The American Spectator

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 11:29AM

The Temporary Case For Ricky Specter-Santorum:

He Ain't Romney & He's A Useful Dupe To Grab Delegates & Force A Brokered Convention.

Attention:
Hillyer Is Selling Knockoff Ricky Specter-Santorum Sweater Vests In The Lobby.

tonypal| 2.13.12 @ 4:24PM

Clint, are you capable of posting without the childish name calling? Simply tell us why you prefer Paul over Santorum and be a man about it. Knock off the silly stuff if you want yourself and your candidate to be taken seriously.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 5:30PM

No,tonypal.

That's A Real Be Man About It Name Ya Got There, Sport.

Where's tonypal ?

He's Taking His Nap.

Aaaaaand, I'm Dealing With RINO-CINO Fops , Not Men.

RJ| 2.13.12 @ 11:52AM

Interesting article. Thanks, Quin.

While Santorum's past record with "compassionate conservatism" bothers me, the events since 2008 have made many Americans (including Santorum, I believe) more determined for conservative fiscal and monetary reform. In comparing Romney's current platform and his past record with Santorum's, Rick Santorum looks like a much better choice to me. He is also a much better campaigner and debater than Romney.

And as the Red State article points, out, Santorum can connect with Reagan Democrats while Obama will hit Mitt as the disconnected wealthy Republican from Wall Street.

Gadfly| 2.13.12 @ 11:57AM

This argument amounts to 1 - He's not rich, so Obama can't attack him for being part of the 1%; 2 - He's not rich, so he should resonate better with blue collar voters; and 3 - I really hate Obama, so I assume that everyone else does too.

The first two are valid points, but they both come with a big caveat: money talks. For all the problems that Romney's wealth and fund-raising may cause him, more money is a net advantage.

The third point is a trap for Republicans. Independents don't hate Obama the way that conservatives do. They hate the economy. That's why Obama's favorability rating is higher than his job performance rating. If we see even a moderate recovery over the next couple of months, it's going to be hard to beat Obama. I think Romney has a better shot than Santorum, though.

Romney's not a great option, but he's better than Santorum. Fair or not, Santorum is perceived as a far-right zealot by many independents. In a general election, Romney's perceived moderation will be a benefit. What's more, Santorum's all about social conservatism when fiscal conservatism is the GOP's stronger message. If Romney can capitalize on his image as a competent businessman, I think he can really resonate with people looking to get a hold of this nation's financial situation.

rightasrain| 2.13.12 @ 12:01PM

Yes Santorum would take Romneycare off the table but he would put abortion and gay marriage back on it in a big way. All those people who flocked to Obama in 2008 solely to prove they weren't racist would again flock to him to show how tolerant they are. There is a very fine line between principled and bigoted in many people's minds and painting Santorum as a bigot will be very easy. Once that odor of intolerance clings to him, I don't see how he would ever attract any independents.

RJ| 2.13.12 @ 1:58PM

You raise a good point. I hope the biggest emphasis in the campaign is how an increasingly corrupt and dictatorial government has damaged the economy and our society. If that is the key issue, the GOP nominee will win. To the extent the media emphasizes Santorum's positions on gay marriage and abortion, I think Santorum is better able to explain his position than Romney can deal with ObamaCare, his image of being a wealthy out-of-touch candidate and flip-flopping. All of the candidates have weakness. It is up to figure out who is the strongest candidate to win and reform the government.

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 3:58PM

Opposing Gay Marriage is actually a popular position, electorally. And, everyone knows the GOP candidate will be pro-Life, and will be appointing pro-Lifers to the SCOTUS.

Santorum seems to be a decent human being, too, unlike most of the Ronulans on this site. Everyone knows Obama is a scuzball, if one bothers to check and attack; Rick will attack.

Tina B| 2.14.12 @ 7:37PM

Yes, OT, and I am still strongly supporting Santorum.

