If the Top Guys Are This Bad, Might as Well Vote for the Long Shot

Because the front runners of the Republican candidates are equally flawed, you might as well vote for your favorite long-shot candidate.

Trump is no more dependably conservative than Romney was. The biggest difference between Trump and Romney is the 216 miles between I-95 that separates New York from Boston. The next biggest difference between them is that Trump is the wolf that barks the louder. And he wears a finer wool blend.

Cruz has most of the conservative bona fides. What he lacks is leadership. He seems to have been a pretty good litigator, but despite his big talk about stopping the Obama agenda, he was not even able to impact McConnell’s Senate, let alone slow down the Obama agenda. Cruz and a dozen other conservatives could have had a major influence on McConnell’s Senate if a leader had emerged to make the difference. People’s anger is high because people make promises to get elected to Washington but then fail to deliver, and Cruz is the premier example.

So, there you have it. Vote for the erratic Donald Trump who is yet another conservative of convenience like Romney, or vote for a big talking freshman senator who hasn’t yet delivered. Trumps problems offset Cruz’s failures. Both men are equally flawed candidates. If the nomination is ultimately between these two, then why bother.

If neither of the front runners is better than the other, we might as well vote for the long-shot candidate, if the long-shot candidate is highly qualified and who is strongly committed to the conservative agenda.

In 1994, Rick Santorum came into the 435-member House of Representatives as a freshman congressman. He worked with seven other congressional delegates to expose the scandalous practices of the House Bank, working against nearly all incumbent representatives, including Newt Gingrich, but doing so in a way that made a huge impact on the House.

Five Essential Narrative Points for SuperTuesday: A Retrospect and a Prospect

SuperTuesday Narrative:

Santorum (brown) takes most Ohio Counties

The breathtaking sweep of the SuperTuesday elections will undoubtedly yield many stories which will need interpretation. There are, however, five main points in any credible SuperTuesday narrative.

First, Mitt cannot seal the deal. Not even by spending $12 million in two weeks in one state. Not even with the benefit of the Dele-GATE scandal by which he has manipulated either delegate rules or campaign momentum by unscrupulous party misdeeds in Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Maine, Florida, Arizona, and Michigan. Not even with the support of media giants Fox and Drudge. Not even with the endorsement of major party leaders.

Secondly, Rick is here to stay. Nothing has been easy for Santorum. Yet, he has weathered the blistering unleashed on him by Romney’s campaign treasure chest in every state contest. Romney outspent Santorum 6:1 in Romney’s home turf in Michigan, yet Rick wrestled him to a tie. Again, Romney outspent Santorum 12:1 in Ohio, and again Rick wrestled him to a tie. In both states, Rick did so even though his conservative base was split with Newt, which brings up the third narrative point.

Thirdly, at this point, Mitt’s best friend is Newt who is effectively preventing Rick from competing one-on-one with Mitt, a contest which Rick would clearly win. Newt’s southern strategy is kaput, with key states having been won by Santorum (Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee), and polling favorably for Santorum (Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina).  Santorum has won recent significant straw polls in Texas and is likely to win the important North Shore Tea Party straw poll this weekend in Louisiana. Since there is little more that Newt can accomplish by staying in the race, except to ensure a Romney win, one can only speculate that his continuation is designed to help pad his future conference speaking schedule and book contracts. Newt is quickly in danger of exchanging his reputation as the failed Speaker of the House with the equally onerous title of spoiler for the moderate candidate.

Fourthly, back to Romney and his profligate, Obama-like spending spree. The Romney campaign did not anticipate having to spend so much money at this point in the primary season, and has little left to continue its win-by-smear ad campaign. Fund raising numbers are about to come out for February, and the Romney campaign may be embarrassed to find itself having raised less money than the Santorum campaign. This will have a psychological effect on supporters, especially as they watch Romney resort to writing loan checks from his personal account to his campaign. Apparently, money can NOT buy an election, although it goes very far in keeping someone else from winning.

 

Fifthly, the vastly underfunded, underorganized Santorum campaign demonstrates how much a poorly equipped band of volunteers can do through hard work if they have a capable, relentless candidate with the right ideas. One can hardly avoid an analogy with Gen. Washington and his unprofessional, poorly outfitted army going up against the world’s superpower in the late 1700s. Nothing has been easy for Santorum, and victory is still not in hand. Yet with hardly a moment’s rest, he is off today for a Kansas noon event and to Mississippi for two more events later today in an effort to secure the nomination, just as Gen. Washington pushed on to Princeton after Trenton.

All in all, it was a bad SuperTuesday for Mitt, a great day for Rick, and a devastating day for Newt. It could have been worse or better for either Mitt or Rick. But the draw goes not to the front-runner, but to his opponent.

News Agencies Need to Keep up with the Intelligence of their Audience: Why Michigan Should Not Have Been Called for Romney

SANTORUM SCORES MAJOR UPSET, TAKING 8 OF 14 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS FROM ROMNEY'S HOME TURF.


(What the headlines should read.)

