I have heard Sen. Rick Santorum described as a big government conservative. So I decided to take a look at this allegation. Rick Santorum was a senator for the state of Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2006. From 1991 to 1995 he was a congressman. During these 16 years he took many required votes on spending and taxes.

In 1991 the GDP of the United States was 5.93 trillion. In 2006 , the last year Rick Santorum was a senator, the GDP grew to 13.91 trillion. The size of the economy more than doubled under his tenure as a senator.  In 1991 more than 5,150,000 people were on the federal government payroll. In 2007 the number had decreased by approximately 20% to 4,127,000. In 1991 the federal budget was 1.324 trillion. The budget increased in 2007 to 2.728 trillion. This increase tracks the increase in the GDP of the nation.

So how is a senator or congressman rated a being a fiscal conservative? The National Taxpayers Union ( for years) rates members of house and senate and gives them a grade. An “A” equates to a 4.0, a “B” 3.0, a “C” 2.0 etc. In an article on the Weekly Standard  by Jeffrey Anderson and Andy Wickersham they write:

“ Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.”

Santorum was not representing a red state. Now a person may quibble with a particular vote or a whole range of votes but according to the NTU his grades were exceptional.

Now it seems clear that Sen. Santorum is a fiscal conservative.

Having lived in Sparta, Michigan as a boy, my thoughts have turned to that state as the primary nears. I remember tornado warnings, cub scouts, shoveling snow and pulling a dogfish out of Camp Lake. I also remember ice fishing during the winter. The adults would walk on the frozen lake and look for a good spot. They would then cut a hole in the ice and drop their line. There was nothing to do but wait.  We would walk on the frozen water (ice of course) thinking how neat it was, but constantly reminded of the frigid temperature.

My dad and aunt worked for manufacturing companies that made tools.  I remember shoveling driveways for $1. This was not easy work and believe me, that dollar was earned.  Our neighbors generally had a hearty attitude and helped each other out. Whether it was a boat that had broken free from it’s moorings or a cat that was missing, there was a sense of community.

So as I have seen many polls which show essentially a dead heat between Romney and Santorum. I have heard many pundits opine on who may win the primary. None, in my opinion, seems to really understand this segment of Michigan voters. (By the way I lived in Grand Rapids also) These people are hard working, unafraid of the coldest winter and willing to fight nature to pull that fish out of the lake. They do not give a darn about what some pundit thinks but rather if a person is honest. These people would expect a man to know how to bait a hook.  Because of the closeness in this election, 300 Spartans could turn the election to Rick Santorum. Will they come out to vote? Count on it.

Olympic heroes can be stripped of their medals for certain reasons. It looks like  Santorum today just stripped the title of Olympic hero from Mitt Romney. According to Wikipedia, “Romney organized and steered the 2002 Winter Olympics as head of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, and helped turn the troubled games into a financial success.”

From Politco:

“On the trail, Romney frequently invokes his experience heading the Olympic effort in stump speeches. Romney became head of the Olympic games in early 1999, after financial scandal threatened to hurt the games’ credibility, and has been widely credited with the event’s turnaround. The reversal of the games’ fortunes fits neatly into his campaign resume as a successful businessman and turnaround artist who, if installed in the White House, will, he argues, reverse what he says is the country’s decline.”

How did Mitt Romney do it?  Cut expenses? Fire people? According to Rick Santorum he asked for a government to bail out of the games. Santorum stated yesterday:

“One of the things he talks about the most is how he heroically showed up on the scene and bailed out and resolved the problems of the Salt Lake City Olympic games,” Santorum said, as a few in the tea party audience chuckled. “He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake Olympic Games – in an earmark. In an earmark for the Salt Lake Olympic Games.”

The Romney campaign has not denied these allegations. But they were quick to respond.

“Sometimes when you shoot from the hip, you end up shooting yourself in the foot,” said spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “There is a pretty wide gulf between seeking money for post-9/11 security at the Olympics and seeking earmarks for polar bear exhibits at the Pittsburgh Zoo. Mitt Romney wants to ban earmarks, Senator Santorum wants more ‘Bridges to Nowhere.’ ”

Romney has claimed that he is against government bail outs. He has been stumping this week in Michigan claiming he was against the Detroit auto bail out. He has attacked Santorum on earmarks. Now the headlines are that Romney was for a bail out of the Olympics. Now Santorum has put the spotlight on the fact that Romney asked for government money. Looks like a knock down. We need to count to 10 (days) to see if it is a knockout. Michigan may be a knockout.

Let’s start with a  premise: Conservatives want to know the truth. A conservative will naturally throughout their life search for the truth. A conservative can get very good at spotting nonsense because they have spent years practicing. Seems pretty straightforward. In political discussions a “conservative” always wants to know the truth about a candidate. Sometimes this seems so difficult to get from a candidate. Why? Because that candidate has spent years practicing dissimulation. But a funny thing will happen over time-the candidate will slip. This is what is called a gaffe but in most cases is just a candidate wanting to be his or her self. This is where the practiced conservative mind will crack open the thoughts of a candidate like a nut.