John Story| 2.13.12 @ 12:09PM

By denying convicted felons of their gov't sector pensions, who do you think this will harm the most? Certainly not the felons since their needs will be covered by the prison system. Their dependents, the innocent ones will suffer the brunt of your efforts to take away their lawful pensions. Then you right wing haters will be complaining of more people filing for welfare. Can't have your cake and eat it too, although we all know you'd only be after 99% of it.

Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 12:19PM

I would point out that there's no such thing as "big government conservatism." There is such a thing as big government Republicanism, however.

Modern conservatism has a strong libertarian element to it (combined with traditionalism and military preparedness) that pits it against both big government liberalism and Lew Rockwell type anarchism.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 12:34PM

Libertarians/ Conservatives Can Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address And The Old Right.

" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"

William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 12:54PM

And yet Buckley is villified by the Lew Rockwell types for wanting a strong national defense against Communism.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 1:13PM

And Yet The Israel Firster Smear Bund Types Vilify Libertarian/Conservatives For Not Wanting Our American Warriors To Be Used As Cannon Fodder And Our National Treasure Pissed Away Policing The Middle East For The Israel Firster Agenda.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 2:00PM

So why did you quote Buckley?

Dai Alanye| 2.13.12 @ 2:13PM

Clint would quote Obama -- or Mao, for that matter -- if he could find anything that seems to support RonPaul. He ain't too particular when things are looking desperate for his elfin candidate.

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 3:59PM

Clint's problem is that he lets his Jew hatred overcome his very small frontal lobe. He also wants sharia to triumph in this country, which is weird since he alleges to be RC.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 5:41PM

That's A Lie.

You're A Maniac Screwball Serial Sociopathic Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar, Tool Job.

Interesting, That Tool Job Uses The Name Of A Catholic Heretic.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 5:38PM

That's A Lie.

You're An Israel Smear Bund Liar, Dai Job.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 5:37PM

Duuuuhhhh !

Buckley criticized certain aspects of policy within the modern conservative movement. Of George W. Bush's presidency, he said, "If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign." He further said, "Bush is 'conservative', but he is not a 'Conservative', and that the president was not elected 'as a vessel of the conservative faith.'" Buckley would distinguish between so-called "lowercase c" and "Capital C" conservatives, the latter being true conservatives: fiscally conservative and socially Conservative/Libertarian or libertarian-leaning."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 9:52PM

You should read some of the things Rothbard said about Buckley.

ER| 2.13.12 @ 12:23PM

Productive U.S. Citizens, i.e. Tea Party, will not be considering PAC's, campaign fund raising, "delectability", inside-baseball type of considerations. Will the next president support real spending cuts, or will he encourage more spending? Will he be committed to the robust defense of our country? Is he committed to American exceptionalism and freedom? And is he a conservative in his DNA; a good man; a trustworthy man? These are the things the productive class will consider when they go into the private voting booth and check off their choice. Pundits and Polls were dead wrong, and the experts were "shocked, absolutely shocked" in November 2010. Watch the actually voting, and I think the tide is turning to Santorium, and I for one am very glad about that.

Roger| 2.13.12 @ 12:24PM

I kind of doubt Santorum will win Michigan. Most Michigan GOPers are fairly moderate,as evidenced by the 2008 primary thee,where Romney and McCain got the huge %. Most of their governors are more in the RIno mold of Romney. They have never elected conservatives much to state or national office. Look at their house delegation. Except for a few newer members they are all pretty moderate,guys like Dave Camp,Fred Upton,Mike Rogers.
Another thing,the blue collar areas are Democrat areas now. I'm sure Santorum will do quite well in the UP(few votes there though)as well as the western half of the state,filled with Dutch-American conservatives. Romney though will clean up among the wealthy Rino set who dominate in the Detroit area.

W| 2.13.12 @ 12:26PM

Santorum wants a 0%, or no tax on manufacturing. While this sounds great, it is probably unconstitutional, and if not, greatly increase the power of the government in general, and IRS specifically.

