Rick Santorum

[Go Devil]

I predict that whatever eventually replaces obama will be very similar to obama, a puppet.

[cbtengr]

Romney is far too progressive for me, Newt burned all his bridges a long time ago. Newt has entertained us long enough and needs to fade into the darkness, if only his ego would allow it. The best thing Santorum has going for him is that he does not have to answer to years and years of political baggage. I would have no problem supporting Santorum, I gotta go along with the if they were dating my daughter logic. In the end it will be the independant vote that decides who the next POTUS will be and IMHO they will not be voting for Obama this time. Anybody but Obama.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Go Devil

I predict that whatever eventually replaces obama will be very similar to obama, a puppet.

Originally Posted by cbtengr

Romney is far too progressive for me, Newt burned all his bridges a long time ago. Newt has entertained us long enough and needs to fade into the darkness, if only his ego would allow it. The best thing Santorum has going for him is that he does not have to answer to years and years of political baggage. I would have no problem supporting Santorum, I gotta go along with the if they were dating my daughter logic. In the end it will be the independant vote that decides who the next POTUS will be and IMHO they will not be voting for Obama this time. Anybody but Obama.

Is it going to be another “hold your nose and vote” election? Santorum seems to be the guy that is most appealing to me of the remaining (R) candidates. But I did run across the following tid-bit yesterday, some of which I had heard before. it does make me stop and think. There was a little internet hoax about Judge Napolitano getting fired due to some comments he made (his show was CXed due to low ratings…he still works for Fox). The following is the text of the “What if” monologue from one of Napolitanos Freedom Watch shows:

What if Democrats and Republicans were two wings of the same bird of prey?

What if elections were actually useful tools of social control? What if they just provided the populace with meaningless participation in a process that validates an establishment that never meaningfully changes? What if that establishment doesn't want and doesn't have the consent of the governed? What if the two-party system was actually a mechanism used to limit so-called public opinion? What if there were more than two sides to every issue, but the two parties wanted to box you in to one of their corners?

What if there's no such thing as public opinion, because every thinking person has opinions that are uniquely his own? What if public opinion was just a manufactured narrative that makes it easier to convince people that if their views are different, there's something wrong with that -- or something wrong with them?

What if the whole purpose of the Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters' choices, but to limit them? What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties was just an illusion? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter who's in the White House? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter what the people want?

What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republican were actually just minor disagreements? What if both parties just want power and are willing to have young people fight meaningless wars in order to enhance that power? What if both parties continue to fight the war on drugs just to give bureaucrats and cops bigger budgets and more jobs?

What if government policies didn't change when government's leaders did? What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same? What if government was really a revolving door of political hacks, bent on exploiting the people while they're in charge?

What if both parties supported welfare, war, debt, bailouts and big government? What if the rhetoric that candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory? What if Barack Obama campaigned as an antiwar, pro-civil liberties candidate, then waged senseless wars while assaulting your rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect? What if George W. Bush campaigned on a platform of nonintervention and small government, then waged a foreign policy of muscular military intervention and a domestic policy of vast government borrowing and growth?

What if Bill Clinton declared the era of big government to be over, but actually just convinced Republicans like Newt Gingrich that they can get what they want out of big government, too? What if the Republicans went along with it?

What if Ronald Reagan spent six years running for president promising to shrink government, but then the government grew while he was in office? What if, notwithstanding Reagan's ideas and cheerfulness and libertarian rhetoric, there really was no Reagan Revolution?

What if all this is happening again? What if Rick Santorum is being embraced by voters who want small government even though he voted for the Patriot Act, for an expansion of Medicare and for raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars? What if Mitt Romney is being embraced by voters who want anyone but Obama, but don't realize that Romney might as well be Obama on everything from warfare to welfare?

What if Ron Paul is being ignored by the media not because theyclaim he's unappealing or unelectable, but because he doesn't fit into the pre-manufactured public opinion mold used by the establishment to pigeonhole the electorate and create the so-called narrative that drives media coverage of elections?

What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance but style? What if those stylistic differences were packaged as substantive ones to re-enforce the illusion of a difference between Democrats and Republicans? What if Romney wins and ends up continuing most of the same policies that Obama promoted? What if Obama's policies, too, are merely extensions of Bush's?

What if a government that manipulated us could be fired? What if a government that lacked the true and knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed? What if it were possible to have a game-changer? What if we need a Ron Paul to preserve and protect our freedoms from assault by the government?

