« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

I Like Rick Santorum

For the love of all that is holy, we cannot nominate him for President.

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  January 6th, 2012 at 11:45 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Back in the day, Rick Santorum was one of my favorite Senators. The guy was good on judges, a solid pro-lifer (the most important issue to me in all of politics), and he took the bull by the horns on Social Security reform even though it was tremendously unpopular in his home state. He was a key player in Welfare Reform. For a Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum was pretty darn good, if not exactly the shrewdest operator in the caucus. A lot of the people who are criticizing him using Daily Kos talking points (and showing all the class of the average Daily Kos poster) have really lost any claim to be taken seriously as conservatives. And frankly, any alleged conservative who would mock a man for his method of grieving over a stillborn child has lost any claim to be taken seriously as a human being. Some of the would-be new cool kids in conservative circles who are mocking Santorum for his socially conservative positions are just making absolute clowns out of themselves.

That said, my reaction to the idea that Rick Santorum should be our nominee for President is pretty much:

You cannot be serious. Where is the evidence that Rick Santorum would be anything other than a disaster as President? The man has never held a management position in his life. As we have seen during the debates this year, he reacts to people disagreeing with him by immediately moving into angry, sneering whiny defensiveness. He was tremendously ineffective as a member of Senate leadership because his personality does not command loyalty or respect. As I’ve stated before, you take anyone who has never managed anything larger than a Senate staff and put them in charge of the entire executive branch and you are asking for a total and complete disaster to occur. This goes double for any Senator with temperament and leadership questions.

Of course, all of that is somewhat of a moot point because Rick Santorum has no chance at actually becoming President. A candidate who loses by 18 points in a swing state – when that swing state is his own home state – will lose at least 40 states on general election day. At least. With Rick Santorum as the nominee, Texas becomes a swing state. The most memorable moment of Santorum’s campaign thus far has been him repeatedly shouting, in fifth grade style, “Your time is up! Your time is up!”, drowning out Romney’s answer which the debate moderator was perfectly happy to let him give. I can’t imagine “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!” will be a very effective debate technique against Barack Obama.

Despite the fact that Santorum has cast some good votes, there is no doubt that Rick Santorum is not a guy who is committed to drastically reducing the size and scope of the Federal government. His record is crystal clear on this point. He’s essentially admitted it himself. Time after time he stood with feckless Senate leadership and participated actively in the feeding at the government trough that nearly permanently destroyed the Republican brand – and would have destroyed it if the Democrats had not helpfully proven (yet again) that they are much, much, much worse. Look, I am as pro-life as the next three guys combined, as anyone who has read this website over the last seven years can tell you, but if ever there was a moment in history where it was the wrong time to run a big government crusading social conservative, this is that moment. In a perfect world the ongoing mass infanticide in this country would always be the number one issue in everyone’s minds but the vast majority of Americans sadly do not agree.

I guess I would be more sympathetic to the idea that we should just let Rick Santorum go down in ignominious defeat in the general if there weren’t other races that it would also affect – including our tenuous control over the House, which is the only handbrake we currently have against Obama’s radical agenda. As bad as things have been for the last year, have we already forgotten how much worse they were, and how much mischief was caused, when the Democrats had solid holds on everything? I would like to please pass on this version of the future.

Despite the ways in which my recent posts have been misinterpreted, I am not a Mitt Romney supporter. I don’t even like Mitt Romney. But if Rick Santorum wins South Carolina, or looks like he poses any serious threat to win the nomination, I am going to send Mitt Romney a check. We simply cannot afford another devastating, across the board loss like 2008. Worse, I couldn’t even take much comfort that things would be better if Santorum were to somehow win.

I like Rick Santorum. I’m glad he’s getting another moment in the sun. But let’s be serious, people – not for President.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    This is exactly how I feel. I don’t dislike Santorum the way I did other candidates, but he simply is not a viable candidate for President.

    • mikeymike143

      The alliance of tea partiers and social conservatives will make Rick Santorum the GOP presidential nominee. Both groups overwhelmingly support Santorum. And new polling in South Carolina and Florida backs that up.

      http://libertynews.com/2012/01/06/breaking-rick-santorum-dominates-tea-party-vote/

      Grassfire Nation, the parent company of Liberty News and the Patriot Action Network, conducted a survey with tea party voters in Florida and South Carolina.