First you have to define manufacturing, which will involve IRS in reviewing what your produce or make, and will increase the cost of tax compliance.

Second, you have the government picking and choosing which industries get taxed.

Third, why should one company pay tax and another no tax? This will just shift the burden of taxation from one industry to the others. It is just another form of redistribution of income from one taxpayer to another.

This is the problem with the mentality that the government should be involved in the economy to pick winners and losers. We criticize Democrats for it, and we should also criticize Republicans for it.

Bill| 2.13.12 @ 1:20PM

Santorum has no idea what he's talking about. He has plan to revive the manufacturing sector while ha lacks no solutions for taxation and regulations. He's just pandering to his labor union base in PA. Also, no surprise, Obama in his SOTU address offered exact same plan for the manufacturing industry. Smell something? BIG GOVERNMENT!

Dai Alanye| 2.13.12 @ 2:30PM

Zero tax is unconstitutional! I'll have to look again, because according to my copy of the Constitution, any income tax at all is barely constitutional, via an Amendment approved in 1913, and hopefully to be repealed in 2013.

And lowering taxes will increase the power of government! In other words, a government with no income would be all-powerful. Have I got that right?

I understand you are pushing other candidates than Santorum, but try to avoid arguments wafting from the realm of fantasy.

Bill| 2.13.12 @ 2:32PM

Santorum will unionize the entire private sector because he is from PA and loves union.

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:13PM

Santorum was a Senator representing the state of Pennsylvania, he was upholding his responsibility to represent the State of Pennsylvania.

I can give him the benefit of the doubt on this, it's some of his other stuff that has me worried.

W| 2.13.12 @ 4:57PM

Read the comment more carefully with an open mind.

What if Obama wants to tax you at the regular rate and me at zero because I am a community organizer, and we both have the same income. Do you believe that is unconstitutional? Same principle here, if Corp A is a manufacturer it pays no tax, if Corp B is a bank it pays tax. Same income for both. And you have to prove to IRS your are a manufacturer worthy of zero tax. Is that more clear for you?
Seriously, I don't beleive you do no understand this. You just want to argue about your candidate.

I understand you write fantasay but this is the real world.
Read it with an open mind.

Bill| 2.13.12 @ 12:49PM

Santorum's record:
1. voted for raising debt ceiling 8 times, adding to the national debt $3 trillion because PA was a blue state
2. voted against "Right-to-Work" law because PA is a pro-union state
3. voted for the Medicare Part D because PA has a large population of retirees
Time and time, santorum surrendered to his liberal constituents and failed to stand up with the majority of people of PA, and that is why he lost his senate bid by 18 points to a "silly" liberal Bob Casey in 2006.
wanne be the President? You wish!

Dai Alanye| 2.13.12 @ 2:33PM

Santorum's ratings during sixteen years in Congress:

American Conservative Union -- 88%
National Right to Life Committee -- 100%
Americans for Tax Reform -- 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee -- 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- 88%
League of Private Property Voters -- 94%

Santorum is such a liberal as to excite any rational conservative.

Chris16| 2.13.12 @ 1:06PM

I received an Email request to donate to Santorum. Sure, right after he debates Major Tammy Duckworth .

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 4:02PM

Duckworth is a Democratic idiot. Right?

Bill| 2.13.12 @ 1:29PM

Santorum is an angry debater, such as red eyes and verbal outburst, and Obama will manipulate Santorum's lack of debate skill. gingrich, in contrast, will draw a sharp contrast and shred Obama.

Bo Darville| 2.13.12 @ 1:35PM

I just can't imagine this social issues first, sweater vest wearing, 20% Senate race losing candidate beating Obama. What am I missing? I'd much rather the election be a referendum on economic issues than one on whether or not it's OK for children to watch Will & Grace reruns.

Tina B| 2.14.12 @ 8:01PM

What are you missing, Bo? Why. . . have you been sleeping? Have you missed what a loser got elected last time around? Anyone could and should beat BHO.