I’m no brilliant political analyst, but the utter ineptitude of the news media in calling Michigan for Romney surpasses all understanding. Victory in Michigan is not founded on popular vote, but on delegate distribution, according to congressional district. Calling Michigan on the basis of the popular vote is like claiming that the baseball team with the most hits won a game, without regard to runs scored. This is not rocket science, and it is akin to counting electoral votes in the general election. One need only to count the votes in each congressional district to determine delegate distribution. But instead, the news media, despite all their expertise and resources, couldn’t sort this out, and ended up falsely declaring Romney the winner based on the meaningless popular vote.

In fact, when Charles Krauthammer was confronted with this reality, he naively replied that the delegate count would not matter, since any difference between Santorum and Romney would only amount to a couple of delegates out of over a thousand necessary to win the election. True enough, but still those two delegates (probably more like 4 or 5 delegates) are nonetheless infinitely more significant than the 2% margin of victory for Romney in the popular vote. What is 30,000 votes out of the millions that will have been cast come convention time? Besides, no statistician will even care to log this number in any ledger at the convention. But the delegate count will be of supreme importance.

 

The congressional districts were evenly split, with 7 for Santorum, and 7 for Romney: 14 delegates each. By any standard of measurement, if this holds, this means that Michigan is tied. Here’s what the map looks like:

Looks like Michigan is Santorum country to me.

Why does it all matter? Mostly because of bragging rights and momentum. The very fact that this race was close at all makes it a win for Santorum anyway. He was outspent 4-1 (perhaps even 6-1), and this was Romney’s native state, his home turf which should have been an easy victory. Prior to Santorum’s surge, the Romney campaign probably projected that $200 in campaign expenditures and a token rally or two would bag this race. The fact that it was a real squeaker does much to make Santorum an obvious viable alternative to Romney. These facts in themselves make Santorum the real winner here, and should give Santorum a pre-Super Tuesday bounce, including an additional financial boon. But the delegate count legitimizes it as a Santorum win. The news media should at least pretend to understand the facts of this, and announce accordingly.

Also underreported is that Arizona has broken GOP rules about delegate distribution. Since it held its primary prior to GOP rules, not only is it penalized by half its normal delegate count, but it cannot be a winner take all state. The Santorum campaign may very well challenge Arizona's winner-take-all delegate allocation, and if GOP rules are followed, a number of delegates will be stripped from Romney and awarded to Santorum (and the other two candidates).

To add insult to injury, the latest news is that Michigan GOP officials met in a midnight, unpublicized session and changed the rules so that the two at large delegates were both awarded to Romney, instead of evenly divided. News on this can be found here: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/01/after-the-fact-romneys-supporters-in-michigan-seemingly-rewrite-the-delegate-rules/

Newt and the Imperiling of the Good Ship SS Reagan

 The case against Mitt is altogether clear and need not be repeated here except to say that he is the conservative of convenience, whose moderate to liberal views are explicit in any number of interviews and campaign ads from the recent past, and who continues to embrace a government-run healthcare program and individual mandate.

The case against Newt is much more complex, but equally damning. He, more than any other candidate, sells himself as the Reagan conservative. In nearly every debate, he touts himself as Reagan’s longtime fellow soldier and the heir to carry the Reagan torch. This song appeals to conservatives, and every time Newt sings it, he picks up a few more supporters. Clearly, the Reagan song sells.

It is precisely Newt’s claim to wear the Reagan mantle that imperils the good ship SS Reagan and our conservative movement. There are three issues which puts our ship in peril if we put Newt at the helm.

All Over the Place

First, although Newt has done much to advance the conservative agenda, his conservatism is more characteristically erratic. He has been wrong on the four key issues of conservatism during the Obama administration: 1) global warming/cap and trade; 2) illegal immigration; 3) the bailouts and the porkulus; and 4) government mandates for healthcare. The more time that passes from the era of Reagan, the further that Newt drifts from Reagan conservatism, and the more Newt seems to affirm that the era of Reagan is over. This is why Newt and Mitt debate over minuscule issues which hardly differentiate themselves from each other—they are so much alike, and in these squabbles, Newt reinforces the notion that he is more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Reagan Republican.

The Future is the Past

Secondly, Newt is prone to self-implosion. Part of this is a matter of him not being a principled leader, and all that is entailed therein. Nowhere is this better seen than in Newt’s time as Speaker of the House. Within two years of his coming to the Speakership, it was conservatives in his own party that led a coup against him. This cannot be explained as a reaction to Newt shaking up the establishment. Those were our own conservatives who weighed Newt’s leadership and found him seriously wanting, and they did so even before the ethics charges were made.

Under this rubric of Newt’s failure in principled leadership is that he drew lines in the sand, making tough stands on conservative issues, and exposing us to considerable liability. This could have been good, but when the moment of victory was at hand, Newt would blink. This hurt our movement time and again by saddling us with all the liability of taking a tough stance without achieving any of the benefits of victory. Whenever Newt stood toe to toe with Clinton on high stakes issues, Newt blinked, whether it was the impeachment trial or shutting down the government. After the shutting down of the government, Newt was more or less a whipped pup whenever he needed to make a stand against Clinton. Within two years, Newt’s favorability ratings tanked at 13%, which probably is still the record low for any congressman—and this plagues his polling to this day.

