling extremely well in many other crucial swing states.

Yes, Santorum has lost his reelection in 2006 in Pennsylvania, but he has also won two statewide elections, in 1994 and 2000, despite PA having gone blue in every presidential contest since 1988. Santorum’s strong support for Bush’s War on Terror was a major cause for his loss, for anti-war protests were reaching its peak.

There’s still a long road ahead, although a clear shift has taken place this night. Santorum ran on a conservative platform and has shown that conservatism is quite popular amongst Americans across all spectrums. He has also proven capable of winning the heartland of America including swing states which are crucial in the general election. We may still look back at this night as the turning point in the primary in more ways than just one.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

Newt Gingrich has been strutting across town with an over-sized ego ever since his rise in the polls in December. He had declared himself the definite winner of  the GOP primary and the only one who can defeat Obama before the primaries had even begun! Despite having come in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich and his team have demanded conservatives to unite around his campaign since he was the only one who could beat Romney and Obama. This was prior to having won a single victory!

Here’s the question for Newt Gingrich; if he would truly want to promote conservatism, why hasn’t he acted upon his words after the first two states had voted, in which he came in below Santorum?

Hot Air has done a great job highlight the hollowness and falsehood of Gingrich for pretending to seek a united front for the sake of conservatism when he’s obviously demanding it solely to benefit himself:

Oddly, Gingrich didn’t appear as principled on the subject of conservative consolidation when Santorum won Iowa and Gingrich finished fourth, nor when Santorum narrowly edged Gingrich for fourth place in New Hampshire.  If he was concerned about a conservative sacrificing to make sure a conservative alternative had the strength to beat Mitt Romney at that time, Gingrich didn’t pull a muscle leaping out of his chair to volunteer.  Needless to say, neither has Santorum, who told Gingrich in response to run his own campaign.

After his desperately-needed victory in South Carolina, Newt sharply increased his descending tone to Rick Santorum despite Santorum having also won an equal number of states so far; 1. He then floated into Florida after his South Carolina victory promising a “final knockout.” We now know how that turned out, and who was the recipient of a “knockout.”

Newt though hasn’t acknowledged his own weaknesses which have led to his loss. Instead, he upped the heat against Santorum an additional notch higher and blamed Santorum for his own failure! Additionally, Newt couldn’t bring himself to congratulate Romney in his concession speech(repeating from actions in Iowa) while pretended Santorum was now out of the picture, although he couldn’t be any further than the truth.

“It is now clear that this will be a two-person race between the conservative leader, Newt Gingrich, and the Massachusetts moderate, and the voters of Florida made that clear,” Gingrich said following his landslide loss in Florida. Gingrich ignored the fact that the other two candidates in the race – Ron Paul and Rick Santorum – chose not to run aggressive campaigns in the state.

Newt has also failed to recognize that while he has come out ahead of Santorum in Florida, Santorum came out ahead of Newt in New Hampshire. They’ve thus both won one state and come out higher than each other in one other state. Coming out stronger than Santorum in Florida has made Newt equal, not greater than, Santorum.

Although Newt is desperate for Santorum to back out of the race and for Santorum supporters to throw their support behind his campaign, neither of the above will happen in the near future, and his repeated aggressive requests for both won’t change the facts.

Firstly, Santorum has never made winning Florida a goal, as Newt had, since it’s a winner-take-all and knew he won’t win. Instead, he’s focusing on the upcoming elections where he’s polling extremely well. He’s already been to several states in the last few days and he’s got a full schedule today in Colorado.

Secondly, the claims that Santorum’s broke it utterly false; the Santorum campaign confirms it raised $4.2M in January and unlike the Newt campaign, has no debt. Additionally,  Foster Freiss is supporting Santorum and plans on giving him significant help moving forward. “I believe Rick Santorum will become one of the front-runners very soon,” Foster Friess, a major donor to the Red White and Blue Fund, said during his interview with Bloomberg Television.