And if you think what Rick Santorum stands for equates to censoring Will & Grace reruns, you probably helped elect the Socialist in the first place. You're part of the problem

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 1:56PM

I don't think Santorum can beat Obama realistically. Is it possible, sure, but I honestly think the person Obama and the establishment are actually terrified of Gingrich being the Republican nominee. I think despite what the polls say, Gingrich (despite all his "baggage") is our best chance at fixing this country (and not just simply beating Obama).

Bill| 2.13.12 @ 2:00PM

Amen! brother.

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:04PM

Make no mistake, Santorum is a much better option than Romney. I just don't think he has any ability to counter Obama's charisma and wouldn't be able to easily counter the media's attacks.

Trinacria| 2.13.12 @ 3:07PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Keith| 2.13.12 @ 4:17PM

Santorum has never really done an honest days work or created wealth for anyone but himself. He is also a whiner. His supporters also get a tingle down their legs for him. Actually,he is a white,straight version of Obama.

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:26PM

Look I don't support Rick Santorum, but you really have him confused with Mittens.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 5:51PM

We're The Pennsylvania Gun & Bible Clutchin' Conservatives, Who Helped Throw Little Ricky's Ass Out Of The Senate, After He Stepped In The Last Weeks And Propped Up The RINO-CINO Poster Boy,Arlen Specter Against Our Republican Primary Guy, Pat Toomey.

Now, Little Ricky And Specter Have Been Chased Away And Our Tea Party Senator, Pat Toomey Is In.

The Temporary Case For Ricky Specter-Santorum:

He Ain't Romney & He's A Useful Dupe To Grab Delegates & Force A Brokered Convention.

Oldefarte| 2.13.12 @ 9:26PM

And THIS is CONSERVATISM? :
'....Targeted Spending...Lawmakers weren’t required to make public their requests for targeted spending projects, called earmarks, until after Santorum lost in 2006.
Still, Perry’s ad claim that Santorum obtained more than $1 billion in earmarks during his time in office is likely legitimate, according to Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks government waste.
For instance, Pennsylvania in 2005 received $483 million in earmarks for 872 projects, including $5.4 million for an igloo upgrade for an Army Depot and $5 million for a new visitor center at Gettysburg....Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, said Santorum had worked closely with Specter on earmarks and wasn’t known to condemn the practice. “It was not a huge issue during his tenure,” he said....‘Proud of the Money’..Santorum defended himself on Dec. 29 on Fox News: “I’m proud of the money that I did set aside for things that were priorities in my state instead of having bureaucrats do that.”
The online advertisement released by Perry opens with images of pigs -- a play on so-called pork-barrel spending --and a clip of a Feb. 26, 2009, Santorum appearance on Fox News in which he says he is “very proud of all the earmarks” he inserted into legislation.Santorum also wasn’t as reflexively anti-union as some Republicans, perhaps because he waged his first House campaign in 1990 in a Democratic-leaning, working-class congressional district in the Pittsburgh area.In 1993, Santorum was one of 17 House Republicans who sided with most Democrats in backing a Clinton administration bill to protect striking employees from being permanently replaced by their employees.Santorum’s Senate service shows a clear track record of supporting the Davis-Bacon Act, the federal law that requires government contractors to pay workers the local prevailing wage and a perennial target for elimination by the business community and anti-union Tea Party activists.
Davis-Bacon...In 1996, Santorum voted in effect for an amendment by former Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy that said the 1931 law shouldn’t be repealed.In 1999, the Senate accepted a Santorum amendment that said it should consider “reform” of Davis-Bacon rather than repeal. Later that year, Santorum was one of 15 Senate Republicans who sided with Democrats in rejecting an amendment that would have limited the application of Davis-Bacon in federal disaster areas.He has a mixed record on federal minimum-wage laws, casting votes for increases and at other times against them. A pro- Santorum publication put out by the Pennsylvania Republican Party in 2006 noted “50 Things You May Not Know About Rick Santorum.” Ranked at No. 23: Santorum “wrote legislation that would increase the national minimum wage.”
Protecting Steel...Although a supporter of most free-trade agreements, Santorum adopted a protectionist profile when it came to his home state’s steel industry.In 2002, he supported President George W. Bush’s decision to impose tariffs on imported steel. In 1999, he was one of 42 senators who voted in effect for a bill he co-wrote that would have restricted imports of foreign steel.
Even with those pro-labor stances, Santorum wasn’t a consistent ally with the AFL-CIO; he had a 13 percent lifetime rating from the labor organization in 2006, his last year in office.
Jon Delano, a political analyst from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, said that low rating may give Santorum a shield against some attacks. Still, Delano said, the former senator would remain vulnerable to accusations that he’s “part of the Washington establishment.”
Santorum’s 2004 endorsement of Specter over a more conservative Republican primary opponent has also prompted opponents to question his credentials. Specter, a 30-year Senate veteran who served alongside Santorum in the chamber, lost his seat in the 2010 Democratic primary after he switched parties.Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, the son of the presidential candidate Ron Paul, referenced the endorsement Jan. 1 on CBS’s Face the Nation, saying Santorum is “a big-government type of moderate” and among the “fair-weather conservatives” in the Republican field....'