Newt took the Republican caucus down with him. Newt likes to spin his record as one that retained a Republican majority. This is a faux claim of victory. The reality is that, due to the House Bank Scandal and Clinton’s overplaying of his hand in implementing his leftward agenda, a huge Republican majority was swept into office in 1994. This majority was expected to increase significantly in 1998’s “six year itch” of the election cycle in which the incumbent president’s party usually loses seats in Congress in his sixth year in office. This expectation was especially high for Republicans since it came near the height of the Lewinsky scandal. Instead, Republicans lost a large number of seats and just barely held on to their majority. We suffered in the Senate as well, trading long time Republicans Al D’Amato and Lauch Faircloth for liberals Chuck Shumer and John Edwards. Freshmen and sophomore Republicans who had the potential of becoming longterm incumbents and preventing the Pelosi takeover in 2008 were sent home in defeat. Newt’s poor leadership in 1998 set up not only the Pelosi victory in 2008, but Obamacare in 2009.

Seeing that he lost the confidence of his own caucus, not to mention the ethics charges, Newt resigned, and it was clearly a resignation of disgrace from which one could recover only by a combination of forgetting and rewriting history.

As Speaker, Newt gained a well-deserved reputation of being unfocused, undisciplined, erratic, volatile, unaccountable, unresponsive, and incapable of nurturing important initiatives to fruition. These flaws have all been seen at one point or another in his current campaign, including this week’s promise to have a permanent moon base by the end of his second term, and his failure to congratulate Romney in his concession speech. One can hardly repress the expectation that Newt will self-destruct even prior to the convention, let alone under the pressure of a protracted campaign against Obama, or under the pressure of his own presidency. The problem with self-destruction is that it also causes massive collateral damage—the lifeblood of the conservative movement would be sucked out by our own nominee who did the same thing back in the mid 90s.

Much more could be said about Newt’s failed leadership during his brief tenure as Speaker, but there is a third issue which puts our ship in peril if Newt is at the helm.

Withering on the Vine under Fire

Let us assume that Newt manages to secure the Republican nomination. This will put him toe to toe to Obama. One wonders how Newt might stand in high stakes situations with Obama when he did not fare well in similar situations with Bill Clinton. Moreover, of the Republican candidates, Newt is the most vulnerable to attack from the Democrats. If Newt can so easily be beaten by Mitt’s negative ads, how much easier will it be for Democrats to do the same. Democrats will have enough money to air nationwide commercials daily, and Newt will give them a new topic for attack every day.

Thus, if Newt becomes the nominee, all our energy will be diverted from advocating and defending our conservative agenda, and allocated instead for an all out attempt to protect Newt. In an election when Obama should be the issue, Newt will become the issue. Frankly, there are enough bags in Newt’s entourage of baggage to dominate the daily news cycle for the rest of the year. Anything from check kiting in the House Banking Scandal, to his serial adultery and 3 marriages, to hypocrisy in pressing the Clinton impeachment “over sex,” to lobbying, and to his attacks on capitalism, we will be so busy this fall circling the wagons to protect Newt that we will not be able to mount an effective offensive against Obama.

Neither Newt nor Mitt: Both are Equally Flawed

These three problems with Newt nomination make it impossible for Santorum supporters to vote for Newt in the remaining primaries. If Santorum were suddenly whisked away by aliens so that his supporters could not vote for him, they would be left in a lurch. In this year of the conservative when, of all elections, we need to elect a conservative, we simply cannot stomach voting for Mitt the moderate. But at the same time, even if we assume that Newt is more committed to conservative core values than Mitt (which is an altogether uncertain assumption), we hesitate to hand over the helm to him, for his persona is likely to hit critical mass as to implode like a black hole, taking the whole conservative movement and the SS Reagan with it.

The Uncompromised Candidate

However, I fear that if Newt is the nominee, his negatives will be so high that there won’t be much of a contest in the general election, and the good ship SS Reagan will languish at sea while this American land is ravished by Hurricane Barack. Remember, as Rush said this week, “I have to remind you, again, that Gingrich debated John Kerry on Global Warming at one point and they agreed on practically every point. Nobody is innocent. Everybody is guilty of some transgression somewhere against Conservatism (suspenseful pause) except Santorum.”

Neither Newt nor Mitt! We Pick Rick

Who would make the better president? A candidate who has a well-respected and effective leadership style, but who really does not share our core convictions, or a candidate who often shares our convictions but is hindered by intrigue and complexity and whose leadership is seriously flawed?

The first candidate is the conservative of convenience, Mitt Romney. Despite his veneer and how he projects himself as a conservative, his past policies indicate that his first resort to solving a problem is through governmental interference rather than through free enterprise. One fears that after the primary, when it is no longer convenient to be conservative, Mitt’s DNA will resequence him back to being the Massachusetts moderate.