Furthermore, a new PPP poll had been released yesterday, and the results are quite astounding. Although Newt pretends that if Santorum backs out then Newt has got the nomination in his pocket, the results are pretty shaky. If Gigrich himself backs out though, the nomination does seem to go pretty strongly for Santorum. Santorum polls far  stronger against Romney in a two man race than does Newt solely against Romney. The reason this is so, is because Santorum is the second choice for an overwhelming majority of Newt supporters (and also for Romney supporters) while the reverse is not the case.

Here’s the info directly from the PPP poll.

In Missouri, held a week from today, Santorum has a 63-21 favorability spread to Gingrich’s 52-32, Romney’s 46-36, and Paul’s 28-57.  On the actual primary ballot, for which Gingrich did not qualify, Santorum leads with 45% to Romney’s 34% and Paul’s 13%.  In the caucus, in which Gingrich can compete, Santorum falls to second at 28% behind the former speaker’s 30% and ahead of Romney’s 24% and Paul’s 11%.   Head-to-head, Gingrich would defeat Romney in the state, 43-42, but Santorum would, 50-37. That is because Santorum’s supporters only go for Gingrich by eight points over Romney, but Gingrich’s vote for Santorum by 28 points. In Ohio, which will be held on Super Tuesday (March 6th), Santorum’s favorability rating is 59-24, compared to Romney’s and Gingrich’s 47-37 and Paul’s 31-52.  The primary is a three-way race between Gingrich (26%), Romney (25%), and Santorum (22%), with Paul at 11%.  Gingrich would top Romney, 42-39, but Santorum would, 45-38.

In other words, here’s how the two different two-man races would look like:

-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.

-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.

And remember that Gingrich isn’t even on the ballot in Missouri.

Can anyone remind me again which candidate is demanding the other to bow out of the race and which one says that everyone has a right to run?

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

The Conservative Movement has always prided itself as the conscience of America which stands up for character, morality, and constitutionalism. Conservatives were therefore disgusted with President Bill Clinton’s actions in the White House, outraged at Barack Obama’s participation in Jeremiah Wright’s church, and Obama’s friendship with terrorists like William Ayers.

We are now in the midst of a GOP primary where conservatives are given the choice to choose amongst several candidates to represent them in the future. We’ve got to choose someone who can serve as a role model for the conservative movement, whose record, ideas for the future, and values mirror those of our own. And if no one is an exact spitting image of The Conservative, we’ve got to go for as close to the original as we can get.

Several days ago, Rick Santorum’s young daughter was rushed to the hospital with double pneumonia, and he rushed there as well. Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and many many others showed that they are men or women of character and morality. They personally or publicly expressed their support for the Santorum family during their difficult hours and asked people to offer prayers for Bella Santorum.

One individual was missing from the list, and glaringly so. Newt Gingrich was busy running from radio show to TV show, intent on selling himself to Floridian voters. Despite Santorum having cancelled most of his events in Florida due to his daughter’s condition, Gingrich thought it was an opportune time to loudly hint to Santorum to back out of the race and to ask Santorum supporters to vote for him.

How audacious! What a chutzpah! Besides for the fact that all polls have clearly illustrated that if Santorum wouldn’t be in the race Newt would still be far behind Romney (since Santorum voters split equally for the two) why couldn’t Newt contain himself from his shameful calls on the day the other candidate was attending his sick daughter? Nor did he find it necessary to express prayers and support? Is such behavior a model for conservatism? Has he got no decency?

In truth, though, we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, what can one expect from a guy who cheated on two wives? This is a guy who served as a “historian for Freddie Mac” and whose contract clearly involved talking to members of Congress yet sees no wrong with it. In fact, he challenged his opponent, Romney, for having had bonds in Freddie and Fannie without mentioning that he too owned stocks and profited from them both!

Newt has palled around with and praised Al Sharpton as though Al isn’t a first-class thug whose hands are dirtied with the blood of over a dozen innocent individual, but a guy worthy of respect.

Defenders of Newt, which side have you taken during the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Which side have you taken in the argument about Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers? Conservatives had said they opposed Clinton’s actions and Obama’s past not because they were Democrats, but because they lacked morality and character. Now is the time that conservatives can prove they’ve spoken the truth in the past and weren’t merely engaged in petty political slandering as the left is known to do.