      The top three candidates were:

      SOUTH CAROLINA

      1. Rick Santorum ? 46%
      2. Newt Gingrich ? 23.6%
      3. Mitt Romney ? 12.6%

      FLORIDA

      1. Rick Santorum ? 42%
      2. Newt Gingrich ? 26.3%
      3. Mitt Romney ? 15.2%

      The Grassfire Nation press release makes some interesting points.

      ?These results show that Santorum?s Iowa win is already having huge ramifications and has re-shaped the GOP presidential race,? says Steve Elliott of Grassfire Nation, which conducted the poll by surveying its members in these two states between January 4-5. ?If these results hold, Romney will not be able to consolidate conservative support and Santorum will likely be the clear ?anti-Romney? candidate in a two-man race coming out of South Carolina and Florida,? says Elliott.

      Other findings:

      Nutjob Ron Paul overwhelmingly wins the tea party vote for ?least favorite? candidate (41% in SC, 47% FL).

      The survey is statistically valid for the specific audience of Grassfire Nation team members in South Carolina and Florida. More than 92% of those surveyed said they are ?actively part of? or ?identify closely with? the Tea Party movement, making this survey an excellent measure of Tea Party support.

      http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2012/01/06/new-polling-for-south-carolina-and-florida-shows-that-rick-santorum-overwhemingly-has-the-support-of-tea-party-voters/

  • federalfarmer1

    Getting separation from bachmann. He’s not qualified to be president. He was not in party leadership or at the forefront of gop revolution like Newt was. Senators and reps should not be candidates unless they have rate and unique national experience and exposure, as Newt did. He has no executive experience. He should run as governor first.

    • renl57

      …for 3 years, we’ve been making that exact point about Obama: That he was a relatively ineffective Senator–and with no executive experience–before he became President. And it shows.

      So now some conservatives want to give the country another relatively ineffective Senator without executive experience?

      No thanks.

      The only proven executives we have in this race are Romney and Perry (and Cain who dropped out). I don’t even consider being House Speaker to be an executive position (sorry Newt).

      The rest do not qualify.

  • veritaseequitas

    Rick Santorum has the same quality Michelle Bachman had – that of saying how frabjously wonderful they are and how they are the leader, the upright, the stand up, the first and foremost of everything. It’s a one note cantata and it is boring and it says nothing about how they will govern.

  • Whacker77

    I have two concerns with Rick Santorum.

    1. He has positioned himself and continues to position himself as a hard right social issues crusader in a year when the core issue is the economy.

    2. Just as I couldn’t get past Palin quitting after two years, I can’t get past the fact Santorum lost by 18 points to someone who resembled a cigar store Indian.

    I understand the desire not to choose Romney, but we’ve gone through each of these candidates only to find they were terribly wanting. Santourm does have experience, but he’s not the right man for the time. He’s thin skinned and a boorish debater.

  • Kyle-MI

    On the one extreme we cannot and should not have a truce on social issues. On the other hand, we need to play to our strengths going into this election. Like it or not, this election will be about the economy, the debt, the deficit, government overspending, and jobs. Santorum is not the right person at the right time to make this fight. He simply does not have fiscally conservative credentials (although he makes the right noises and supports the right policies). His fiscal record is not good enough to focus the fight on economics. Unfortunately, his reputation of social issues will too easily allow the Dems and the MSM to keep the attack on those things instead of fighting where Obama is weakest.

    If he is the nominee, he needs to have a strategy to emphasize fiscal policy. (This is not the same as surrendering or calling a truce on social policy.) For example, all of his speeches should be on fiscal conservatism. MSM questions will allow him plenty of time to talk about the social issues.

    • jakeofalltrades

      The President has nothing to do with SSM, and yet Santorum is out there campaigning on it and getting booed. His priorities are different than the nation’s.

    • turningtables

      I’d be much happier seeing a truce on social issues than to see any compromise.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truce

      Truce means that we stop talking about the issues and take no action either way, effectively kicking the can down the road .

      Compromise means we give a little, they give a little… which ultimately means we’ve set our principles aside to come to some kind of agreement.

      In essence, for 30 years, GOP candidates have been selected for their stance on social issues… it is their bread and butter. They KNOW you will vote for them based on these issues alone. As long as they promise you they “hate abortions” you’ll be happy to vote them in again. You might not even notice their support of the growing welfare state.

      However, with this particular election, social issues shouldn’t even be discussed. Debt, economy, jobs, and the creation of wealth should be all we are looking for. In essence, those issues ARE THE JOB of the president for the next four years.