What if we could make elections matter again? What if we could do something about this?

[afchic]

From the Weekly Standard this morning.

Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift?
Jeffrey H. Anderson and Andy Wickersham
February 15, 2012 11:00 AM


Mitt Romney is now arguing that Rick Santorum’s record exposes him as one of those Republicans who “act like Democrats” once they get to Washington. Romney surrogate Tim Pawlenty adds that Santorum “clearly has been part of the big-spending establishment in Congress.” Another Romney surrogate, former senator Jim Talent, says of Santorum, “He certainly has been outspoken on social issues . . . but when you get outside those issues into fiscal, spending, regulatory issues, his record shows that he’s been in the liberal wing of the Republican party.”

This is clearly emerging as one of Romney’s two prominent lines of attack against Santorum, the other — a related one — being that Santorum is a “Washington insider.” But since the only reason Romney didn’t become a “Washington insider” himself is that he failed to win election in either of his two bids for federal office, and since the vast majority of the Republican party’s Washington insiders are backing Romney, this claim is likely to persuade precious few GOP voters. That leaves Romney with only one real line of attack against Santorum: that the former Pennsylvania senator’s record isn’t that of a fiscal conservative.

So, is Romney’s claim true? Was Santorum a spendthrift in the Senate? Fortunately, credible third party analysis is available to help us answer this question, so we need not merely accept the Romney campaign’s verdict as the final word on the matter.

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.

For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.

Based on how each state voted in the three presidential elections over that period (1996, 2000, and 2004), nearly two-thirds of senators represented states that were to the right of Pennsylvania. In those three presidential elections, Pennsylvania was, on average, 3 points to the left of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvanians backed the Democratic presidential nominee each time, while the nation as a whole chose the Republican in two out of three contests.

Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.

But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.

In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorum’s represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. It’s an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.

So, if Santorum was among — and perhaps even topped the list of — the most fiscally conservative senators during this period, who were the least fiscally conservative? That prize would have to go to the two North Dakota senators, who despite representing a state that voted 23 points to the right of the national average in the presidential elections, managed to achieve GPAs of 0.08 (Democrat Kent Conrad) and 0.00 (Democrat Byron Dorgan). Honorable mentions would have to go to Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who got a 0.84 GPA in a state that was 18 points to the right of the national average; Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who got a 0.08 GPA in a state that was 4 points to the right of average; and Utah Republicans Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, who each barely cleared a 3.0 (3.11 for Bennett, 3.08 for Hatch) despite representing the state that, in the presidential elections, was the nation’s most right-leaning (38 points to the right of average).

As for Santorum’s potential opponent in the fall, Barack Obama’s three years in the Senate (2005 through 2007) overlapped only with Santorum’s final two years. (In 2008, Obama effectively left the Senate to campaign for President and therefore didn’t cast enough votes for NTU to score him that year.) In both of the years that the two men overlapped (2005 and 2006), as well as throughout Obama’s three years’ worth of preparation for the presidency, Obama’s GPA was 0.00 — a rock-solid F.

Now that’s acting like a Democrat — something Santorum has never done.

[Sparty On]

Not a fan. If he can't win his home state as an incumbent in 2006, how can he be expected to win other "purple" states in a general election facing Obama?

[LarryW]

(Damn, Don...the "what if's" scared the crap out of me! Just as I was trying to decide who to invite to my picnic...flies or ants!)

I intend to vote for any life form that's NOT our current Mandater-and-Chief.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Sparty On

Not a fan. If he can't win his home state as an incumbent in 2006, how can he be expected to win other "purple" states in a general election facing Obama?

Why are you not a fan?

Many politicians have the same problem, yet go on to get elected in other races.

You could say the same thing about Romney. The reason he didn't run for reelection is because he knew he was going to get the snot kicked out of him. Are you a fan of Romney?

You do realize how blue Pennsylvania was in 2006? Dems had Republicans by 15% points. Not really a surprise that he lost, seeing as how that is the year the Dems swept Congress and brought us the likes of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

[cjwils3]

I have a feeling that if Santorum gets the nomination, the Obama camp and the media will absolutely destroy him and his record. They'll bring up the whole fiasco of him residing in Virginia during the final months of his tenure representing Pennsylvania in the Senate, even though he had denounced Doug Walgren for doing the same during the 1990 Congressional election. Then there is the staunch anti gay rights stance he has espoused for some time. He even once said preventing homosexuals from getting married was the ultimate homeland security issue (or something along those lines). While I can understand that he didn't mean to insinuate that LGBT people are a threat to national security, it nevertheless would be hard for him to shake off his image as an extremist and a homophobe.

