It’s more about politicians who, on the one hand please conservatives with social positions they like—pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc. And then on the other hand screw them with big government proposals—out of control spending, ‘compassionate’ social programs, etc.
Santorum has shown himself to be that kind of a politician, over and over again.
And it’s NOT just about his voting record. You can make all the excuses in the world about Santorum’s voting record that you want to—argue that it’s irrelevant because the votes were part of omnibus spending packages, or that these were pragmatically ‘necessary’ votes to please vital constituencies, etc.
But the fact still remains that statements which Santorum has made, articulating his philosophy of governance, indicate that he is no friend of limited government.
Now, I’m willing to give a man benefit of the doubt that he can change. I don’t hold quite the same views I did 5-10 years ago, and I’ll bet in 5-10 years my views will be slightly different yet. But until I see demonstrable proof that Santorum’s convictions have changed when it comes to essential fundaments of limited government, I will remain decidedly leery of a Santorum presidency.
I understand your arguments. I do. I have heard the same arguments for years about Mike Huckabee.
No one (but an idiot) discounts his SoCon values. But plenty of right wingers take issue with his being a Nanny Stater.
OK, I can see that. But I would ENTHUSIASTICALLY support a “pro life statist” like Santorum or Huck over an abortion flip-flopper like Romney.
Wouldn’t you?