      A truce on social issues would be just fine by me. That way, we’ve got something left to hand to our kids.

      And if you decide I’m wrong and spend a long time looking for the candidate that has the exact views on “Abortion” that you can support, let me assure you, you’ll be looking at the same problems in four years. They never intend to fix them… that’s how they get you to vote for them.

      • Kyle-MI

        I am not talking about compromising on the issues themselves. I am trying to make a point about compromising on the campaign priority that we place on the social issues. And I am talking about a compromise among social conservatives who have different opinions about strategy.

        Because of the state of the economy Obama is vulnerable on the economic issues. That should be our top priority in attacking him. At the same time, our candidate should still hold and vigorously defend conservative social policy, but they should not go on the offensive with them. The press will try to use the social issues anyway as a wedge against the GOP. This is where the truce talk was wrong. The Dems and the press will never accept a truce anyway.

        In other words, we need a candidate who can successfully defend on social issues but attack on the fiscal ones.

  • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

    I like Rick Santorum, he is pretty conservative on most issues (though with some holes, like steel tariffs and free trade). He makes me uncomfortable with some of the social issues but that is not that big of a deal for me since the President can’t really do much in that realm. So I would definitely vote for him if he was our last hope against Romney or against Obama.

    That said, his surge has occurred with just about zero scrutiny into his past, with some of it making Newt’s Freddie Mac money look like nothing. While in office, it appears he had a slush fund leadership PAC funded by lobbyists in which only 18% went to actually funding candidates. The rest went to 66 trips to Starbucks in Santorum’s hometown and other such expenses (trips to Target, Walmart etc). He also had a questionable foundation.

    Political races are about expectations and not having surprises. So while Santorum has a squeaky clean image in front of America right now, it is probably going to be sullied in a major fashion and it will keep him from being the nominee and President. Hopefully there are still other conservatives in the race when that happens.

    You can read the Philly Daily News reporters list of issues with Santorum at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-Santorum-that-America-doesnt-know.html and my post on it http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-rick-santorum-corrupt.html

  • cheetah2

    We must have a qualified candidate. No more on the job training for our president.

    • cheetah2

      That would be the only reason I could choose Santorum over Romney this year. But we have to have someone who can beat Obama first and foremost, and someone who is competent to take charge. Romney is miles better in this respect. Sorry to post twice, but this issue of paramount importance to me as well and your thought on it are extremely helpful.

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        MItt Romney has won exactly ONE election. ONE. Every other contest he has ever entered, he ultimately lost. And then, two day ago, we are treated to the specter of the Loser to Obama (McCain) endorsing the loser to HIM (Romney). I’m sorry, but I don’t call that ringing confidence in the ol’ “electability” canard.

        Romney may be “electable”, but he really has yet to prove it: He’s a thrice-time loser, at least. Rick Santorum is most certainly electable. We have the proof in his Congressional and Senatroial elections. Sadly, we conservatives buy into the popular narrative that the overtly liberal cultural media serves up, and that is that traditional conservatism is far outside the American mainstream– when, in fact, IT IS the mainstream, as poll after poll after poll reveals. But, when the mouthpieces of cultural chic are preponderantly leftist, that skew the perception that American tradtionalism is antiquated, embarrassing, and so on.

        I hate to keep going back to Reagan, but Gerald Ford was absolutely convinced that Reagan would lose to Carter in a landslide, and felt so right up to Reagan’s massive landslide victory. Why? He was “too right-wing, too trigger-happy, to black-and-white”, according to Ford.

        Barack Obama is absolutely loathed by a thoroughgoing percentage of the electorate. Absolutely every time Americans get the chance to vote against him and Obamacare, they do so in overwhelming numbers: From Scott Brown, to the 2010 elections, to the Missouri and Ohio proposals that ban their participation in socialized medicine: Obama loses, and freedom and the GOP win.

        Obama will lose by historic proportions because, when people get inside the privacy of the voting booth, staring at the prospect of tyranny, they will reject it, without regard to who the Republicans put up (with the exception, maybe, of Ron Paul, who is so far outside the mainstream of American thought as to be unpredictable). Concentrate, therefore on getting the GOP nomination to the most conservative candidate available, whomever that might be– and it certainly isn’t the Massachusetts Moderate.