The second candidate is the erratic conservative, Newt Gingrich. Here is a man capable of analyzing grand scale problems and producing grand scale solutions. Often these solutions comport with small government ideology and are appealing to conservatives, although a number of his proposals come across as half-baked, and sometimes conflict with small government ideology. At times, the erratic conservative leaves the reservation to promote global warming or individual mandates.

Newt’s problems might be overlooked for the sake of finding a good candidate rather than the perfect candidate. However, his leadership performance and his history of making seriously flawed decisions that come back to haunt him are the issues which conservatives should not overlook.

Which is worse--a capable moderate or an erratic conservative whose leadership has been tested and found wanting?

If we support Mitt, we compromise our conservative ideology. If we support Newt, we place our conservative ideology into the hands of an erratic conservative who has already been in leadership and who bogged down our agenda through incompetence and intrigue. In either case, we lose.

There is a third option. We can support Rick Santorum, who combines consistent and reliable Reagan conservatism with a history of competent leadership.

Why the Nationally Renowned Evangelical Leaders Endorsed Santorum by a Supermajority

Evangelicals representing a large number of local and national organizations voted decisively today to endorse Rick Santorum. Here is the story and an explanation why they so overwhelmingly picked Santorum.

We evangelicals had been divided. In Iowa, we were split between Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry. Santorum left Iowa with a win (or a 2nd place win by a handful of votes). Bachmann quit the race, Perry should have, with Gingrich just ahead of Perry at the bottom of the pack.

In liberal New Hampshire, with the help of independents and cross over Obama supporters in the open primary, the moderates and the Libertarian won, but Santorum still came ahead of Gingrich, while Perry picked up but 1% of the vote.

Now Santorum heads into South Carolina with a win and a fourth place finish, and with an estimated 12 delegates, second only to Romney’s 20. None of the other conservatives have any delegates. Although Santorum has a clear advantage over the other conservatives on the early score, many evangelicals still felt divided among themselves. Their desperate desire to unite behind one conservative prompted them to seek guidance from their leaders.

In the effort to unite, about 150 nationally renowned evangelical leaders went to Texas, sequestered themselves for a two day retreat, and forged a consensus. Perry didn’t survive the first round of voting. In the third round, Santorum overwhelmingly beat Gingrich by a supermajority of 85-29.

Why did these evangelical leaders so decisively settle to endorse Santorum? I wasn’t invited, but as an evangelical scholar, here is my educated guess.

Preliminarily, evangelicals certainly were not going to support Romney simply because of his recent conversion to conservative social views; he is suspected to be a conservative of convenience, rather than a conservative of conscience. Similarly, they realize that Ron Paul is far removed from views favorable to the pro-life movement; like Pres. Obama, Paul does not think that the federal government has the responsibility to protect the rights of the unborn to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of the other candidates, based on news reports, the question of electability was what bumped Perry out, leaving Santorum and Gingrich. This is a telling story, for it suggests that they also considered electability in the final choice between Gingrich and Santorum. To some extent, these leaders perceived Santorum as more electable than Gingrich. This makes sense for two reasons. First, Gingrich is perceived to have so much baggage that it could pay off the national debt in excess baggage fees. Secondly, Gingrich brings no electoral advantage to the election, while Santorum, with his Made-in-America plan, appeals strongly to the Reagan Democrats and the manufacturing sector of the Midwestern swing states http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorums-made-in-america-economic-plan.html. A win of Ohio and Pennsylvania converts into a Republican victory http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/beating-obama-which-republican-can.html.

In addition to evangelical leaders perceiving that Santorum is more electable than Gingrich, Santorum probably increased his lead over Gingrich through the perception that Santorum has more evangelical bona fides than Gingrich. In particular, Santorum is well known for living a life above reproach. I think evangelicals are quick enough to forgive Gingrich for his moral failings. However, evangelicals appreciate the value of a life-long commitment to morals, and are wary about entrusting leadership to recent converts http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/marital-fidelity-as-criterion-for.html.

The evangelical leaders probably also gave points to Santorum for his level of commitment to evangelical urgencies. To be sure, Gingrich holds to many of these same urgencies, but not as passionately as Santorum. Throughout Santorum’s career, he has shown that these evangelical priorities are written in his DNA and reach down to his very bones.

Ultimately, I suspect that these many evangelical leaders endorsed Santorum over Gingrich simply because they trust his leadership and because they find comfort in endorsing the most principled candidate.

Respecting the Question: How Does Your Candidate Rate?

One of the marginalizing comments often made about Santorum is that he’s not exciting. Such an assessment comes only from those who haven’t seen see his Iowa victory speech, or any of his 20 minute policy speeches which stir up deep passions in the hearts and moistens the eyes of patriots.

Such a blasé assessment from Santorum critics reflects an expectation of rabble rousing soundbytes when a candidate answers a question. We heard some in the last debate. When Ron Paul was asked if he were responsible for the racist comments in the newsletter edited by him, he converted the question into red meat comments about liberty and the constitution. Perry likewise converted his questions into a launching pad for his pre-rehearsed debate points. Newt is particularly astute in overthrowing questions, and does so with good humor, prompting the notion that he is a great debater. Huntsman was cool and awesome by answering in Chinese.

