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.

A Republican Candidate Expert in Foreign Affairs?

The lead paragraph of a January 4 news article reads, “The Middle East slid dangerously closer to regional conflict Monday after Saudi Arabia rallied its Sunni allies to sever diplomatic ties with Iran…” https://goo.gl/xGfqPs . This is but one of many flashpoints throughout the Middle East. Indeed, with the unprecedented entry of Russian military might in Syria and its belligerence toward NATO ally Turkey, the world teeters on the parapet of a possible international war with all the complexity of the First World War ratcheted up by the nuclear threat, whether by rogue nations or superpowers.

The volatility of the Middle East has taken American politics by surprise. There are a dozen Republicans running for president, yet the impetus behind these campaigns is domestic; there is only one of them with extensive interest, experience, and expertise in foreign relations. As Americans are forced to turn their electoral attention to foreign affairs, this sets up a general election scenario in which a Republican inexperienced in international relations may face a Democrat who happens to be a former Secretary of State.

Does your candidate know who Bani Sadr is? 

The debates and campaigns will turn on obscurities such as cities and regions, princes and foreign ministers, and apocalyptic theologies and clerics in internecine conflict. Secretary Clinton will likely know the name of the capital of Yemen and Qatar, and will be able to detail the significance of ISIS’ destruction of Aleppo, and what its conquest might say about the future of Assad. In contrast, does Donald Trump know anything about the Saudi royal family? Does Ben Carson understand how Yemen’s water crisis factors into its own civil war? Does Ted Cruz know the theological intricacies behind Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. Does Marco Rubio understand the pressure Turkey’s government feels from its own Islamic clerics? Hillary Clinton may have gotten all her policies wrong, but she spent several years dealing with these details daily and is fluent in them.

The sole Republican candidate who has expertise in foreign affairs is Rick Santorum. In a recent interview, a reporter pointed out to Santorum that in 2012 he was noted as the social conservative. Santorum’s reply was that at the time the news media seemed obsessed about social issues, and that he wished they had asked him about foreign affairs back them. The reality is that Santorum’s 2006 parting speech to the Senate focused on the Iranian threat. One analyst reported on it and wrote, “The day will come when we will re-read Santorum's words, and wish our leaders had listened” https://goo.gl/oc9Taa .

In his hiatus from politics, Santorum researched the Middle East as a Fellow at the Ethics for Public Policy and wrote 217 articles on the threat of Islamic terror and toured the country giving speeches to explain our situation. Even when all other Republicans were running away from any issue pertaining to Iran and Islamic terror in the 2006 election, Santorum stood on conviction, embracing it in every stump speech, sacrificing his bid for re-election for the sake of the truth. He was a leader in US-Israeli relations, and he authored both the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” leading to the sanctions that the Obama administration recently nullified in its Iran-Nuke deal.

In addition to this, Santorum served on the Senate Armed Services Committee where he oversaw the modernization of the military in light of challenges arising from foreign affairs.

As Republicans turn their attention to primary season, they need to vet their candidates in light of these recent developments in foreign affairs. Given the administration’s failure to lead in the Middle East, and because of its incoherent foreign policy, the international relations is likely to rise in prominence in the mind of the electorate. Santorum is the only Republican fluent in these matters; he alone will be able to engage Hillary in debate over the intricacies of Middle East policies.

Art of the Deal and Effective Leadership: Trump vs. Santorum

Donald Trump, they say, channels anger. I think it’s a fair assessment. His supporters might just say that it’s part of the “Art of the Deal.” Channeling anger, however, is not how one forges the kind of alliances that are necessary to get things done in Washington. Trump comes across as if he thinks he can bully his way through Washington to “make America great again.”

Lions need a pride

To be sure, Republicans are tired of their leaders being so sheep-like; gone are the days that a House Speaker (namely, Paul Ryan) might be forgiven for backing the Obama spending bill of 2015. Republicans are eager to rally around the lion’s roar, and they hunger for red meat. I think this explains much of the Trump appeal.

Yet, Republicans need to understand that Trump tactics, no matter how taut he ratchets up the rhetoric, will be met with fierce Democrat resistance. Trump may divinely pronounce “Let there be light,” but he’ll need some Democrat help in flipping the switch. Things simply do not happen in America by presidential fiat. Trump’s art of the deal with leave America in the dark.

Alliances are necessary to make America great again

This approach to the “art of the deal” stands in stark contrast with the more considered and effective approach seen in Santorum’s storied career as a legislator. I was watching a Senate floor debate from 2003 between Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton (Santorum-Clinton-Harkin Partial Birth Abortion Debate ). I was impressed with Santorum’s “art of the deal” tactics which graced the debate. He did not call Hillary an idiot or Tom Harkin ignorant. He did not appeal to the basest of our red-meat cravings. Yet, in the end, he managed to forge the kinds of allegiances with enough Democrats to pass the ban, thus correcting a bad ruling by the Supreme Court.