Say no to immorality, flip-flopping inconsistency, lack of character and lack of values.

Stand up for character, consistency, conservatism, values and morality.

There is only one candidate who conservatives can support with a clear conscience and without engaging in a shameful abandonment of conservative values and a leftist-style double standard!

Vote for Rick Santorum!!

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

Unfortunately his special-needs daughter, Bella, had been rushed to the hospital and Santorum has rushed there as well. Although he’s canceled his appearances at several events for today, his eldest daughter Elizabeth and members of the famous Duggar family will represent him at various events. He also appeared today on “Meet the Press” and will be holding two tele-town hall meetings later today.

The quitting rumor which is being spread to discourage his supporters from sticking to him, is not the only obvious lie being thrown about Santorum across cyberspace and media channels.

During the debate Thursday night Santorum made a very strong case detailing why Romney, the author of RomneyCare, will have great difficulty taking on Obama on ObamaCare if he is the ultimate nominee. Santorum explained that in order to successfully challenge Obama one must provide a clear contrast to Obama’s policies, and reminded the audience that he had never supported individual mandates. You can watch their exchange over here.

Over the weekend media headlines announced that Santorum too had endorsed individual mandates during his career. The only problem though, was that they all linked to one source which was based on a third party with no direct quotes from Santorum.Well, guess what? Consistent Rick has opposed ObamaCare in concept way back in 1994 and continues to oppose it in 2012. The Daily Caller’s article has found a video dated October 31, 1994 in which Rick Santorum while running for Senate in the purple state of PA had clearly denounced any and every form of individual mandates. Here are some excerpts from The Daily Caller’s article and you can watch the video over here.

Running for the U.S. Senate in 1994, however, Santorum actually said just the opposite of that, as a video from CSPAN shows. The Oct. 31, 1994 video has Santorum saying government shouldn’t “dictate” anything on health care.

“I think what the role of the federal government is to provide opportunity for everyone to get what they want, to live their dreams and not to dictate what everybody should have,” he said.

And he explained why, which is even when certain things are mandated by the federal government, they often don’t work and added it simply is “not the American way of doing things.”

“You can’t force every American to do something they don’t want to do,” Santorum explained. “You can force people to be in Social Security, yet I think it’s only about 96 percent of Americans that are in Social Security. There are lots of mandates we put on people and they don’t obey. That’s wrong. That’s not the American way of doing things. The American way of doing things is getting people to live their dreams to make their choices.”

Nice try, LSM.  Keep trying.

About a month ago, many conservatives pounced upon Nikki Haley when she endorsed Mitt Romney and branded her as a traitor and RINO as though she is failing to govern South Carolina in a conservative manner.

I’ve asked it at the time and I’ll ask it again; where had Newt Gingrich been when these very conservatives including Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio challenged establishment Republicans in primaries in 2010? Why, he was busy endorsing others like Dede Scozzafava over tea-partier Doug Hoffman, Robert Bennet over Mike Lee, and so on. Not only has Newt chosen to support left-leaning candidates over Tea-partiers, he had repeatedly supported liberal legislation first as a Congressman and later as a private citizen.

The Drudge Report has become the number one news source for millions of conservatives who are refreshed to see news which the mainstream media fails to report. Drudge has linked to and helped make viral many liberal-exposures including Breitbart’s explosive Acorn videos.

Last week, Drudge had a headline about a network’s upcoming interview with a presidential candidate’s ex-wife; a news that would under normal circumstances be featured on every website. Although divorces are usually a messy business and many ex-spouses seek to slander their former spouse, it is only reasonable that voters will still want to hear what the candidate’s ex-wife has to say (taking it perhaps with a grain of salt) especially since the court documents regarding his first divorce have shown that Newt and not his wife had requested the divorce, contrary to his claims.

Drudge had come under heavy attack from Newt supporters for reporting this news, and Saturday night after Newt had won South Carolina, twitter was loaded with messages proclaiming Matt Drudge had lost. What has he lost? He owns a news site, and reported this piece news as he does with all other news.