        • cheetah2

          Why do we even consider a candidate that has no experience running anything to take the most important and difficult job in the whole wide world? If we were hiring a CEO for a big company, a family doctor, or even a mechanic to work on our car, experience and training would be paramount. Why in heavens name would we not have the same standards when hiring a man to be the president of our country? I can?t believe we would even consider making the same mistake that was made with our current POTUS. A great deal of the damage Obama has done to our poor bruised and battered country is directly related to his lack of experience.

          That being said, I would support him enthusiastically if he won the nomination and I wouldn’t worry about electability, just about getting the job done!

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            …all non-executives before Presidential Office.

            Carter, FDR, Wilson, Clinton… all executives BEFORE office. So what?

            This is another straw-dog that should be knocked down: Executive experience being a “given positive” as a prerequisite for the Office. Not true. It might be nice, in that as a Governor, you have a circle of associates that can move right into certain positions; but what if those people are corrupt and stupid, what if your “experience” in the executive suite is all bad?

            No, give me First Principles. If Milton Friedman ran for President right now, I think most conservatives would vote for him in a heartbeat. In all likelihood, the same would be true for Antonin Scalia, and any number of people that reside (or resided in their lifetimes) near the heart of Conservatism.

            The fact that Mitt Romney appears to HAVE NO first principals is what is his biggest stumbling block. Not executive experience.

            And, with all honest due respect, the reason Barack Obama is destroying this country isn’t because he never was a governor: It’s that he IS a despicable, loathsome, diabolical hard-left doctrinaire radical left Marxist. Period.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Supreme Allied Commander – Allied Expeditionary Force in WW2 was humongous.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Most countries consider Intelligence Minister to be sufficient qualification for head of government.

          • jakeofalltrades

            And Nixon I’ll take as an example of why you need executive experience.

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            Mrs. Taft wanted it– so that Taft could run for president with “executive” experience, without having to stand for election to get it.

            All along, Taft wanted to be a Supreme Court justice, and not sully himself with electoral politics.

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            As your response proves, we all pick and choose what we feel makes someone qualified. I happen just to think that NOT being a governor makes you “unqualified”.

          • SoFiMil

            Now *that’s* electable.

          • avagreen

            *check*

          • jakeofalltrades

            But I hope I wouldn’t have turned down Abraham Lincoln and George Washington because they weren’t governors.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Men are inspired to follow by a leader’s competence and manliness.

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            And, of course, you’ve not addressed with substance Jimmy Carter.

  • AceInTX

    But if Rick Santorum wins South Carolina, or looks like he poses any serious threat to win the nomination, I am going to send Mitt Romney a check. We simply cannot afford another devastating, across the board loss like 2008. Worse, I couldn?t even take much comfort that things would be better if Santorum were to somehow win.

    I’m for ANYONE but Romney…if it came down to Romney vs Paul I’d have to flip a coin…not because I think Paul is any better than Romne, but because Romney is every bit as bad as Paul.

    For the life of me, I can’t understand the rationale that people will vote for Romney because we can use the Congress and tea party activists to hold Romney’s feet to the fire…but refuse to apply the same rationale to any other candidate.

    In fact, I think you’d have a better chance of influencing Santorum, Gingrich or any of the others using Congress and tea party activism than you would ever be able to do with Romney. Especially since Romney has taken the approach all along that he’ll win this thing without conservative support…

    So good luck getting him to pay attention after he has his behind parked comfortably in the oval office.

    I can’t see how we could win the general with Romney…once he’s the nominee….and if the party has it’s way…he will be coronated in March or April…we are going to have a party base so demoralized in November after the Democrats and the press have spent endless month after month pounding Romney on one flip flop after another that you’ll be lucky to drag them to the polls with a team of draft horses.

    Do you all remember 2004 and the fun we had laughing at Kerry and his endless flip flops…how we taunted the dummycrats with shower tongs, (Flip Flops) and the hell Dems went through making the silly argument that Kerry wasn’t a flip Flopper but that he was so sophisticated his positions were nuanced?

    Please don’t ask me to try to make that silly “Nuanced” argument in defending Windsock Willard….I just don’t think I have the stomach for it…

    If it’s Santorum…I won?t be giddy with Joy…but at least we’ll have someone on the top of the ticket who has some issues he can be trusted on…I don’t believe the same can be said of Romney…

    I can’t believe, after 2008 that we are right back where we started when McCain was crammed down our throats…but none the less…here we are!

