Posted on 02/24/2012 5:28:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Even though I do like and respect Rick Santorum, I've already endorsed Newt Gingrich and don’t plan on changing over to Team Santorum. Still, Santorum is tops in the national polls, has a chance to pull off some big pre-Super Tuesday wins, and he could end up as the nominee. If that does happen, it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. In fact, I have no qualms about saying that if it comes down to it, Rick Santorum would be a much preferable nominee to Mitt Romney.
Why?
1) Santorum is the most prominent socially conservative politician in America. The Republican Party is a three legged stool. National security, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism all hold the party together. Because of the war on terrorism and Obama's profligate spending, the first two legs of the stool have been getting all of the attention lately, but that doesn't mean social conservatism is unimportant. To the contrary, it's a core part of the Republican Party -- and it moves people to the polls. Karl Rove famously said that the election of 2000 was so close because 4 million evangelicals stayed home. Those voters would definitely turn out for Rick Santorum.
Additionally, Catholic voters are an extremely important voting block. In nine out of the last ten elections, whichever candidate won the Catholic vote, won the election. In 2008, for example, Obama beat McCain by 9 points among Catholics. However, now that Obama has unconstitutionally targeted the Catholic Church via Obamacare in a move that has literally been condemned by every Catholic bishop in the United States, we have every reason to think that a Catholic with Santorum's reputation could swoop in, reverse those numbers, and ride the Catholic vote to victory in 2012.
2) Santorum isn't JUST a social conservative. Based on his time in office, the most conservative candidate in the race is Newt Gingrich, although he's gone off the reservation on a number of issues in the last few years, which has naturally given some people pause. Going by his record in Massachusetts, where he raised taxes, implemented Romneycare, backed gay marriages, pursued a multi-state cap and trade scheme, and gave $10,000 to a radical gay group that taught fisting and "water sports" to high school students under his watch, Mitt Romney is a barely center-right politician -- at best. Although Santorum has his flaws, I will at least give him credit for being a conservative across the board.
Santorum's social conservative credentials are beyond reproach and on foreign policy issues, he's a knowledgeable hawk who spent 8 years on the Armed Services Committee and has been sounding the alarm on Iran for years. Fiscal conservatism is not Santorum's strong suit, but even there, he's not quite as weak as you might think.
The National Taxpayers Union said Santorum had the 5th best record out of 50 senators during his tenure in office. On the other hand, the extremely harsh graders Club for Growth said Santorum was above average, but had some flaws of note.
On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. 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.
Santorum's record isn't as strong on spending as I'd like to see, but he does have a number of proposals that should warm the hearts of fiscal conservatives everywhere including: cutting $5 trillion of federal spending within 5 years, freezing spending levels for 5 years, a Balanced Budget Amendment that caps spending at 18% of GDP, implementing Paul Ryan's Medicare reforms, reforming Social Security, freezing the pay of non-defense workers for 4 years, and eliminating the funding for Obamacare. That is an agenda that should get the blood pumping for fiscal hawks who've been disappointed in the conservative leadership from D.C. over the last few years.
3) Santorum didn't blow the big issues of the last few years. Like all of the candidates remaining in the race, Santorum has made his mistakes. However, the issues he's gotten right are particularly important. Romney supported the McCain-Kennedy amnesty, TARP, Cap and Trade, and Obamacare was based on Romneycare. Those are huge issues that go right off the table if Mitt becomes the nominee. Santorum, on the other hand, voted against McCain-Kennedy, has an A- grade from NumbersUSA on illegal immigration, opposed TARP, voted against Cap and Trade, and opposed Obamacare. Being on the right side of those elephantine issues may be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012 and Santorum has credibility there, while Romney doesn't.
4) Santorum isn't going to get to D.C. and lose his nerve. A lot of candidates talk a good game and then get to Washington, hear the consultants whispering in their ears, get intimidated by the media, and start moving to the Left. Santorum has been around the block and he understands that he's too conservative, too Christian, and too politically incorrect for the media to ever love him. Guys like John McCain and Mitt Romney seem to be under the false impression that if they say the right thing, the mainstream media will eventually warm up to them, but Rick Santorum knows that isn't in the cards for him. Santorum will always be hated by the Washington Post, the View, and the New York Times; so he won't ever feel the temptation to sell conservatives out for a few days’ worth of nice articles. Can you really say the same about Mitt Romney?
5) Santorum is more electable than Mitt. One of the great myths of this election season is that Mitt Romney is a particularly electable candidate. This defies his entire past history and how poorly he's done during this primary season given his advantages; yet it's the primary justification for his candidacy. There's never even a plausible reason offered to explain why Mitt Romney is supposed to be so electable; people just seem to assume it's true because they've heard other people say it. In reality, both Romney and Santorum are probably slightly less electable than average POTUS candidates. Still, another way to put that would be, if you're trying to choose between Santorum and Romney, electability shouldn't be much of a factor (and if it is a factor, you should probably be backing Santorum).
While it's still a little early to take any polling to the bank, Santorum seems to have slightly better numbers versus Obama. The latest polling from Rasmussen has Obama 46% Vs. Santorum 43% and Obama 47% Vs. Romney 41%. Looking at their favorable/unfavorable ratings from Quinnipiac makes things even worse for Romney. Santorum has a 34% favorable rating and a 31% unfavorable rate while Romney has a 35% favorable number and a horrible 43% unfavorable rating.