Many conservatives voters will have a Joe Wilson moment and look at a candidate and say “liar” to themselves.  This is a skill practiced over years by “true conservatives”.  I heard someone say one time that everybody is born a liberal-but then they grow up. It is safe to say that most people wish for a better world. The reality is the world can be a brutal place. If you take the premise that, most people want a better world, than how a person thinks is what makes difference. Conservatives look for solutions fundamentally based in truth. This is base in a belief (faith) that a person can find the truth.  Godless liberals attack conservatives of faith because their minds are crippled.  As Albert Einstein said: “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” But most conservatives have years practicing finding the truth. Conservatives know that education in school doesn’t give a person wisdom. Liberals educators attempt to indoctrinate our kids by teaching them what to think. Conservatives reject this and want their children to learn how to think. As Einstein put it: “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”

So how does a person change at a late stage of life to become a true conservative? The only way a person can do this is by changing the way they think. A person needs to become humble and clear thinking and want to know the truth. The later in life the harder it would be because there are more years of nonsense to sort through.  So how to we know if, to use an analogy, a person has changed from a caterpillar to a butterfly? Easy. The person would act, communicate and think like a butterfly. We know a butterfly when we see it.

Humans have inherent weaknesses. Even conservatives are flawed. But when push comes to shove “true conservatives” come home to their core value of truth. This is how we as conservatives roll. Butterflies are not the same and fly in different directions. When it comes to choosing any political candidate, I  am in the NOT caterpillar camp. I am also in the NOT half caterpillar half butterfly camp. I might choose a different butterfly (some have flown away) but I guarantee it will be a butterfly.

Politics is about power to make decisions that affects the lives of the people. Throughout history, leaders do not give up power easily. They hold onto power as long as possible, sometimes at great cost to a nation and its people. Current historical examples are Qaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria. Mubarak in Egypt stepped down when he knew he could not hold on. In America, we have a system for changing our leaders, which is outlined in our Constitution. In our country the establishment Republicans and Democrats want to retain power and will fight tooth and nail to retain it. This leads us to the current election cycle and certainty that Barack Obama and his allies, will not go easily. They will have to be removed by the force of the voters. The question remains is what kind of candidate does a voter choose to get the job done?

Even before this current election cycle began, men and women were deciding whether to run for office. But each man or woman wants to achieve power. Whether to make a change, keep the status quo or for myriad other reasons, it all comes down to power.  But the most effective path is to achieve  power is a major parties nomination. Hence the two major political parties-the Republican and Democratic parties.  In regards to the Republican party it is virtually impossible to get the nomination for President without claiming to be conservative. A candidate benefits from people in power (Politicians, News media, etc) telling the public that their candidate is best. When their interests are at stake, these politicians and media types will only do what benefits them. What benefits them is holding onto money, power and fame. It’s their lifestyle’s self preservation. So when a person sees that the establishment is backing a certain candidate, we need to ask why? Are they trying to put Lipstick on a Pig or will this candidate make changes which will benefit America to the degree needed? We don’t want fall into a trap of  “change” slogans that bring a fast or slow death of the ideals that made our country great. So we must get to the candidate’s core beliefs.

The Republican establishment’s desire is to keep the status quo, but they will want to make changes to things they don’t like. For example, they want to keep the money flowing to Washington but they want to decide who spends it, not Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. The Republican establishment is upset that they don’t have control in Washington. They needed to find a candidate (in their minds) that would beat Obama. (that could also get past the Republican party primary). They found their guy in Mitt Romney. The rules written for the primaries by the Republican establishment benefit Romney. In the north east, most primaries are winner-take-all. Most of the southern conservative states are based on proportionality. But that wasn’t enough. The establishment had the caucuses set up so that most if not all not delegates are awarded based upon the percentage of straw vote. These delegates would be awarded later in the party business portion of the caucus. This presumably would benefit Romney because of his organization and money. But a funny thing happened. Ron Paul and his supporters are out gaming Romney at the caucuses. Ron Paul is now gathering a larger percentage of delegates than the straw vote percentage achieved. But that isn’t enough. The establishment (in Florida) violated party rules and made the primary winner-take-all. They knew Romney had the money to win Florida. Fundamental fairness has been tilted toward the establishment candidate. But now the conservatives are awake.

Make no mistake-the establishment is in panic. Romney has not been a good candidate. Romneycare, “very poor” comments, “serious” conservative and other issues make his candidacy dubious at this point. The establishment is working on ways to “sell” Romney to the conservatives. We hear constantly from their establishment and their media partners that “Romney will be the nominee”. This is after the candidate has fallen in polls, rejected by conservatives and propped up by the so-called conservative media. (Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Brit Hume, etc etc etc) Even James Carville is trying to prop him up. They complain that conservatives should get behind Romney. There is an Irish saying “ Me thinks thou protest to loud”.

The establishment’s premise was that Romney can beat Obama because voters will dislike Obama more than Romney. Their thinking is misplaced at best and corrupt at worst. He has turned out to be a horrible candidate. His all out destroy approach against his opponents has highlighted the narrative that he cannot win on ideas. Romney has put himself in a straight jacket. The more he goes negative the more he drives down his own poll numbers. Having average skills of articulation, he will need to go negative against Obama. Is this hope and change you can believe in? Obama will portray Romney as an out of touch elite. Game over unless the conservatives finally stand up.

The establishment will back Romney until they know for sure he can’t win. They would take a brokered convention at this point. But if conservatives stand firm and look at the truth, (Romney can’t beat Obama) then the establishment will fall in line. It does no good to nominate another loser. This is just like nominating a Dole or McCain.  Like a warm cup of chocolate, neither hot or cold he will be rejected. The establishment will be the cause of Obama’s reelection if they don’t start lining up behind a real conservative who can make a difference. Being a squishy candidate is not what is needed at this time. Obama can out squish Romney. Boldness is what is needed. Although our Grandparents may have past away this is still their country where they are buried or their ashes scattered to the wind. Don’t forget them.