In the debate, I was impressed at how gracious Santorum was in “sharing” his time with Clinton and Harkin, and how he showed that he understood their point by restating their concerns. He made rhetorical concessions when he could and was regularly deferential. He did not throw down gauntlets and get red in the face. Yet he consistently stood his ground, and did so on substance. This is real “art of the deal” material.

Santorum shows that he is a faithful negotiator. His opponents see him as respectful, and this makes for the kind of environment which promotes cooperation. This makes for effective leadership.

Turning the Herd: Someone Has to Get in Front and Lead

We’ve all seen the movie scene when the herd of cattle is stampeding toward the edge of the cliff. Someone must race to the front of the herd and turn it before the he

rd topples over to disaster. Most constitutional conservatives think that America is the cattle herd, and that disaster is imminent. To mix metaphors, it is as if Barack Obama and his heir apparent Hillary are pressing the pedal to the metal, and are driving the herd over the cliff side. Conservatives are desperately looking for someone to turn the herd.

I have no doubt that establishment Republicans can put forward a candidate who will competently manage the herd over the cliff’s edge. A McCain, a Romney, or a Bush would make sure that every bovine would keep in step as it races toward death. The establishment Republican might even slow down the pace, but the herd would meet its destined disaster, nonetheless.

Based upon their ineffectiveness in the Senate to stop the Obama agenda, we should envision Republican leaders such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio as those cowboys who race to the front

of the herd and promptly get run over and stomped into the ground. Republicans elected constitutional conservatives and gave them majorities in both House and Senate, but none of them have mounted effective opposition against the Obama agenda. They followed the establishment leadership of Boehner, McConnell, and Ryan, and they gave Obama everything he asked. They will not be able to turn the herd. They are unable to forge alliances necessary for effective leadership, and they will be trampled into the dirt.

We’re looking for the kind of leader who not only holds the right positions, but also knows how to lead—someone who is courageous enough to take a stand in front of all opposition, and who knows how to work the system to tur

n the herd.

In his time in public office, Santorum stormed Congress, exposed the bank scandal and changed congressional practice. Against a presidential veto, he pressed through Welfare Reform. With cultural winds against him and the Supreme Court as well, he effectively won the ban against Partial Birth Abortion. When Senate Republican Mark Hatfield decisively voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment, Santorum had his head; despite Jesse Helms’ surprising attempt to protect Hatfield, Santorum’s opposition to Hatfield culminated in Hatfield’s retirement from the Senate. These were all herd-turning moments for American life.

The only objection that constitutional conservatives have to Santorum is the assertion that he has no chance of winning. Yet, the Santorum campaign is well ahead of its 2012 game when he won the Iowa Caucuses after being down at 2% in the polls two weeks prior. The fact that the number two candidate in the 2012 election gets so little recognition from the Republican establishment is noteworthy. The Republican establishment seems to have little fear of Cruz or Rubio or Paul, but is deathly afraid of a Santorum presidency. They have seen him turn the herd before, and they know that his election would mean that their party is over.

Who Will Slay the Dragon? Santorum and the Mississippi Run-off

Rick Santorum was in Madison, Mississippi last week to support Chris McDaniel’s effort to unseat incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS). And for good reason.

We Constitutionalists and people who are Taxed Enough Already are distressed over the Federal government’s pedal to the metal spending over the last decades. Such spending feeds the growing and increasingly invasive Beast of federal government, and puts into peril the economic security and prosperity of ordinary citizens; it fetters and ravages our future generations with crippling and devastating debt from which there will be no remedy. Regions of the country that benefit from federal spending channel the resources from outlining areas to the Beast, much akin to the plot of The Hunger Games. This is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned, to say the least.

People in both parties are guilty for our present and coming tribulation, for different reasons. Democrats philosophically are committed to pedal to the metal spending and feeding of the Beast. Republicans are philosophically opposed to the growth of the Beast, but many of its members make no valiant effort to fight the Beast or to take steps to fix the problem. Sometimes, Republican members conspire and coordinate their votes with other legislators in support of projects that unduly increase federal spending. As the third ranking Senate Republican, Thad Cochran is one such legislator.

Thad Cochran deserves a great deal of praise for serving his state well in his 36 years as a US Senator. He obviously loves his country, and he has gotten so many things right over the years. Still, it’s a new day, and Cochran has done nothing to restrict the Beast’s diet. In 36 years, he has not stood up to fight against out of control spending. In no small measure, it is because of Republicans like Cochran that we are now $18 trillion in debt. It is because of complacent and entrenched Republicans like Cochran that people like Chris McDaniel are challenging Republican incumbents.

