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).

A pro-Santorum Response to Steve Deace's Morning Briefing on the Iowa Caucuses

For Deace's original article: http://stevedeace.com/forum/showthread.php?303-Morning-Briefing-Final-Thoughts-for-2011&p=1876#post1876

Steve, You were seriously considering Ron Paul? You really think that Paul is the person who can get things turned around in Washington? In 20 years in Congress, he has passed but a single bill--to sell an old building. He has forged no alliances in Congress. He has persuaded none of his peers of his ideas. His base is a hodgepodge of fringe elements. Leadership is not his strength. For these and many other reasons, Paul will not be elected, but if he were elected, what is the basis for thinking that he can change Washington? Wouldn't you rather support someone with a proven record of forging consensus to get things done?

Your sole expressed reservation about Santorum is a putative tendency to "take the best deal he can get from the Republicrats when I think we need to draw a line on the sand." This is not the Santorum that I know. The Santorum I know stormed the House Bank as a freshman legislator with a very small but effective group of six others to throw the committee chairman in jail and to force others into disgraceful retirement (Newt kited 22 checks himself, but got on board under Ricks influence). The Santorum I know stood alone against accepting a "voice vote" when Congress tried to sneak in a pay raise. The Santorum I know insisted that the RINO who cost the nation a balanced budget amendment be stripped of his chairmanship, and did so in opposition to stalwart members such as Sen. Jesse Helms. The Santorum I know stood for hours debating Barbara Boxer and cornered her into arguing that the baby is not human so long as its big toe is still in the birth canal. The Santorum I know made a deal with Specter that had the biggest pro-choice RINO in the Senate chomping his tongue bloody saying good things about Bush Supreme Court nominees Roberts and Alito who will serve two or three decades, even if Pat Toomey confirms another liberal justice like Sotomayor. The Santorum I know went down fighting for his principles to the bitter end, backing the surge in Iraq and the partial privitization of Social Security, and opposing Islamic extremism as he lost his re-election bid in the 2006 Republican bloodbath. To say that Santorum cops out on the best deal when he should stand and fight does not ring true to me. It sounds like a manufactured excuse for dismissing him.

Your enthusiasm for Gingrich's articulation of how government should work is probably well placed. We should note, however, that Gingrich is better at articulating how government should work than he is at running government. He lost the confidence of his fellow Republicans not because of his strong stances, but because he would articulate a strong stance and then blink, leaving the Party with the stigma of taking an unpopular stance without any benefits that would accrue from winning the fight.

You raise two specific questions pertaining to the Santorum campaign:

First, it is not relevant to the campaign if some Santorum backers rail against Bachmann for whatever reason. For my part, my only reservation about Bachmann is her lack of experience, and that even if she were to win Iowa, she would merely play the role of spoiler for Romney since she has little campaign organization or strategy beyond Iowa.

Second, if some Santorum supporters who are Christians have absolute disdain for Bachmann, it is irrelevant to the campaign. I suspect that such disdain for her by Christians who support Santorum is rather anomalous. I read the Santorum Facebook groups all the time and never see "absolute disdain" and "total and complete loathing" for Bachmann. Quite the contrary. Most comments about Bachmann in the Santorum Facebook groups have the deepest respect for her opinions, even if her sole legislative achievement is a lightbulb bill. There has been nothing but compassion expressed for the Bachmann campaign in today's news about the defection of her campaign manager.

Skeletons in the Candidates' Closets: Is Specter in Santorum's Closet?

Most candidates have skeletons in their closets. Romney ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy for his Senate seat, flipped on abortion, and created Romney-care. Perry ran Al Gore's presidential campaign. Ron Paul has his racist newsletters, his promotion of the morning after pill as a contraceptive, and his neo-confederate supporters. Newt has so many skeletons that his closet can't contain them. Bachmann has no skeletons that I know of, but she's only been in Congress for five years.

Santorum's skeleton is Arlen Specter, his fellow Pennsylvania senator who was a RINO extraordinaire. Santorum and Specter had huge disagreements on policy, but managed to work together for the good of Pennsylvanians. But by 2004, conservative Republican Pat Toomey arose to offer Specter a primary challenge. Santorum supported Snarlin' Arlin, prompting some conservatives to peg Santorum as a traitor.

This week, Michele Bachmann, when confronted with the notion of backing out so that conservatives could all get behind one conservative candidate, recalled this bit of Santorum's history, hoping to keep undecideds out of Santorum's camp. The badge of shame that Bachmann would pin on Santorum, however, is actually a badge of courage and political insight if one knows the rest of the story.

First of all, Santorum knew the political landscape in Pennsylvania well enough to realize the difficulty Toomey would have in defeating Specter. Indeed, when Toomey ran for the open Senate seat in 2010, he narrowly defeated the Democrat by a mere 2%, even though it was a landslide year for Republicans. Santorum saw that a wasted endorsement on Toomey in 2004 would burn up any goodwill between him and Specter, to the detriment of Pennsylvania.

More importantly, however, Santorum saw a credible opportunity to promote a pro-life, strict constitutionalist agenda. While Washington insiders pondered whether Santorum would endorse Toomey, Santorum had a meeting with Specter to broker a deal. Santorum would endorse Specter if Specter would use his position as the chair of the Senate Judiciary to get Bush's Supreme Court nominees confirmed.