Also, what’s wrong if he personally doesn’t support Newt (although I haven’t heard him say so)? It has come to the point that anyone who says anything not so complimentary of Newt, even when it’s the truth, is branded as in the camp for Romney. I, for instance, support neither Newt nor Romney. I support Rick Santorum. I’ve found it quite disturbing, though, to have been told by Newt that supporting Santorum is equivalent to supporting Romney. No, it isn’t and being told so won’t change that. I don’t support many of Romney’s policies of which Santorum has always held contrary views. I’m of the opinion that I will support the person who appears to me as the only principled conservative still in the race and I also feel that supporting Newt is similar to supporting Romney since they’ve held similar views on a majority of the issues. You may disagree with that, but don’t say I’m not allowed to support someone other than yourself.

It’s true that a huge chunk of conservatives are currently supporting Newt. However, that doesn’t mean one isn’t a conservative if he supports another candidate, including Romney. Furthermore, disagreeing with Newt doesn’t automatically mean the individual supports Romney; he may be supporting an alternative candidate such as Santorum or has not yet made up his/her mind.

Conservatives have already dumped Nikki Haley. They’ve blasted Matt Drudge for the past week. Now Rubio has become the target of attacks. What has Rubio done? Rubio hadn’t questioned Newt’s conservatism or dared discuss Newt’s past. He simply responded to an analogy that Newt had made which included Rubio. Also, after having been questioned about a specific ad, he responded that it was more befitted for a liberal with its false fear-mongering message to Hispanics (much in the manner Obama has engaged in the 2010 midterms). The Newt team apparently felt Rubio was in the right for it responded quite quickly and promised to pull the ad.

Newt is beloved by many for his sharp responses and hard-hitting answers. At times, though his remarks seem to follow liberal tactics or deliver a punch which is contradictory with conservative values, and he’s admitted as much. Just as he’d apologized for his fear-mongering comments on the Paul Ryan Plan as “right-wing social engineering” which hurt conservatism at a time when the left attempted to portray conservatives as throwing grandma off the cliff, so too, his portrayal of Romney as anti-immigration without differentiating between legal and illegal immigration has struck the wrong balance.

If we’re going to throw under the bus every conservative who utters anything anti-Newt I think we’ll need super-long tractor-trailers to fit everyone under. We should be able to understand that conservative opinion will be split in a primary and that not everyone will agree with your choice of candidate. That’s what primaries are all about. Let’s stop the trashing and bashing of conservatives solely because their opinion conflicts yours.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on twitter.

Paul’s shocking remarks had not been an isolated incident complete with profuse apologies. They are one tiny chapter amongst countless similarly vile comments. Just a couple of days ago, in an interview conducted last Friday, Paul had announced that one must have empathy with … Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! He then went on to “explain” that Ahmadinejad isn’t seeking a fight with the Western World, and that it’s merely a concoction by those who wish to engage him in war. Has he never heard Ahmadinejad blast America and the free western world, clearly stating his intentions to wipe out Israel and all infidels?

Many view Ron Paul as simply naïve or as nuts and dismiss him and his rhetoric in the manner one does to a buzzing fly. It must be clear that he is not simply naïve or nuts, but evil. He led racist and anti-Semitic newsletters for many years, with the intentions of his actions to be so. He has often told aides that he “wishes Israel didn’t exist.” Sounds like Ahmadinejad himself, no? No wonder he feels empathy for him!

Ron Paul’s warped sense of good and evil seems to manifest itself amongst his supporters who’ve adopted a weird line of attack against Rick Santorum. They warn voters in ominous comments that electing Santorum to the presidency is a guarantee for a World War III, while voting for Ron Paul will bring peace upon the world.

They appear utterly ignorant of the events which had caused World War II to have become the monster war that it was – having led to the deaths of over fifty million people. When Hitler rose to power and built a powerful army despite it having violated the Treaty of Versailles, the world, weary of war, pretended not to notice, hoping to avoid a confrontation.