    GGRRRRRR!!!

    • acat

      I’ll take the golf tee, but it’ll be grudging.

      Mew

      • AceInTX

        /

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      Would have killed off McCain’s hopes and gotten Romney’s ambitions out of the way (AND he would have made a better general election candidate).

      Charlie, Lucy and the football.

      • AceInTX

        .

  • A_Texan

    unless you consider the alternatives.

    If, after a two weeks or so of prominence, Santorum performs as badly as Gingrich and Perry do in head-to-head matchups with Obama (double-digit deficit), then I’ll support Romney–who has for the past six months consistently polled well against Obama.

    • david1313

      head matchup with Obama, and we might never know if we keep splitting the vote. Perry go home, Rick S., support the guy who taught you most of what you know.

      • A_Texan

        They show him far behind, but Romney ties him.

        Gingrich is as well known as any of the candidates.

        Santorum is not, but he will be soon (for good or for bad).

        • clowngirl

          Michelle Bachmann was the front runner and won the Iowa straw poll 11 months ago.

          There was a point when Newt polled as beating Obama.

          Obviously Newt’s not even going to win the nomination if he doesn’t come up from where he is now.

          I don’t think gauging his poll numbers right now (At a low point) in a hypothetical race is the way to determine Newt’s ultimate electability.

          Apparently polls during the 1980 primary showed Carter beating Reagan by a landslide.

          Anyway, looking at hypothetical polling of hypothetical head to head matchups asking people how they’ll vote almost a year from now, doesn’t seem a sound way to pick a President.

          • avagreen

            But, you know those that are looking for nits will find them as they desperately search for proof that we Perry supporters have bedbugs……..
            ;)

  • Dafyd

    …that really strains how committed I am to social causes. I consider myself to be pro-life, and I am in favor of “traditional” — that is, the realist, philosophical definition of — marriage; however, I think they should both be state issues.

    So, in a Santorum vs. Romney election, I am being forced to support two candidates:

    a) Santorum — a candidate with whom, while we agree in principle on social issues, I disagree strongly about execution. Outside of social issues, he represents precisely the Big Government Compassionate Conservative It’s-Okay-to-have-the-government-meddle-in-everything-because-we’re-Republicans mindset that I so thoroughly despised in George W. and in Mike Huckabee. So, we’re both socially conservative, but otherwise hold very little in common.

    b) Romney — a candidate whose track record on social issues are dubious and ambiguous at best. He is not a compassionate conservative, but is rather more along the lines of the Rockefeller Republicans’ flavor of It’s-Okay-to-have-the-government-meddle-in-everything-because-we’re-Republicans mindset that I so thoroughly despised in George HW.

    Great. Super. It’s like choosing between having a toenail ripped off or a tooth yanked out.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    I just finished compiling a summary of the Des Moines experience?
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77378886/Perry
    ?and will provide relevant citations regarding Santorum [compiled from ~1000 entries on RedState sites during the past three days.

    *

    This was composed from the Perry-perspective:

    He may lack the smoothness of Mitt, the rhetorical skills of The Newt, the slash-and-burn approach of Paul, and [surprisingly, of -late] the boyish-charm of Santorum [?The Other white meat Rick?]. This pun is employed to recall how Rick [Perry] noted his preference for Iowa pork over the other Rick?s having funded D.C. pork. And, the rationalization provided by Santorum over this past weekend [?everyone was doin? it, doin? it?] is overtly undermined by citing but a few names [Coburn, DeMint, McCain]. This, plus his support for unionization [amply documented by Guzzardi] and for Davis-Bacon [mandating payment of prevailing wages on public works projects] will prove to be of-interest to the S.C. voters who have experienced the Boeing/NLRB battle.

    Therefore, rather than projecting/predicting, it is simply noted that the strong possibility exists [to become manifest during the weekend debates] that: [1]?The Newt will attack Mitt aggressively, to the point whereby he won?t care if his numbers tank?just as long as he drags Mitt down with him; [2]?The effort of Huntsman to crack 10% may remain problematic [despite the endorsement by the Boston Globe] and potentially yield his departure by month?s end; [3]?Santorum?s lack of organization [plus some strategic truth-telling] will impede him in S.C./Florida/Beyond, despite having received $1M today on-line; and [4]?Paul will sink to his 10%-tithe thereafter.