Personally, I don't think by residing in a different state than his own, Santorum did anything that countless other politicians haven't. However, as we all know, the media has an immeasurable amount of influence on voters' opinions these days, so they will make it seem like a monumental issue. As for his ability versus Obama, I am not convinced he could defeat the President in debates, although that certainly would remain to be seen. He does have the ability to unite conservatives unlike Romney or Paul and doesn't carry the personal life baggage that Gingrich has. This will be interesting, especially since he was such a long shot at the commencement of the primary season.

[Go Devil]

Jensen's Speech linked below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sySuIXG_IM

Old Hickory was the last one to exhibit any mettle; the rest are prostitutes pimped by investors.

Copper plated tin x 2.

[Don]

Originally Posted by LarryW

(Damn, Don...the "what if's" scared the crap out of me! Just as I was trying to decide who to invite to my picnic...flies or ants!)

I intend to vote for any life form that's NOT our current Mandater-and-Chief.

...and that's the point. Bring up Ron Paul's name and no one like the idea of him being the candidate because he is "unelectable". But of the remaining candidates, he is the one whos ideas most closely match the original intent of the Constitution. MANY folks consider him a whack job. I think it's because alot of folks actualy WANT or DEMAND more Government control...not for themselves mind you, but for the other folks that cant control themselves. The Government is very willing to exploit that mindset.

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by cjwils3

I have a feeling that if Santorum gets the nomination, the Obama camp and the media will absolutely destroy him and his record.

It doesn't matter who gets the nomination, Obama's campaign will set their sights on anything they think will help them win.

One issue in any election is a candidate's record. If a candidate has done anything at all in the public realm, he/she is going to have a paper trail, whether it's votes on bills, decisions, you name it, it's fair game.

A strong point for any conservative candidate is that if Obama wants to run record vs. record, he essentially loses against anybody. The amount of money he has spent is egregious.

So, I would opine that we must pick a candidate who can get the conservative base out en masse to vote, and also pick up enough independents to win 50.1 percent of the vote.

[cjwils3]

Originally Posted by craigepo

It doesn't matter who gets the nomination, Obama's campaign will set their sights on anything they think will help them win.

One issue in any election is a candidate's record. If a candidate has done anything at all in the public realm, he/she is going to have a paper trail, whether it's votes on bills, decisions, you name it, it's fair game.

A strong point for any conservative candidate is that if Obama wants to run record vs. record, he essentially loses against anybody. The amount of money he has spent is egregious.

So, I would opine that we must pick a candidate who can get the conservative base out en masse to vote, and also pick up enough independents to win 50.1 percent of the vote.

I absolutely agree. It's interesting how Obama virtually got a free pass from the media and the majority of the American electorate on his record (despite the fact that he didn't have much of one in the Senate). Santorum, Romney, or whoever wins the nomination will be forced to answer to every little detail from their past, whereas Obama often refused to do so. I also concur with your assessment that Santorum as a whole is more likeable than Romney and better able to resonate with the conservative base. He comes across to me as being more "blue-collar" and down to Earth. Those will be invaluable characteristics when it comes time for the general election, which as we all know has become a beauty contest in recent years.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by craigepo

It doesn't matter who gets the nomination, Obama's campaign will set their sights on anything they think will help them win.

One issue in any election is a candidate's record. If a candidate has done anything at all in the public realm, he/she is going to have a paper trail, whether it's votes on bills, decisions, you name it, it's fair game.

A strong point for any conservative candidate is that if Obama wants to run record vs. record, he essentially loses against anybody. The amount of money he has spent is egregious.

So, I would opine that we must pick a candidate who can get the conservative base out en masse to vote, and also pick up enough independents to win 50.1 percent of the vote.

I would settle for 270 electoral votes.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Care to share views on Santorum, TR?

[JTC]

Ron Paul is my choice, the rest all look the same to me. I'm trying to stay positive, but I think that the republican party has failed us by pushing all of these lukewarm candidates onto the people.
Here's my political philosophy: decide what your principles are, then allow your principles to dictate your stance on the issues, social and economic.

I'm expecting some feedback on the Ron Paul thing....looking forward to it.