Even after the Nazis intentions became clear after the annexation of Austria, the European leaders attempted appeasement via Sudetenland instead of halting them in their tracks. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, explained his avoidance of war saying that war results only in losers and in no winners, while the U.S. engaged in isolationism and turned a blind eye to Europe. Only after the Nazi beast has grown to monstrous proportions, gobbling up country after country, did Great Britain and France declare war on Germany. At that point though, the German army had already morphed into a strong and organized force which couldn’t be defeated so easily.

The U.S. continued to remain out of the war while watching the world turn upside-down until it came under direct attack by the Japanese, Germany’s ally. The Pearl Harbor bombings resulted in 21 Navy ships sunk or damaged, over 188 U.S. aircraft destroyed, over 2,400 Americans dead, and many more injured. This jerked the U.S. out of their isolationism, declaring war against an enemy whose size and power had vastly increased during the five years it faced zero or little opposition.

The U.S. had followed exactly the type of policy that Ron Paul promotes and promises to enforce, and that has led not only to the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor but to an extended and extremely difficult war to fight. Instead of defeating the German army in their homeland and having to liberate one or two countries they had invaded, battles were held across three continents, spanning most of Europe, chunks of Asia, and portions in Africa.

And Paul supporters say that precisely a Santorum presidency, who will not allow evil to mushroom out of control, will lead to a World War III?

Notable amongst the many indefensible remarks made by Ron Paul was his sharp rebuke to the military and Obama administration after news of Osama Bin Laden’s death was publicized and celebrated across the country. Instead of joining the jubilant masses, Paul bemoaned the successful operation and criticized the government in performing an act which didn’t respect the rule of the law according to Paul’s interpretations, asking whether we would’ve done the same had he been hiding in London.

Is there even hope to penetrate Paul’s skull that evil people are in existence very much like good people, and that evil needs to be handled differently than good? It doesn’t seem like it. Never mind that he hadn’t felt it necessary to express his condolences to the families of the 9/11 victims, save perhaps when he used them to condemn the U.S. government as responsible for the heinous actions of the terrorists. Ron Paul’s conscience, if he has one, was more disturbed over the death of Osama Bin Laden than that this evil monster’s life hadn’t been brought to an end a couple of decades earlier before he would’ve had a chance to inflict death and damage to thousands via 9/11 and other bombings across the world.

Ron Paul’s thinking is terribly wrong, for he considers those who sympathize with evil as unrelated to evil. The truth though, as Bush had outlined in his state of the union speech, is that one cannot be neutral in the fight against evil. One is either for evil or against it. If one’s sympathy for evil overrides the sympathy he feels for the victims, than that person is evil itself. Ron Paul has never decried acts of terror performed against ambassadors, children and innocent civilians who were riding busses, walking streets and minding their own business. Nor has he felt it necessary to condemn the Texas Fort Hood shooter or similar incidents. His behavior had been quite the contrary. Ron Paul has always taken the side of evil and terrorists, finding ridiculous excuses to explain away their horrific actions and for turning the villains into victims.

When Ron Paul preaches his anti-war rhetoric, he’s not simply against attacking other countries before they attack us. He promotes closing the CIA and FBI leaving a nation with no intelligence to gather information about possible attacks. That’s not defending liberty, despite his claims. Such action is irresponsible behavior which can result in the infringement of liberty and life of many U.S. civilians on American soil through acts of terror our intelligence regularly intercepts.

Simply put, Paul wants to shrink and weaken the entire U.S. defense, leaving the greatest bastion of liberty defenseless in the face of evil.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on twitter.

One of the most important indicators when studying primaries and elections is whether the candidates have exceeded, met, or underperformed according to expectations.

Romney’s victory in New Hampshire was a given and his performance therefore met, yet did not  exceed, expectations for a non-victory would’ve shocked the entire political world. His victory, although considerable, has not changed the script of how people assumed it would be from the start of this primary season.

Romney’s performance is contrary that of the New Hampshire primary in 2008 where expectations similarly originally expected for the then not-so-established Mitt Romney from the neighboring Massachusetts to win the primary. McCain, Romney’s opponent, had received several strong endorsements including that of Independent/Democrat Joe Lieberman, The Boston Globe, and The New Hampshire Union Leader which swayed lots of Independents over to the McCain camp. Romney’s support slipped shortly before the primary, and he ended up coming in second behind the more established McCain. McCain’s victory was thus extremely significant since he exceeded expectations, and he ultimately ended up beating Romney as the Republican presidential candidate.