Romney was brilliant in side stepping Stephanopoulos’ inane question of whether the state has the right to ban contraception. Ultimately, however, he did not answer the question. The reason why Santorum gets these questions ad infinitum is precisely because he respects the question and will answer it fully, without just simply diverting the question to campaign talking points.

Rick Santorum simply answers the question. There is a certain respect that Santorum gives to the question itself, and hence, to the questioner. Instead of steering away from some answer that might lose him a vote here or there, he drives straight into controversy, makes his best argument, and says, “You may not agree with me, but this is what I believe.” And even if he gives you an answer you don’t like, at least he answered your question.

A week or so ago, someone asked Santorum about Social Security. Nothing he said could be reduced to a soundbyte, but his 7 minute reply taught me more about Social Security than I had learned in these many years.

While other candidates depended upon high priced Madison Avenue commercial advertizing in Iowa and New Hampshire, Santorum’s approach was to visit people, give his 20 minute speech, and then engage with them in a 30-40 minute question and answer dialog, precisely because he respects the question and the questioner. This commitment to dialoging with the people reflects an ethos that elitists simply cannot understand or reproduce. After all, so they think, what could they possibly learn from ordinary people?

Campaign managers would say that Santorum’s respect for the question is a liability, a campaign flaw, a lead weight around the candidate’s neck. For my part, this is a flaw that I can live with.

Five Post-NH Primary Facts

Fact 1: Romney's impressive 39% win in New Hampshire netted him only 4-5 delegates out of the 1,144 necessary to win the nomination. That means he leads 2nd place Santorum by only .0035% of the total delegates needed. Game still on.

Fact 2: Ron Paul cannot win the Republican nomination. This is so for two additional facts. First, the overwhelming majority of Republicans would vote for any Republican other than Paul. Secondly, a significant majority of Paul's supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire are Democrats or independents who crossed over to vote in these two open states. Such Democrat and independent voters will not be able to cross over in the majority of Republican primaries which are otherwise closed. Moreover, one suspects that some of the Democrats voting for Paul are actually staunch Obama supporters who are trying to thwart the Republican primaries, and who will vote for Obama in the general election. Statistically, Paul cannot win a majority of delegates to secure the nomination.

Fact 3: About 20% of the votes were for conservative candidates, high enough to have given third place to the conservative candidate if voters had coalesced behind one. This high percentage is especially noteworthy considering how liberal New Hampshire is and that the lower half of the state is heavily influenced by media in Romney's home state.

Fact 4: South Carolina is much more conservative than New Hampshire, making a Romney win in South Carolina far from certain.

Fact 5: If conservatives do not get behind one candidate in South Carolina, Romney will win.

Santorum's Post-Iowa Strategy

To understand Santorum's post-Iowa strategy, it is key to understand Romney's precarious position. First, Romney spent five years and $5+ million in Iowa, but actually received fewer votes in yesterday's Caucuses than he did in 2008. He has plateaued. Secondly, polling data indicate that supporters of Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann are less likely to switch their allegiance to Romney should their preferred candidate suspend. Thirdly, the most significant reason for not supporting Santorum was the perception of his unelectability, an obstacle that has suddenly been removed; this point is reinforced by Santorum's remarkable million dollar fund raising one-day feat today. These factors all suggest that Santorum has an intensity of momentum going into New Hampshire that Huckabee lacked in 2008.

Nonetheless, some pundits are claiming that Santorum's win in Iowa is nothing but a flash in a pan. Such analysis depends upon the unlikely meteoric recovery of Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry which would suck the air away from Santorum. However, Gingrich and Perry were so far removed from the top tier winners of Iowa that their campaigns are no longer legitimate, especially since both of them spent so much time and effort at scoring in Iowa. Their poor performances in Iowa are likely to send a good portion of their supporters scurrying to the Santorum campaign next Tuesday on election day. Meanwhile, Gingrich and Perry are most likely to focus their negative ads against Romney, as Gingrich has made clear. Santorum will benefit from all this at Romney's expense.

A key mistake of pundits who anticipate Santorum's eventual demise is that they underestimate Santorum's campaign organization in both New Hampshire and South Carolina. Indeed, pundits probably view Santorum's prospects in light of Huckabee's demise who did not have sufficient time to build a campaign presence in New Hampshire or in South Carolina after his Iowa win.

What makes Santorum's situation different from Huckabee's is that he has already invested much into both states. He has made 30+ visits to New Hampshire in the past year, more than anyone else but Huntsman (who lives there). Santorum has garnered 23 endorsements from New Hampshire state representatives. In South Carolina, Santorum won the state's most significant straw poll this summer. For the Dec 10 debate, Santorum supporters sported 20 debate parties for their candidate in South Carolina. Support for Santorum in these two states are intense.

So, I think a reasonable expectation is that Santorum will perform respectably in New Hampshire. Romney is expected to win significantly, with Huntsman coming in second--understandably since both candidates have strong ties there. However, Santorum's Made-in-America plan will appeal to Reagan Democrats and to those in the manufacturing sector. Santorum hopes to join these blue collar voters with New Hampshire's 23% Evangelical Republicans and considerable Catholic population in a viable voting block.