    *

    ?snappy? lamented/documented: ?I don?t know if I?m more upset with Romney or the Republican TV media (including their panelists and guest analysts) shilling for him. Between Dec 1 and Dec 18, the NYT reported that Romney got 126 minutes of air time (guest appearance) on Fox News. This compared to 37 minutes for Santorum, 51 minutes for Paul and Perry, 52 minutes for Gingrich and 76 minutes for Bachmann during that same period. It wouldn?t be so glaring if at least ONE other Republican candidate came close and that doesn?t even include all of the blathering about Romney. I?m so fed up with Fox News shilling for Romney that I actually watched CNN caucus night coverage. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/politics/rick-santorum-fails-to-connect-in-iowa-but-he-keeps-the-faith.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&ref=politics].

    *

    Illustrative of why it?s just fine that Santorum has done well [tentatively] is that he denied Mitt a big-win in Iowa; illustrative of why it?s just fine that Santorum is being scrutinized [hastily] is that he should be exposed for the fiscal-conservative that he is NOT.

    *

    Take-Home Messages

    My conclusion from what transpired in Iowa? It is always darkest before dawn, and Perry?s strengths should inevitably grab his natural constituencies: Constitutional [intent and meaning] Conservatives, TPM [young and old] Turks, and Evangelical [doctrinaire and revisionist] Ethicists. As another blogger noted: ?If he is made of what I think he is, he will look at what happened, and the finer details of what the results show. A thorough review will show cracks in Romney?s armor, Newt?s continued implosion, Paul?s being supported by cross-overs, and Santorum?s eggs as all being in one basket.?

    A meeting is to occur in Texas among Conservatives who wish to ponder the benefits of coalescing behind one candidate. This is reminiscent of Robert Vander Plaats?s Family Leader effort, which split but which led to his having supported Santorum. At the time, this was perceivable as an interim-move, subject to update if/when Santorum were gone; it was also a great help to his being catapulted above Perry. The same approach should be adopted this weekend; principles can be established and applied subsequently but, as much as there would be a benefit to Perry were they to endorse him, it is ultimately preferable for the TPM-model to be followed?for diffusion reflects grass-roots strength. They should be vocal, but they should not feel their voices are being suppressed to benefit the ?whole.? It must be recalled that this is what?s wrong with BHO?s collectivism, philosophically, and ?good intent? inevitably backfires if it is effected unjustly. The recognition that this is a marathon [not a sprint] must govern this level of decision-making. He can remain a candidate so as to espouse key-concepts during the campaign-season?and note the reaction thereto. His swagger is born of humility?not ego-centricity?reflecting an inner-confidence derived from a populism born of a deep moral-fiber.

    *

    Blogging ? Santorum

    ?Rick Santorum practiced law and lobbied for professional wrestling before he was elected to Congress at the young age of 32. He served in Congress for 16 years until he was defeated in his US Senate reelection bid by an 18 percentage point margin. After his 2006 defeat, he stayed in Washington as a lobbyist and consultant. In 2010, he earned nearly $1 million from his political connections?. Santorum has received his paycheck over the years directly from the government or from firms that lobby government. He is the ultimate Washington Insider who is part of the problem?not the solution.? [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/us-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE8032A020120104]

    ? ?He has been, essentially, a stealth lobbyist,? said Bill Allison, editorial director for the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. ?He has been hired to try to influence policy on behalf of his clients without crossing the thresholds that would require him to report what he?s doing.? ? [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/rick-santorum-stealth-lobbyist/story?id=15298204#.TwYXU_ncBnQ]

    *

    ?Freedoms Truth? spun a mean web-posting, which needs to be rebutted:

    ?Santorum was concerned enough about SCOTUS judges being conservative that he only endorsed Specter after he promised to help shepherd Bush?s appointees for SCOTUS through.? [Rationalization]

    Specter has his faults, but he kept that promise and we got Alito and Roberts out of that deal. That?s not bad for a courtesy endorsement of a fellow Senator. [He was known as an unreliable conservative.]

    I wanted Toomey to win in 2004, badly, but blaming Santorum for what he did is foolish. Santorum has been rock-solid on conservative appointments. [Had Santorum endorsed Toomey, he would have won.]

    Santorum has been a leader on a number of issues when in office. [Other than welfare reform and focus on Iran, what did he accomplish/advocate?]