The script for the upcoming South Carolina election was very much that it’s up in the air. As a Southern and strongly Conservative state, it was assumed that the candidate who assumes the position of Not-Romney will probably be victorious. Since three candidates are still vying for that title thus splitting up the conservative vote, and because Romney won New Hampshire with a considerable margin, the dynamics have changed for South Carolina and it is now expected to go for Romney. The media and all political pundits have declared it so, and even Jim Demint, the Conservative Senator from South Carolina, had announced that he would be surprised if anyone but Romney wins the state next Saturday.

Romney is currently leading the pack in South Carolina with an RCP average of 29% while the two conservative contenders who can possibly create a change in the dynamics, Santorum and Gingrich, are both currently polling at the 20% range. Although the scene may appear bleak to conservatives, a Romney victory is not yet guaranteed.

The current high expectations for Romney in South Carolina will color anything less than a full-fledged Romney victory in a very negative light. These raised expectations are extremely beneficial for conservatives for with the new dynamics, if a conservative ends up beating Romney in South Carolina, their victory will carry far more weight than previously expected. It will be seen as a serious defeat of Romney and an incredible strength of the conservative, and will result in a greatly weakened Romney going forward.

In a sense, it can be compared to the Democratic primaries of 2008. Obama had all the momentum on his side prior to the primary in Pennsylvania after beating Hillary in a majority of the previous primaries. After Hillary’s surprise victory in Pennsylvania, though, Obama’s momentum had come to a halt and many questioned whether he would be able to regain the lead. Ultimately, since it was the end of April and a majority of the states had already held their primaries, there wasn’t enough leeway for Hillary to overcome the overwhelming majority of delegates Obama had already picked up prior to Pennsylvania and Obama became the nominee.

A South Carolina upset can similarly halt Romney in his tracks, and since it is only the third state, an unexpected Romney defeat can have a powerful enough effect to sway the ultimate outcome of the Republican primaries. If Romney isn’t dealt a significant blow early enough in the primary, it seems quite unlikely that the Republican nominee will be anyone but Romney.

Despite Romney’s lead in South Carolina, here are several factors to keep in mind, which can lead to contrary results.

Romney has sailed to victory Tuesday night in the purple New Hampshire, a state which identifies with his moderate positions, with 39% of the votes. If he hadn’t topped 40% in New Hampshire there is no way he can get too much more than 30% of the votes in the southern red state of South Carolina whose views are aligned further to the right than Romney’s. Thus, if a conservative can garner 40% or more of the South Carolinian vote, he will virtually be guaranteed to beat Romney.

In order for that to occur, the conservatives must unite under one candidate Unification will result in a combination of the twenty percent of support each of them are recipient of, and will total to a whopping forty percent.

Although it may appear as an impossible suggestion since supporters of each candidate desire for the other side to join them, it can occur in either of two scenarios.  The dream scenario would be if one of the candidates back out and endorse his rival conservative.  It is also possible though for both candidates to remain in the race, with one candidate imploding badly enough for a majority of his supporters to choose on their own to unite around the other viable who will be able to serve as the “Anyone but Romney” candidate. The race will thus downsize to a two-man race and will enable the conservative to win over Romney in South Carolina, gain momentum, and hopefully emerge victorious first from the primaries and ultimately from the general election.

The (multi) million dollar question is, of course, who, if anyone, should be the one to back out of the race in order to stop Romney?

Of course neither can be demanded to pull out of the race since everyone has the right to stay in for as long as they wish. Both of them have garnered far more than zero percent in Iowa and New Hampshire and even Perry who had faced a stunning loss in Iowa, had come in with less than 1% in New Hampshire, and is polling extremely low in South Carolina, has the right to continue campaigning.  Besides, a Perry retreat, although it would narrow the field a bit more, would probably not be enough to propel one of the others ahead of Romney.