If Santorum outperforms expectations in New Hampshire, he will be able to move on to South Carolina to wage a campaign where Huckabee faltered.

Red State's Erick Erickson Would Think George Washington a Failure

In an effort to save his own prognosticating derriere, conservative Red State bloigger Erick Erickson, who has been utterly dismissive of Santorum and his campaign for the Republican nomination (see here), claims that Santorum is a statist (see http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/28/no-surprise-iowa-social-conservatives-are-about-to-shoot-us-all-in-the-foot-again/ and http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/29/rick-santorum-earmarxists-and-the-pro-life-statist/).

This claim follows weeks and months of dismissive comments that were pedantic and lacking in substance. They amounted to little more than sandbagging Santorum's efforts to get off the ground. Lacking any real complaint about Santorum, Erickson resorted to saying that Santorum is whiney, Santorum is angry, Santorum is arrogant, Santorum is not likable, as if such subjective and disputable claims could justify a dismissal.

For several weeks, I criticized Erickson for his shallow analysis. My comments posted on his blog were polite, but were so effective that he blocked me from posting comments. This says a lot about Erickson's character--not only does he dish out baseless criticisms, but he also cuts off dissenting views from other Reagan conservatives.

With Santorum surging so much so that some are suggesting that he might steal first place in Iowa, Erickson now realizes that thinking conservatives have not been swayed by such shallow criticism. Consequently, he spelled out his best case against Santorum.

An uncritical reading of Erickson's case against Santorum might make people think that Santorum was Tom Daschle's and Harry Reid's best friend in the Senate. But Erickson's case needs to be evaluated in light of what he doesn't say about Santorum. His analytical method is akin to damning George Washington by citing his every miscue, fault, and failure (which were myriad) while ignoring that he defeated the British and founded our country.

For Erickson, Exhibit One which would prove that Santorum is a big-government proponent is that he voted for various Bush initiatives. Erickson claimed that Santorum undermined the conservative opposition to these Bush initiatives. In reality, however, these initiatives were widely supported by Republicans, with minimal Republican dissent. Indeed, the only Republican senators who voted against them were liberals such as Lincoln Chafee and Judd Greg. By Erickson's criteria, all of our Republican Senators during the Clinton and Bush years, including 2008 conservative favorite Fred Thompson, would be damned as liberals. The fact that Santorum voted with conservatives increases his conservative credentials, not reduce them.

Exhibit Two is Santorum's endorsement of Arlen Specter. Yes, we all despise the RINO, but there was no way that Toomey could possibly win a statewide election in 2004; he only won in 2010 by 2%, and that was a landslide year for Republicans. So Santorum took advantage of Specter's predicament and traded him an endorsement on the condition that Specter would approve Bush nominees to the Supreme Court. It worked. The pro-choice Specter nearly chomped his tongue bloody while saying good things about Roberts and Alito to get them confirmed. These two justices are likely to serve as stalwart Constitutionalists for two or three decades, even if Toomey votes for another liberal Obama nominee like Sotomayor. Erickson, instead of condemning Santorum, should be praising him for his brilliant maneouver.

These two exhibits are the core of Erickson's case against Santorum. But in claiming that Santorum is a statist, Erickson is blind to what is otherwise obvious to the rest of us Reagan Conservatives. In the words of the Riehl World View blog, Rick Santorum has done more to advance conservatism thus far than someone like Erickson will ever do in his entire life http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/09/why-erick-erickson-will-never-lead-the-conservative-movement.html Consider just a couple of points in passing.

First, Santorum was the first of the candidates to endorse the Ryan plan. No statist would ever do so. Santorum has pledged to cut 5 trillion dollars in the next 5 years.

Second, Santorum co-sponsored and fought for a balanced budget amendment that failed by a single vote, prompting Santorum to demand that the RINO (Hatfield, OR) who voted against it be stripped of his chairmanship. He did so even against such stalwart Republicans as Jesse Helms who defended the RINO. Santorum's fight led to the RINO's early retirement.

Santorum's conservatism is in his DNA. He is not a conservative of convenience like Romney, and his faith and family emphasis is not newly found like Perry's, and his expertise and stalwart positions on national security is mined from the purity of Reagan conservatism. Erickson negative assessment of Santorum is skewed badly by ulterior motives (see http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2012/01/ulterior-motive-behind-red-states-erick.html).

Know the Candidates' Weaknesses before You Choose

Voters should be fully informed about their candidates before voting. This includes knowing their weaknesses. While most of the candidates have considerable strengths, let me remind you of some weaknesses.

MITT ROMNEY: I think Romney would make a reasonably good president, and I would support him if he were the nominee. He has a great reputation for knowing how the economy works. However, he is a conservative of convenience. He only affiliated with the Republican party in 1994 when he decided to run against Ted Kennedy; his strategy was to out-liberal him on issues. As a governor, Romney had a history of appointing liberal judges. His change from pro-choice to pro-life happened about the same time as he was considering entry into national politics--just in 2005. His primary legislative accomplishment was Romney-care, but it indicates that his approach to solving problems is to look to government as a first solution, rather than to look first toward the free market. He does not seem to be a conservative of conviction. He changed his position on gay marriage several times as governor. In 2008, he was running as a moderate Republican when the finger-in-the-wind wisdom was that Reagan conservatism was dead. At a time when our country desperately needs to return to core conservative values, we fear that Romney will be quick to compromise too quickly and unnecessarily, as was his practice as governor.