    Santorum will have the same amount of executive experience as JFK, Obama, Johnson, and Lincoln. etc. Santorum served 12 years in Senate, while Obama served 2 before running for President. Since I am not thrilled with what Romney DID as Governor (aka Romneycare) and since Santorum served in office for far longer than Romney, I think Santorum long conservative record speaks better than Romney?s short non-conservative record. [The record is decidedly mixed, as has been documented on RedState.]

    *

    ?Freedoms Truth? advocated for Santorum over Perry and The Newt by citing his conservative voting record [American Conservative Union, National Right-to-Life Committee, Americans for Tax Reform, National Tax Limitation Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, League of Private Property Voters, 2005 Republican Liberty Caucus ? Economic Liberties, 2004 Republican Liberty Caucus, 2003-2004 Campaign for Working Families, 2003-2004 Concerned Women for America, 2005 American Conservative Union, 2003 Concerned Women for America, 2003 Eagle Forum, and 2003 National Journal ? Conservative on Economic Policy] over concerns that he didn?t oppose myriad spending bills [http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum]. Policy positions were also noted [repeal Obamacare, cap spending at 18%, reform Social Security reform, oppose energy subsidies, privatize Freddie/Fannie Mae, and follow the Ryan roadmap and pass the BBA] and referenced [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-is-no-big-government-conservative/2012/01/04/gIQA5Q1zaP_blog.html].

    Regarding Huntsman, he succinctly concluded: ?Huntsman?s ultimate problem is that he is superfluous.? He added: ?Huntsman can?t run against Obama?after writing that fawning letter about how great Obama was.?

    He then, however, claimed: ?Santorum is to the right of Perry in some important ways. Santorum opposed the Troubled Assets Relief Program; Perry wrote a letter on the day of the Senate vote urging Congress to pass legislation to avert a meltdown. Santorum, as we saw in the debates, is likewise to the right of Perry (and Newt Gingrich, for that matter) on immigration. Santorum?s supposed deviations from conservative orthodoxy are similar those of his rivals. He voted for earmarks and highway funds. Gov. Perry took the money. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D; Gingrich lobbied for it, and Perry said in a debate that he wouldn?t repeal it. The guy is no liberal when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Is he to the right of Gingrich? Yes. To the left of Ron Paul? Yes. But so are most GOP voters.? Each of these assertions is problematic when details are probed. For example, why wouldn?t a governor attempt to recover IRS-monies sent to D.C.? And how is Perry assuredly to the ?left? of Santorum on Illegal Immigration? As an argument favoring Santorum, this is both selective and incomplete.

    He again lost credibility by ascribing deviating votes [earmarks, vote against NAFTA] to the need to accommodate his electorate, rather than recognizing they were essentially pro-union [citing http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902]. That he had failed to cite the rest of this citation was noted by ?kamiller42? when this was promptly posted: ?But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill. As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.? He concluded: ?The issue here is about federal jurisdiction. Santorum has been accused of willing to wield the federal government?s power when it suits him, forfeiting any notion of whether it?s the right thing to do.?

    And a follow-up note by ?JSobieski? observed: ?He voted with the other Rs?I am asking about leadership. Santorum did not lead the charge on the issues you mention?except maybe welfare reform. I remember Santorum on a lot of Sunday talk shows over the years?and I never remember him talking about cutting spending. He was good on fighting tax increases, but so was W.?

    *

    ?cimmarontrails? cited CREW?s ?most corrupt Congress list? and noted Santorum was number three. He then noted ?Santorum?s latest reply on Fox News?he still backs Earmarks?and Santorum likes to spend. He voted to raise the debt ceiling eight times?and he also voted for Bush?s Prescription Plan?more unfunded-debt to add to our deficit today?.Gov. Perry has done wonders for us. Our record does not lie?facts are stubborn things?and even the pundits need to find them.?

    *

    ?rharrison? cited Santorum?s voting record while in the Senate [http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27054/rick-santorum], noting that they ?reflect how his detractors on the right (like me) have painted him: ? mainly a big government conservative in the mold of George W Bush. After 2010 is that what we want? Ask yourself, how does Santorum differ from GWB in any real way? He doesn?t.?

    *

    ?Nuclear139? advocates for Santorum based upon his personal narrative [which Perry obviously mirrors]: ?For all of Santorum?s problems, his story and life will be able to reach voters who were left behind by Obama; his example of hard work, sacrifice and family values can inspire a nation that has lost hope.?