There is one candidate though who is more likely to pull out, and to understand why, we’ve got to go back to our original explanation of expectations vs. performance in addition to some other details.

At an overall glance, it seems as though Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were recipients of equally not-too-great results last night in New Hampshire.

Santorum received 9.3 percent of the vote which landed him in fifth place and right behind Newt who received 9.4 percent – a little over two hundred votes more than Santorum. Neither of them received any delegates and both performed slightly worse than Huckabee in 2008, who had come in third with 11% of the votes and had been the recipient of one delegate. Their performances last night, though, are seen in very different lights since the expectations for their performances had been vastly different.

Expectations for Newt were sky high. In Iowa he had been crowned as the frontrunner and even in New Hampshire he was doing considerably well. Newt Gingrich had been the recipient of The New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement, the very same influential newspaper who had endorsed McCain and many other candidates who had then gone on to win the New Hampshire primary. End of November and December polls showed a surging Newt in New Hampshire who received the support of close to and often over twenty percent  of those polled. Some speculated that Newt will eventually top Romney, while all expected him to land in the second seat.

Despite the massive anti-Bain and anti-Romney bombardment Newt engaged in as retaliation, he was unable to keep Romney from rising and himself from dropping. Newt ended up barely clinging to the fourth spot and his inability to meet expectations has painted him once again as a candidate in decline.

Newt’s lackluster New Hampshire results came at the heels of his embarrassing performance in Iowa, where he came in fourth despite having been the frontrunner with a considerable percentage only weeks before the caucuses. Newt blamed the overwhelming number of negative ads Romney had run against him as the cause for his drastic drop. Immediately after Iowa, Newt retaliated and bombarded New Hampshire with negative ads against Romney and his job in Bain. His efforts, though, proved to be inadequate in stopping Romney’s momentum. At the contrary, the attacks over Romney’s pink slips had backfired and resulted in Newt having come under heavy fire from many prominent conservatives including Rush.

Newt’s decision to remain in the campaign, first after his loss in Iowa and then after his weak performance in New Hampshire, despite it being almost impossible for him to win South Carolina with Santorum in the race indicate that his goal has changed. His expansion of attacks against Bain via the airing of a 28 minute anti-Romney commercial in South Carolina despite the considerable damage it has already caused to his campaign further hints at Newt’s revised end-point.

Why else would a candidate who still hopes to win an election increase an action which has proven in the past to cause greater damage to his own campaign than his opponent’s? It is clear that Newt is aware of his slimmer than slim chances in South Carolina specifically and in the rest of the primary. Since the presidential nomination appears out of Newt’s reach, he has undertaken a new goal; to stop Romney from being the nominee. Newt’s first attempt to accomplish this is has proven unsuccessful and too remain in the race and continue this path despite his attacks being ineffective, may result in a fuming Newt after Romney wins South Carolina, Florida, and eventually the Republican nomination.

Instead of continuing with plan number one, there is another path for Newt to take which will seriously impede the Romney campaign. Newt can endorse another candidate, which will unite the conservative vote and enable for that candidate to overcome Romney in South Carolina. Newt can continue with his attacks against Romney if he so desires, which will keep Romney on the offensive without pulling down the conservative candidate. Since Perry had imploded and is polling in the Huntsman range, Santorum would be logical choice, and for several reasons in addition to polling.

Santorum had exceeded expectations in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He had gone from the very bottom of the polls to a tied victory with Romney in Iowa. In New Hampshire he came pretty much tied with Newt at over 9% despite having polled at 1 -2% in November and 3-4% in December. Since Santorum’s performance had twice topped what was expected, his national support is in an upward climb and his coffers have begun to sport a bulge. Even if Santorum comes in second, behind Romney, it will be seen as an impressive act and he will have the opportunity to attempt another overtake in Florida.

Santorum has no incentive to get out of the race. He has exceeded expectations in the first two states and will be remembered with respect and admiration for his Iowa surprise further down the line even if he comes in second or third in South Carolina and Florida. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has been branded as the former frontrunner whose support had vanished and the longer he stays in and serves as a spoiler, the harsher people’s opinion will be of him down the line. And that Newt the historian wishes to be remembered fondly in history is a given.