NEWT GINGRICH: I think Gingrich has the potential to be a reasonably good president, but his past performance in leadership roles suggests an equal potential for a mess. We should note that Gingrich's own financial miscues led to his check-kiting (22 in all) in the house banking scandal that Santorum and the other freshmen congressmen of the Gang of Seven exposed. One of the frustrating things about Gingrich was that he would stake out hard-lined stances, but in the stare-down, Gingrich was the first to blink. This happened with the 1995-1996 government shutdown when ultimately the Republicans accepted $300 billion more in spending through 2002, and it happened again when Newt blinked during the House Managers' prosecution of the Clinton impeachment trial (while Newt was himself having an extramarital affair--did the Clinton machine use this information to force him to back down?). Ethics charges and a $300,000 fine against Newt combined with the loss of the House of Representatives to force Newt's resignation--he lost the confidence of his own caucus mostly because of leadership issues. These failures makes us wonder how Newt could ever possibly recover and win a presidential election. More recently, Gingrich has proposed a plan to reward illegals with some sort of amnesty. Although he is brilliant, Gingrich has earned our skepticism, and his excess baggage fees alone could pay off the national debt. He is unlikely to survive a full frontal assault from the Obama attack machine simply because he has so many vulnerable points.

RICK PERRY: Perry appears to have a good record as governor of Texas and would probably be a reasonably good president--if he managed to get through the debates with Obama without embarrassing us all. Much of Perry's strong points are offset by the fact that he spent so much time in office as a Democrat. He was elected as a Democrat to theTexas legislature in 1984. He also ran Al Gore's campaign in 1988. With Texas becoming more and more solidly a conservative state, it is easy to see Perry's switch to the Republican party as an act of convenience rather than of conviction. Perry has vigorously defended his immigration policy, even though it clearly provides a magnate for illegals. Perry's requirement of young teenage girls to get the Gardisil vaccine shows how Perry is willing to impose the government into family matters.

MICHELE BACHMANN: Bachmann has withdrawn with class and dignity. Running a presidential campaign is difficult, and I have nothing but admiration for her, and pray earnestly that God would encourage her and continue to guide her. I have no doubt that she will continue to contribute positively to our American life.

JOHN HUNTSMAN: He should withdraw from the Republican primary and run as a Democrat. One exit poll showed that 51% of those voting for Huntsman in New Hampshire were moderately satisfied with Obama as president. Huntsman will not win the election simply because there are too many states that have a closed primary which disallows independents and Democrats.

RON PAUL: 75% of Republicans repudiate Ron Paul as utterly unacceptable as a Republican. Rush Limbaugh, who knows politics as well as anyone else in America, says that he should drop out of the race as run as a Democrat. Many Republicans figure that Paul would be no better than Obama. On foreign policy, he holds the same position as Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He'd do nothing to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He'd do nothing to assist our allies or protect our international interests. He's a poor leader, serving as the editor of a newsletter containing numerous racist articles written in his name. He attracts the most fringe elements of American politics, including neo-Confederates and and the Klan; his supporters invasively protest other Republican campaign events. As a doctor who has delivered many babies, it is inexcusable for him to promote the use of the morning after pill as a CONTRACEPTIVE! Paul will not be the nominee (there are too many closed primary states), and when the Republican party repudiates him, many of us presume that Paul's messiah complex will kick in so that he will run as an independent. The Republican tent is not big enough for this RINO.

RICK SANTORUM: The more I study Santorum, the fewer flaws I find. The biggest concern has been whether or not he is electable. His victory in Iowa has given him a boost, tripling his support in New Hampshire where he was the conservative with the most votes, beating Gingrich by 138 votes . He expects to win in South Carolina, or, at least get more votes than the other conservative candidates (Gingrich and Perry). In the general election, Santorum's Made-in-America plan will appeal to Midwest manufacturing states so that Santorum will have an excellent chance of carrying not only Ohio, but also takikng Pennsylvania, and perhaps one of two of the other rust-belt states (Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota). If a Republican takes Ohio and Pennsylvania, he will win the election so long as he keeps Florida and the other red states (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/beating-obama-which-republican-can.html). The second concern about Santorum is his support of RINO Arlen Specter, but this turned out good for the sake of Conservatism as I have argued here (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/skeletons-in-candidates-closets-is.html), especially in light of the fact that Pat Toomey voted for Obama Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. The third concern was that Santorum supported Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, but no conservative Republican in the Senate opposed it, and it advanced the Republican urgencies of accountability of teachers and schools, and closed dead end schools (Santorum has since argued that No Child Left Behind was a mistake). The fourth concern is that he lost his last election; however, he did so on principle, and this was much less problematic than Newt's resignation. On the other hand, Santorum is the experienced leader who gets legislation passed which reflects the three legs of Reagan's three legged stool of conservatism. See here (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorum-and-reagans-3-legged-stool.html).

