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.

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).

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Here are my talking points for those who will be speaking in favor of Sen. Santorum during the caucuses. It is important to note that these have not been approved by the campaign, and that they reflect only my own personal suggestions. Any suggestions from the campaign should take priority over mine. I should also note that I have never been to an Iowa caucus, and that I've only been to Iowa twice; thus, your own gut instinct should take precedent over any of my ideas.

PUBLIC SPEAKING BASICS

Consider a personal narrative: "this is my story of how I came to support Sen. Santorum" might work better than "these are the reasons why you should vote for Sen. Santorum." For an example, see my narrative on my blog theo-politico.blogspot.com (although it is too long for the caucus speeches): http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-justification-for-endorsing-rick.html.

Speeches usually have an introduction, an attention-getter. Some Santorum supporters have already made the good suggestion of starting with the Rush Limbaugh quote where he says he'd never have to wonder if Santorum would do the right thing as president (or some such). (You don't need to waste words by indicating that Rush is a talk show host, since every one knows this already.)

Reduce your speech down to the time limit not by eliminating content, but by saying things more concisely. Ultimately, you may have to cut out content, but look for ways of restructuring syntax to eliminate unecessary words, etc.

Don't rush your speech. Vary your tempo with fast and slow moments. Vary your dynamics: saying something almost in a whisper can be as effective as shouting it. Practice your speech, timing it, over and over again. If you must read it, do so while maintaining eye contact with your audience. Be passionate.

Consider producing a handout. Make sure it is pleasant to the eyes. Proof it carefully and have someone else proof it too: typos and bad English can produce a negative reaction in some people. Pass them out quickly and efficiently so that you don't waste speech time.

Conclude with an appeal. "Because of all of these urgencies (etc.), I'm asking you, would you please vote for Sen. Santorum" (or some other similarly worded appeal).


TALKING POINTS

Spell out Reagan's three legged stool of conservatism: free markets (less intrusive government), national security, and social issues. Invoking Reagan's name is always good, especially if you show how Santorum leads on these three issues and scores the highest points on all three:

free markets (less intrusive government): Rick has led on balanced budget amendment and line item veto, fought against TARP and the second stimulus, etc. He authored and managed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which was the first time ever a federal entitlement has been eliminated. Etc.

national security: Rick is the acknowledged expert on the MIddle East; he served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and is the author of 217 articles dealing with Islamic extremism in the series The Gathering Storm.

social issues: Sen. Santorum has authored every pro-life legislation that has passed the Senate in the last 20 years (you could list all his pro-life legislation specifically).


Explain why Santorum can win:

Primary strategy: 1) score big in Iowa and establish himself as a top tier candidate; 2) do respectably well in New Hampshire (where he has a strong organization and key endorsements); and 3) win in South Carolina (where he has a strong organization, key endorsements, and won the most important SC caucus of the year).

General Election strategy: any Republican who can keep the red states (including Florida) and swing both Ohio and Pennsylvania will win the election. Santorum's Made in America plan to revitalize manufacturing will appeal to the rustbelt states of the Midwest better than any of the other candidates' economic plan. Santorum is more likely to pick up Ohio and Pennsylvania moreso than any other candidate, and will be viable in the blue states of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Since she has never ran in a state-wide election, Bachmann may not win her own state, let alone Ohio and Pennsylvania. Romney won't deliver Massachusetts. And although Perry and Gingrich could carry Texas and Georgia, any Republican could do so.


ONE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE:
Emphasize that conservatives must get behind one single conservative candidate, otherwise the conservative of convenience, Mitt Romney, will be the de facto winner. You might want to cite Bob Vander Plaats as having made this argument.

Before criticizing any of the other candidates, emphasize that the goal is to defeat Obama and that you will support the nominee whoever it is. Also, emphasize that each of the candidates has his or her own strengths, and that they would all make reasonably good presidents (I have my own reservations about Paul). For an analysis of each candidate's weaknesses, see my forthcoming blog artice (it will probably be posted tomorrow, Tuesday). It might be a good strategy to mention a candidate's weakness in passing while discussing Rick's strengths, rather than giving a list of negatives for each candidate.

MADE IN AMERICA
Be sure to point out Rick's unique emphasis on the revitalization of manufacturing in the US. Repeatedly use the phrase "Made in America plan." Talk about how this will impact specific towns near your precinct--towns which have closed down due to the loss of manufacturing. Be passionate about bringing back manufacturing jobs for the sake of small Iowa towns such as (???).

Please leave any further suggestions in the comment section.

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.