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.
Nonsense. If my position were adhered to, not a single innocent person would be intentionally killed anywhere in America under the color of "law."
Conversely, your position, which is that we can ignore the most important explicit, imperative provisions of the U.S. Constitution, assures that the God-given, unalienable rights of every person, and the premise of American liberty, are expendable. The killing will go on right up until God's judgment falls on us all.
-- Thomas Jefferson"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."
-- Frederick Douglass, "The Nation's Problem," 1890 "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The hand entrusted with power becomes…the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity." -- Wendell PHILLIPS, 1852 "Forewarned, forearmed, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
The rights of the people, all the people, are God-given, not man-given. Therefore, they are not legitimately subject to democratic decision-making. That's what it means to be a republic - a nation of laws, not of men.
You didn't know this?
Sad.
Natural law and natural rights and natural right were the premise of the American Revolution.
"It (the Declaration of Independence) stands, and must forever stand alone, a beacon on the summit of the mountain, to which all the inhabitants of the earth may turn their eyes for a genial and saving light till time shall be lost in eternity, and this globe itself dissolve, nor leave a wreck behind. It stands forever, a light of admonition to the rulers of men, a light of salvation and redemption to the oppressed ... (as the delineation of) the boundries of their respective rights and duties, founded in the laws of nature, and of nature's God."-- John Quincy Adams
"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."-- John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 1763
"Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations."-- John Adams
"[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths...?"-- George Washington, Farewell Address
There are actually two ways of looking at that:
1. WE the people have NEVER been given the opportunity to vote on a law outlawing abortion.
2. Once we agree that an unborn baby is a person, the baby is entitled to full protection under the 5th and 14th amendments. This protection makes any law allowing abortion unconstitutional and it doesn't matter what the people will vote for.
We are fools to engage Eternal Vigilance. I’ve done so before.
Eternal Vigilance better known as Tom Hoefling nominee for President under the America’s Party banner or some such entitey. Let him prove his ability to get elected and then maybe he can change a few things. Until then .... well just let him rant as it takes away from his vote gathering time.
"On the 2d of July, 1776, the old Continental Congress, to the dismay of the lovers of ease, and the worshipers of property, clothed that dreadful idea with all the authority of national sanction. They did so in the form of a resolution; and as we seldom hit upon resolutions, drawn up in our day, whose transparency is at all equal to this, it may refresh your minds and help my story if I read it.“Resolved, That these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, dissolved.”
Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and to-day you reap the fruits of their success. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation’s history — the very ring-bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny.
Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.
From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day — cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight."
-- Frederick Douglass, "What to the slave is the Fourth of July?" speech, July 5, 1852
"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..."
Let it be noted that you brought that up, not me. The principles under discussion are far more important than any campaign, or any personality.
Time spent re-illuminating the ringbolt principles of this free republic is never wasted.
Barack Obama is the only candidate in this race who has "proven his ability to get elected" president.
I seriously doubt you're going to be voting for him.
You didn’t even read or try to understand my reason for refuting Eternal Vigilance who, as God is my witness, I will NEVER post to again. My God.
By refusing what he calls ‘half measures’ he dooms countless babies who could be saved to death.
I’m through with this argument, so don’t even bother responding.
We were talking about the fetal pain legislation. I don’t know what percentage of abortions we think would end up not being done if the abortionist had to worry about fetal pain. I chose a low number for that reason.
But you didn’t refute anything. You simply repeated your baseless assertion that by sacrificing the moral, constitutional and legal arguments against abortion that you’re somehow going to save some.
In spite of the fact that the Constitution of the United States requires equal protection for all.
Don’t judge a book by its cover.
Ike looked meek, too. But it was he who won the European Campaign in WW2.
I only need two...
He is not Barrack Obama, and he is not Mitt Romney...
Agreed.
I'm afraid you are right. American women WANT the right to coninue to kill their imperfect/inconvenient babies. God help them.
Santorum would be a good model though and would make those baby killers feel guilty and angry (because they KNOW abortion is evil) JUST by being a practicing Catholic and they would ALL know how he felt...and lived.
The Left KNOWS that they would have a field day with Santorum just because he is a practicing Catholic.
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.