Although a newly released Insider Advantage poll of South Carolina from this morning has Newt Gingrich at 21%, just two points behind Romney and 7 points ahead of Santorum, the current poll isn’t such great news and is actually a massive slide from the previous Insider Advantage poll from 12/18 where Newt polled far ahead of the rest having come in at 31%. The current Insider Advantage poll thus reflects a whopping 10 point drop for the former frontrunner while indicating a 4 point jump for Romney (from 19 to 23) and a surging 10 point gain for Santorum (from 4 to 14).

Newt tweeted the poll and his entire camp is touting the poll as proof that he can beat Romney, not realizing that he is once again setting himself up to extremely high expectations. A Newt victory in South Carolina will be seen as having finally met expectations. Anything below first spot though, won’t reflect too well for someone who had led the pack a month earlier with double digits and had failed to live up to expectations for the third time. A Santorum victory will cause a momentum many times stronger than his Iowa surprise had, and will propel him ahead across the country. Santorum coming in as a strong second or third will also reflect positively on him since he was never touted as the frontrunner and definite winner.

Another feather in the hat for Santorum is his being the only candidate who refused to attack Bain Capital for having engaged in free market principles such as firing unproductive employees. Newt, Perry, and Huntsman have attacked Romney for having lain off employees in companies Bain has managed, ignoring minor details such as that laying off unproductive workers benefits the business and that shrinking the staff of a failing business is often necessary in order for it to turn around and be able to generate a profit once again. Isn’t it better for a business and the economy for it to operate with fewer employees rather than it keeping the entire staff only to go bankrupt and close shop?  Besides, how do these candidates who attack firing employees plan to shrink the size of government and close entire agencies, as they promise they will, without handing out pink slips?

The accusation that Bain’s actions were wrong because they had received a federal bailout is similarly flawed, and in two accounts. Firstly, although the government shouldn’t be bailing out companies, companies that have been bailed out should use the money to make a profit, as Bain did, even if it includes the firing of employees. They shouldn’t waste the bailout money by keeping employees employed for as long as the money lasts and not attempting any positive reform, only to shut the doors when the money runs out. Secondly, it turned out that the bailout accusations were false and that Bain Capital hasn’t even received a government bailout.

Newt’s general criticism of a business who profits from flipping other businesses appeared foolish and contradictory when voters discovered that he conveniently forgot to share the fact that he invested in and served on the advisory board of Fortsman Little, a competitor of Bain in the leveraged-buyout industry.

Santorum’s strong defense of the free market was and is a stark contrast to the others and especially from Newt who had adapted the role of Attacker in Chief. This resulted in many renowned conservatives who have never previously admonished Newt or shown true support for Santorum, to suddenly do so. Newt had come under nuclear fire from Rush Limbaugh and many other prominent conservatives for his left-wing socialist style against Romney, while Santorum was praised for standing up for basic conservative principles.

If Rick Santorum can continue to build his momentum by citing his pro-free market principles and unite the conservative base in South Carolina, he will beat Romney in South Carolina. A defeated Romney will continue forward, albeit with a greatly weakened image and no surety for victory.

No longer will he be able to walk away with a victory simply because the crowded primary resulted in the conservative vote having been split in three. He will have to tout a record and a plan to convince voters that he’s the right guy and unlike Santorum, Romney’s record is filled with inconsistencies and discrepancies. While Romney will be busy explaining his anti/pro conservative record and Paul will explain his anti/pro earmarks amongst many other inconsistent statements, Santorum will be able to tout a consistent and steady record.

Santorum has received above average ratings as a staunch conservative despite his having run in the blue-purple state of Pennsylvania. Whether on social issues such as pro-life and traditional marriage, economic issues such as his sponsorship of BBA, anti-tax increases and a line veto, or foreign policy issues, such as facing reality and calling evil by its name, Rick had always been consistent with is positions for he chose them because he felt they were right. Shifting along with the wind or prior to an upcoming reelection were never serious options for a person who believed in the correctness of his positions.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on twitter.