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.
He looks too meek, the enemies of America will treat him like a virgin choir boy in a maximum security prison.
Like having a family collie as a junk yard dog.
Newt has a past and that is what our enemies also know.
besides I believe Newt will make good on his fuel promises.
Reagan was looked at like a B movie star who was well past his sell by date.
Looks can be deceiving......
I still want to see some vision and evidence that Rick has a viable plan to save the Republic should he be elected.
Santorum's views on contraception are also in line with the Catholic Church. Santorum is the ONLY sane person to vote for, but women and male libs don't WANT a president in who believes in our essential God-given right of LIFE, liberty, etc., and who believes, as per Catholic party line, that sex belongs in marriage. My gawd, what would the porn/prostitution/sex trade DO with a President Santorum?! I know. They WOULD set him up to fail.
Still not convinced.
Interesting point.
It will be interesting to see what happens if Santorum shows up the the convention having won Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio along with a plethora of other conservative states. Michigan will be icing on the cake. The fact that Romney controls delegations from states that will never vote for the GOP candidate (Illinois, California, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, etc.) really doesn’t impress me; this is how Ford defeated Reagan, but eventually lost. The GOP doesn’t do well when we run half assed candidates.
He falls on the deck and flops like a fish. His current talking points may be conservative, but he's not and his track record speaks a lot louder than his BS campaign rhetoric.
2) Santorum isn't JUST a social conservative.
He isn't even a social conservative if you look at his voting record.
3) Santorum didn't blow the big issues of the last few years.
Former Senator Santorum has blown everything he ever touched except feathering his little lawyer nest by capitalizing on having been in office.
4) Santorum isn't going to get to D.C. and lose his nerve
As the last debate showed, he has no nerve to lose when he gets to DC and once again, his voting record shows it.
5) Santorum is more electable than Mitt.
Sure, just as long as the media, Bishop Romney, Santorum, and the Vichy Republican Party are all focused on keeping Newt out at all costs. In reality, if he's the candidate or even the VP on the ticket (which is all lawyer Santorum is campaigning for) he'll look like a wimp and a dunce within a couple of days.
Santorum can't hack it because he's a go along to get along kinda guy. Period. I'm sure he's a nice guy and he may have changed his ways, but it doesn't matter.
He's just another lawyer trying to talk about anything but the long series of compromises he's made with everything he says he disagrees with.
Christie is a great advocate for Romney. Christie was asked if he'd been in Romney's cabinet. He gave a vague long non-answer. I think Christie would be good as Attorney General.
Unless something big happens, I'm voting for Santorum (as a libertarian/conservative). Uniting the Party, baby.
1 Samuel 16:2-23 (New International Version)
2 The LORD said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’ 3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.”
4 Samuel did what the LORD said. When he arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the town trembled when they met him. They asked, “Do you come in peace?”
5 Samuel replied, “Yes, in peace; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate yourselves and come to the sacrifice with me.” Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice.
6 When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD.”
7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
8 Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, “The LORD has not chosen this one either.” 9 Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, “Nor has the LORD chosen this one.” 10 Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The LORD has not chosen these.” 11 So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?”
“There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered. “He is tending the sheep.”
Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.”
12 So he sent for him and had him brought in. He was glowing with health and had a fine appearance and handsome features.
Then the LORD said, “Rise and anoint him; this is the one.”
13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon David. Samuel then went to Ramah.
Nixon was forced out of office for his lying about the taping.
Clinton's lying binge was celebrated....especially by women who thought he was hot. Granted, he was/is married to Hitlery, but he's still a liar, a total embarrassment as our president.
A person is only as good as his integrity. Romney is a liar. Enough said.
Until ABORTION (choice) is STOPPED; this country will continue it's slide to oblivion...
1 in 4 future Americans are floating in a coffin of death - a mother's womb.
We CHOOSE over 1,000,000 a year to DIE in this country.
And we blithely ask GOD to Bless us!!
What fools we are!
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=259161
What fools we are...AMEN.
When did it become okay to abort our OWN flesh and blood? When did the most innocent become so guilty as to warrant death by their own mother?
SAD fools.
Are you through bloviating, Rash?
Maybe next time you’d like to back up your idiotic comments with facts.
EPIC FAIL ALERT!
Go Rick and Newt!
Their support for grossly immoral, utterly unconstitutional "fetal pain" legislation, and other lawless legislation that ends with "and then they can kill the baby."
They've all promised to break the most important aspect of their sacred oath, before even taking it.
"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.""NO PERSON shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
They have, sadly, disqualified themselves from any legitimate right to govern anyone, in exactly the same way King George abdicated his right to rule Americans more than two centuries ago.
"He [King George] has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us."-- The Declaration of Independence
Well, Mountain Mary, you go right ahead and keep on backing little Ricky and you're going to have Mountain Meadows Bishop Romney.As for "bloviating", that five point post to which I replied fits the definition of the word far more than does my response.
But at least you feel better now that someone posted the facts and you got to use a funny snarky word rather than responding to those facts. And we all realize that for whole Ricky crowd, it's feelings that are important, not results.
have a nice, Bishop Romney, sort of day
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.