    *

    ?nepanyrush? was almost making good points until he averred observations that were askew [?Santorum is a great candidate. He was very articulate in the debates, and actually is a great candidate, having three times defeated Democratic incumbents in a Democratic electorate. His talk after the Iowa results was very inspiring.?] and ended his mini-suggestion with a problematic confessional [??being from PA, I can tell you that he is very authentic. He will go to the mat for his principles.? The Bob knows otherwise, as has been documented by Guzzardi extensively.

    *

    Santorum?s book [?It Takes a Family,? which he signed for me ~ 6 years ago] is correctly noted by ?minorcanmaven? to be VERY problematic: ?He thinks the Feds need to set national standards for curriculum?[and] he thinks National Service is a great idea. He thinks government is the answer just like they do on the left, only where they are Socialist, he is more Fascist. He?s a good guy, well intentioned, but not a solution to the problems we face.?

    *

    ?Return to Revolution? wrote that ?Santorum is a FRAUD? because ?Santorum had a GOA rating of C while Specter was a C-, in the PA Gun Lobby group FOAC (Firearm owners against crime) he was rated at about 60, and Specter a 54 on their votes (NRA ratings are garbage; if they like you they give you an A). He endorsed Specter and then campaigned for Lincoln Chafee in RI. He also had to be dragged to our side on amnesty ? was not for border security until forced into it. Time after time, he went along with the big spending republicans and put party before principles?.Also consider the result of his endorsement of Specter over Toomey in 2004. The GOP was behind Specter too ? maybe it wouldn?t have mattered. But the Specter won that primary by something like 15,000 votes out of a million. If Toomey wins that primary and the general, he is the 60th vote the dems need and blocks Obamacare in 2009.?

    *

    [Other Santorum-refrences were raised in other contexts; this compilation amplifies the theme of this posting.]

    *

    http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-surge-brings-ethics-questions-152702229.html

    *

    ?kamiller42? responded thusly: ?All warts being equal?which candidate has the best philosophical vision and record to show he has the cure for what ails America??

    Problems We Have
    1. Economy in bad shape.
    2. Jobs deficient.
    3. Overreaching and ever growing federal government.

    So the candidate America needs, needs?
    1. To believe in removing the constraints on the market.
    2. Establish an environment which encourages business owners to create new jobs.
    3. Understands what limited government is and not believe government is a force for good that has just been mishandled by previous operators.

    Here?s the break-down of the 3 candidates:

    Newt:
    1. Yes? mostly. Still supports subsidies.
    2. Yes
    3. No. He believes what the government has been missing is his brain.

    Santorum:
    1. No. Santorum is not interested in a level playing field, e.g. tariffs, corporate tax breaks for some, subsidies, etc.
    2. Yes.
    3. No. I won?t say he believes in big government, but he does believe in an activist government. I get a Boromir vibe from him.

    Perry:
    1. Yes. He is a free market guy. Ex: Let the different energy sources play on a level playing field. No ethanol subsidies. Cost him Iowa. Oh well.
    2. Yes. Hello Texas. 1,000,000+ new jobs.
    3. Yes. He is governor, aka executive, of a state which loves limited government and lives by it. He knows the value of limited government for the governed.

    So yeah. I look at what the country needs and match it with the candidate with the best record and ideas. It?s Rick Perry.

    *

    • pttx333

      and thoroughly researched information. I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion(s).

      I’ve been all over Freedoms Truth this a.m. Something just doesn’t “smell” right with that one. But he’s from Austin, and that is like being from Mars compared to the rest of Texas, and quoted from some UT “polls” that had to have been made using UT students. In a way, he sounds like a Ronulan, but he certainly has an agenda.

      Thank you so much for the very hard work done by you and Bob. It certainly helps us here at RS!

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        …will be whether the aggregate-RS effort will help Rick!

        • pttx333

          last breath will stick to my guns on supporting Rick Perry. I read those naysayers’ posts who “advise” us to “not vote with our emotions,” and I believe that line of “debate” to be ridiculous. Perry supporters are voting for him with their hearts and minds (a/k/a that elusive thing called “common sense”), and how often do those two connect?

          I can honestly say that, if nothing else, Perryites are the most loyal and dedicated supporters – we aren’t one-trick ponies, we go for the whole ball of wax. And I also believe that is what will assist in leading our guy across the finish line – total dedication and belief in all that is right and good.

          • SoFiMil

            …

  • toothpick

    I don’t see anybody else who is viable and conservative.