Specter, more than any other senator, really was the man who could open and close the door on Supreme Court nominees. He shut the door on Robert Bork. In 2004, he shot off a warning to Pres. Bush not to nominate pro-life judges (). He was poised for a great self-aggrandizement, courtesy of the mainstream media just as soon as he might be given the chance to sink a conservative nominee. As a Republican, he could easily do so by saying that his party's president had nominated someone too extreme for America.

As it turned out, Specter accepted the deal. In fact, when Bush nominated Alito and Roberts, Specter gave considerable support to them, so much so that Democrats had no credibility in opposing their nomination. Instead of stepping into the limelight for another few minutes of stardom, Specter was uncharacteristically quiet throughout the confirmation process.

When Specter became a Democrat, Santorum was asked about his endorsement of Specter, whether he had regrets. Of course, any involvement with Specter would encompass some regrets, but Santorum argued that the deal with the devil was worth it. Nothing would have come out of an endorsement of Toomey, but his endorsement of Specter brought two outstanding conservative justices to the Supreme Court where they will serve perhaps for as many as two or three decades. Santorum's deal was not only the right one, but one that reveals profound long-term insight.

Bachmann and perhaps others will refuse to understand Santorum's strategy--not because it is difficult to understand, but because they want to use it as a campaign issue. Their argument, however, is utterly decimated by the fact that Toomey himself has turned out to be an uncommitted conservative. While Specter confirmed great conservatives like Alito and Roberts, Pat Toomey--whose interest Bachmann feigns so much concern--confirms pro-choice Obama appointees like this one:



As it turns out, if Specter is the worst skeleton in Santorum's closet, if this is the worst thing that Bachmann can say about him, then Santorum is squeaky clean. Considering his vast experience in the House and Senate, Santorum is THE consistent conservative.

Why Bachmann Needs to Attack Santorum's Conservatism

There is a close and undeniable affinity between Santorum and Bachmann. They definitely appeal to the same broad constituencies. Of all the candidates, they are the two consistent conservatives, and neither one can gainsay the the other's conservatism. So, what distinguishes the two?

The most obvious difference is experience. Santorum was elected to Congress at 32 years of age. His first act as a freshman backbencher was to join with freshman to form the famous Gang of Seven to expose and overturn the corruption of the House Bank. As a result, a number of significant congressmen were humiliated and forced into retirement, and the House Bank Congressional Chairman Dan Rostenkowski was thrown in prison. At 43 years of age, Santorum had authored and nursed into law a dozen or more pieces of legislation, and arose to the third ranking member of the U.S. Senate. His resume goes on and on.

It was not until she was 50 that Bachmann was elected to her first term in Congress where she has served as a backbencher for the last five years. Her resume is thin. She serves on the House Intelligence Committee, not as chairperson. Otherwise, she was a tax lawyer prior to her election. She has not yet authored a piece of legislation that has become law.

Bachmann appears to continue slide from her high water mark. She has responded in two ways. First, she is attempting to drum up grassroots support by doing a whirlwind 99 county tour of Iowa. This may backfire. Iowa voters know that Santorum did the hard work of making substantial visits to every one of the state's counties with considerable face time with Iowans; this contrasts sharply with Bachmann's 10 minute campaign stops from county to county, which may come across as a feeble attempt to reproduce Santorum's significant feat. Besides, voters will not be impressed by a 10 minute campaign stop after having stood waiting in rain and snow for 90 minutes for her entourage to arrive, often late.

Bachmann's other attempt to stop her slide has been to question both Santorum's conservatism and principles. At issue was Santorum's endorsement of his fellow Pennsylvania Republican senator, Arlen Specter. Specter was a RINO, and he was facing conservative Republican Pat Toomey in a contested primary. On one hand, a Santorum endorsement of Toomey would do little to help Toomey defeat Specter, but on the other hand, if Santorum backed Toomey, Specter would likely retaliate by using his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary to block pro-life Bush nominees to the Supreme Court.

Faced with this conundrum, Santorum met privately with Specter, and offered his endorsement in exchange for Specter's support of any pro-life Bush nominees to the Supreme Court. The gambit worked, and Specter supported Bush appointees Roberts and Alito, both of whom were strongly commended by most of the Republican candidates in a recent debate. In the end, Specter deserted the GOP, and became a Democrat, but he kept his agreement with Santorum. Toomey did run against him in 2010 and won. However, Santorum's political sensibilities were justified in that first, Toomey just barely defeated Specter the Democrat in a landslide year for Republicans (how much less were his chances of defeating Specter in 2004!), and secondly, the court now has two more solid conservatives who will likely serve for two or three decades.

Most conservatives find Santorum's rationale sound, and label Bachmann's attack against Santorum as pure political maneouvering. But why is Bachmann only now making this political attack against Santorum? The attack may arise from recent calls for her to bow out of the race so that conservatives can coalesce behind one candidate.

The stakes are high; if conservatives do not get behind one candidate, they will hand this primary to either Romney or Gingrich. Since Bachmann lacks a substantial campaign in New Hampshire and South Carolina, a number of conservatives realize that even if she were to win Iowa, she will merely play the roll of spoiler in the end, either against Romney or Gingrich. Although conservatives love Bachmann, they realize that Santorum is the better candidate not only because of his experience in getting difficult legislation passed and signed into law, but also because if he scores big in Iowa, he has a substantial organization necessary to sustain his campaign into Super Tuesday. All in all, he is the only conservative alternative who can beat Romney and Gingrich.