Beating Obama--Which Republican Can Deliver the Electoral Votes?

Republicans want to nominate a candidate who can beat Barak Obama. Few pundits, however, have considered the electoral college map. On this issue, the clear advantage goes to Sen. Rick Santorum. Here's why.

First, we should note that some swing states can be won by any of the Republican candidates. These include Florida, and some pinkish states that have been Republican strongholds in the past but where Obama did well in 2008, such as North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. None of the Republican candidates will have an advantage over the others in winning these states. I suppose Romney could claim an advantage in appealing to moderate voters in these states, but such a claim would also undermine his assertion that he is the most consistent conservative. But in the end, I doubt that any one of the candidates (now--only Gingrich, Romney, Santorum) has a special appeal to any of these states.

In the past, candidates pushed their case by claiming they can deliver their home state. But for 2012, any Republican can deliver Newt's Georgia, but not Romney probably cannot deliver Massachusetts. But what about Santorum's state of Pennsylvania?

Delivering Pennsylvania would be huge. Pennsylvania has not voted for a Republican president since 1988, but combining Pennsylvania with the traditional red-leaning states is a winning formula for Republicans.

The other swing states are in the midwest. These include Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. All the candidates have an economic plan, but only Santorum has one that appeals to the manufacturing sector. Santorum would likely deliver Ohio, but may very well steal two or three of the other manufacturing states from Obama. Because of his Made in America economic plan, Santorum will have a stronger appeal to Reagan Democrats than any of the other candidates http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorums-made-in-america-economic-plan.html

Santorum's appeal to Reagan Democrats and the manufacturing sector in Ohio and the blue states of PA, MI, IL, and WI is a scenario that Democrats most fear, as reflected in Obama's 10 minute emphasis on manufacturing in his State of the Union speech. Any other Republican would have to scramble hither and yon to eek out a victory in 2012. But for Santorum, the roadmap to the White House is very clear: OH and PA, with MI and WI also in play as a security net.

Santorum and Reagan's 3-Legged Stool

There's no doubt that the social conservative of this primary season is Sen. Santorum. However, Reagan conservatism is a three-legged stool, and all three legs are necessary for a stool to make: social issues, fiscal restraint/small government, and national defense. Accordingly, I don't support candidates just because they are passionate about traditional moral values. While Santorum makes the headlines on the social issues, it is his stance on all three legs which makes me an ardent supporter.

If it were only a matter of fiscal restraint, (and if there weren't so much racism in his newsletters), I'd be very much tempted to support Ron Paul. If it were only a matter of jobs creation, I might be tempted to vote for Romney. If it were only a matter of good governance, I might be tempted to vote for Perry. But the stool where the three legs of the stool are equally secure and proven is Rick Santorum.

On social issues and traditional moral values, little more needs to be said other than that Santorum rightly asserts that not only has he been the effective leader, but one who has been in the forefront taking the bullets. But Santorum's stance is not merely informed by his Judeo-Christian worldview. Rather, his pragmatic side is evident in that he alone articulates why healthy families are key to a healthy economy. Citing that 40 some percent of families with only one parent are living in poverty, Santorum perceptively argues that you can't fix the economy without strengthening families.


On fiscal restraint and on reducing the size of government, Santorum's bedrock beliefs can be seen in a number of episodes in his tenure in government, but none so keenly than in two particular titanic struggles. The first was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. For the first time ever, a federal entitlement was ended. While Gingrich is quick to take credit for this, it was Santorum who co-authored the bill and did the heavy lifting as the floor manager. The second epic struggle was over the 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment which Santorum co-sponsored . This bill was passed by a 2/3rds majority in the House and sent to the Senate . The final vote was a nail-biter, coming down to the vote of a RINO, Mark Hatfield. He will forever be remembered as the Senator who prevented the Balanced Budget Amendment being sent to the States which almost certainly would have ratified it, so that we would not be in the mess we are in today.

When the Senate defeated the bill by a single vote, Santorum vociferously railed against RINO Hatfield, arguing that he should be stripped of his chairmanship and removed from Republican leadership. Although Republicans did not take this punitive step, it was clear that Hatfield would be challenged in the next primary, and he retired the next year.

On national security, Santorum is well known for his strong stance on defense. He still remembers how we swore our most sacred vows that there must never, ever be another 9/11. None of the candidates is more informed on the threat of radical Islam. Frankly, with the exception of Santorum, the Republican candidates are all rather weak on foreign policy. On the other hand, Santorum's strong suit is the Middle East and Latin America. While the economy is the central focus of this election, I fear that the next President is likely to face a significant foreign policy challenge that will once again occupy his attention. That all important 3 a.m. phone call must be answered by someone who has depth in national security.

Yes, I am an Evangelical and social conservative. But social issues do not drive my motivation to support Santorum. I'm in Santorum's camp because his is the best stool for conservatives in this primary season.