When you consider that Romney has burned through a staggering amount of money, is down to 7.7 million cash-on-hand, and may have to start self-funding next month to keep his campaign afloat, it's pretty clear that enthusiasm for his candidacy is waning. On the other hand, Santorum will raise more money this month than Romney did last month and unlike Romney, more than half of his money is coming from small donors (50%+ Vs. 12%). What this tells you is that Santorum could draw more volunteers, better motivate the base, and probably raise more money than Romney could in a general election. If the choice is between Santorum and Romney and you're voting based on who's more likely to beat Obama, Santorum is the better choice.
A second Obama term will do nothing to decrease or eliminate abortion in America. Santorum is a big fat pitch that the Left would love us to throw.
I will be voting for Santorum in our primary. Early voting is presently on going, and it ends February 28. I will probably vote then. Our county taxes are due the next day, but the office where I pay the taxes is in the same area as the election commission
If Santorum gets the nomination, will he choose Gingrich for VP?
If Romney gets the nomination, God help us, will he choose Ron Paul or Santorum or?
I would have no problem if Santorum would choose Newt as VP, although I would rather see him as Chief of Staff or as his adviser. I would have to hold my nose so hard that I would pass out if Romney gets the nomination and he chooses Paul as his VP
that’s right....Newt will just ask Pelosi to sit on a couch with em
you do remember Newt having a congenial exchange/debate with Clinton during BJ’s term. Newt backed down when Clinton played hard ball....AND there is the Pelosi AGW incident.
I don’t dislike Newt. I will take him over Romney or Paul but please do not pretend that he is somehow a warrior that will uphold our values. He is a thinker who loves to chase ideas.
“I would have no problem if Santorum would choose Newt as VP”
Newt wouldn’t accept to be VP to anyone.
He’s not running for an accessit, but for the office of President.
as an adversary I agree I’d look at the two, and Newt strikes me as the one more likely to nuke me.
and remember that The O and Mooch will continue and enlarge the policies you hate. Sometimes being self-righteous only leads to further destruction
False logic....a second term for O would most definitely INCREASE abortion and reduce our God given rights ( through imprisonment if necessary)
You can stick your fingers in your ears and sing la-la-la all day long if you want. O is a clear and present danger to the country and the Constitution. What more call to arms do you need?????
I appreciate your adherence to a strict pro-life position, but I simply cannot understand the argument you make here.
If a million babies are being killed, and I can pass a law that saves 1/10th of them, I shouldn’t do it because I can’t save all one million of them?
You could make the same argument against people picketing an abortion clinic — they might stop someone from going in, but if they go home at the end of the day, people can get in after they leave, and people can go to another clinic, so if you don’t picket all of them 24 hours a day, it’s like you are saying “I’m only opposed to abortions happening in this one clinic during the hours I can be here”.
Am hearing something of Newt’s folks saying “vote Rick” in MI, just to wrench Mitt’s gears. If Rick wins MI, would this not be his first actual win in a true Primary? He won’t win MI, but he is making Mitt burn through more of Ann’s money. This is a Chess game not checkers. Newt was “cheerful” for good reason not necessarily connected to last debate.
Regarding Christie, I don’t care if Jesus was from New Jersey, he’d still be tainted with that indelible NJ stain.
There are valid reasons to prefer Newt to Santorum and a lot of reasons not to like Rick S.
However, many of them are trivial such as his appearance and my own loathing for the sweater vests.
We shouldn’t waste our time with these stupid things. It looks right now like Santorum is the conservative with the momentum and I suggest we learn to like him.
Right now the media and Romney are trying to paint Santorum as a man who would create a theocracy and snatch birth control pills out of the hands and mouths of women. People have fallen for this. We should be too smart to do so.
It’s obvious now that the creepy little cretin Ron Paul is supporting Romney so most of his votes would go there if he bowed out.
Newt is polling pretty low but I’m still not ready to suggest he drop out and send his votes to Santorum.
I like Newt too much to suggest that, but I do suggest we drop our petty little prejudices about Santorum.
I just wish we could meld the two: Santorum’s squeaky clean family and personal history with Newt's legislative experience and quick wit.
Except, that’s NOT the way it actually works out.
When you continue to sacrifice the only moral, constitutional and legal argument against the practice of abortion, in fact you assure that ALL of the babes will continue to be killed.
We have forty years of blood-drenched history to prove it.
There’s nothing at all “self-righteous” about simply pointing the people back to this republic’s plumb line of principle.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
— The Declaration of Independence
“We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to...our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
— The Preamble, or Statement of Purpose, of the United States Constitution
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
— The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
— The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
— Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
“You shall not murder.”
— Exodus 20:13
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Don’t fall for this. The media and Obama and maybe Romney are trying to paint Santorum as someone who would try to rule women regarding contraceptives.
He’s actually said nothing definitive about his own beliefs, except to point out that 40% of births in America now are to single mothers and the percentage is much higher in minorities.
These babies are born into situations where they have little chance of having a successful life. Statistics show that babies born into two-parent families have a MUCH better chance of succeeding.
There are exceptions both ways, of course, but this is the norm.
Santorum has shown no inclination of mandating any of his personal beliefs into law, except for making abortion illegal which it should be.
If you had indeed simply pointed people back to basic principles it would have been one thing, You on the other hand went on a rant worthy of the left. It still does not address the real and present danger that O is t this country
It would cause me incredible pain to vote for Romney or that crazy little cretin Ron Paul.
I would feel the pain and do it to get rid of Obama.
Praying it won’t come to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.