Oldefarte| 2.14.12 @ 12:02PM

PS [we don't need another pro-labor union president in the white house] :
'....ArtLafer:..States..Leading..Pro...Growth..Rebellion ..Tuesday, February 14, 2012 08:00 AM..By: Julie Crawshaw..Economist and Ronald Reagan adviser Arthur Laffer says that states are sending Washington a message: Aligning yourself too closely to unions is a losing strategy.“States are now starting to change the playing field,” Laffer writes in The Wall Street Journal. “The latest shock to the Democratic agenda is Indiana's adoption of a right-to-work law that bans contracts that require private-sector employees to pay union dues.”
That's progress, and part of a growing trend at the state level, says Laffer. Indiana is now the 23rd state to adopt a right-to-work law. “The benefits to states having right-to-work legislation are overwhelming,” Laffer says.
Economies in states with right-to-work laws grow significantly faster than those in forced-union states, have higher employment growth, attract more residents, and have more rapid growth in state and local tax revenues than forced-union states.Laffer observes that it wasn’t easy for Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to get the bill passed. Not only did every Democrat in Indiana's House and Senate vote against the bill, but five Republicans in the House and nine in the Senate also voted against it, testament to the influence of union power in Washington and state capitals across America.Most high-school civics students, Laffer notes, would agree that no American worker should either be prohibited from joining a union or required to join one as a condition of employment. “And no union member—or anyone else for that matter—should be required to contribute to political causes they oppose,” he says. “Yet in 27 states, if more than 50 percent of workers agree to create a union shop, workers are still required to join the union and pay dues even if those dues are used for political causes of which they disapprove.”Democrats, for better or worse, have staked their future on tight partnership with the unions, Laffer points out. “Unfortunately for them, not only is union membership a fraction of what it once was, but half of all union members today are public-sector employees—teachers, nurses, police officers, firemen, prison guards,” he says.
“In 1983, when President Reagan fired the air-traffic controllers for walking out on their jobs, two-thirds of all union members were in the private sector.”According to a report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor, 2011 figures show that public-sector workers had a union membership rate more than five times higher than that of private-sector work..........'

mjs_pa| 2.13.12 @ 9:39PM

Quin if you attend Santorum's Inauguration next January I hope to bump into to you and shake your hand.

Thanks again for you early and often careful analysis illuminating Santorum's appeal and abilities which ideally suits him to be the 45th President of the United States.

Tina B| 2.14.12 @ 8:04PM

Oh I hope I see you both there, I'll be the one proudly wearing my "Rock the Vest" Santorum button.