Santorum picks his endorsees carefully. He likely sees in Cochran an echo of his own battle with the Beast, going back to the 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment. Our present spending and deficit tribulation would not be ours had a particular uncommitted Republican senator voted differently. The amendment was one that Santorum had managed while in the House, and was the first bill he co-sponsored as a Senator. The vote failed by a single vote, and Oregon Republican Mark Hatfield should have been the vote to restore fiscal sanity to our country. Hatfield, however, as the Chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, loved to spend money and voted with the Democrats. Santorum’s well-placed indignation led him to call for Hatfield to resign his chairmanship, and Hatfield did not run for re-election the next year.

Ironically, Hatfield and Cochran have more in common than their spending habits. Cochran, too, served as the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which might account for his love of spending.

Tuesday’s run-off election between Cochran and McDaniel allows voters to get the fiscal issues right this time. Will Mississippi send a real fighter to Washington, or will it send Cochran back to cruise his way toward retirement and a 2016 gubernatorial appointment?

At the rally in Madison, McDaniel glowingly spoke about Santorum’s fighting spirit and ability to inspire. We see that same fighting spirit in McDaniel, and might even imagine a St. George fighting the dragon, and resisting its concerted effort to fundamentally transform the country into its image. 

Patriot Voices’ “Our Vision for America” Commentary, Part 1 of 6

http://www.patriotvoices.com/vision_for_america

Patriot Voices’

“Our Vision for America” Commentary

by

James M. Leonard, PhD

(part 1 of 6)

I engage in political writing as a pastor and theologian who has been watching politics since Nixon resigned, but only in the distress of these last ten years have I felt compelled to invest myself sacrificially into politics to support this grand and worthy enterprise known as The American Experiment, an enterprise which is now very much at risk. I think the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written by men who had a very deep and breathtaking understanding of the Christian religion and its scriptures, with equal acumen in human nature and national governance. I fear, however, that most Americans have only a superficial grasp of the Christian religion and perhaps even less of human nature and principles of governance. This realization has prompted me to harness the energy of social media in an effort to disseminate a deep consideration of these issues that are crucial to our way of life.

In the last two years, Republicans have been most expert in criticizing the Obama administration and even in identifying the searing issues. At the Republican Leadership Conference last weekend in New Orleans, there was no shortage of candidates capably criticizing Obama and articulating the conservative Constitutionalist message, while also decrying the Republican Establishment’s complacency. Such abilities are impressive, but not sufficient to assure victory. The essential ingredient for victory is the articulation of an inspirational and encompassing vision, one that addresses the present crisis while fervently upholding our foundational and guiding principles.

Sen. Santorum’s Patriot Voices’ “Our Vision for America” qualifies as a vision that speaks to our present critical need while espousing our core values reflected in the founding documents. More so, it is a manifesto which drinks deeply from Christianity’s fountain of knowledge and is not just a thoughtless repetition of run of the mill superficial Christianity that gets distributed on any given Sunday. Indeed, some of the statements are difficult and require serious reflection, but in my estimation, fall in line at all the right places.

The Santorum vision was not written to be red meat offered on the altar of delegate expediency. Nor was it written for those who spend much time watching Eurovision or The Simpsons reruns. The Vision is written for thoughtful Patriots. Let me invite you to follow the link to sign on. The country needs you. Patriot Voices' Our Vision for America

This article is the introduction to what will be a six part commentary. Check back soon.

Santorum Can Win

One of the most surprising echoes from the political past is the mantra that Rick Santorum cannot win. This was the presumption and assured prognostication of most conservative Republicans in 2012, but its echo inexplicably reverberates into our upcoming primary season.

The refrain Rick can’t win is one of the most unanalytical, most unthoughtful claims of the season. Its taunting melody wafts on as if Santorum did not win Iowa in 2012 and advanced deeply in the primary season as Romney’s main opponent. But if Santorum won Iowa in 2012 with no money and while completely dependent upon volunteers driving him around in their pickup truck, how much easier will Iowa flip back to Santorum in 2016 when he comes loaded with cash and army full of experienced volunteers? 

And if Santorum were to win in Iowa in 2016, how much easier would it be for him to win contest number three in conservative South Carolina, which Newt won largely because Romney shenanigans managed to delay announcement of Santorum’s Iowa victory? How much more debate time would Santorum have had in those many debates in which he was only asked one or two questions? And if Romney only barely defeated Santorum in his second home state of Michigan where he outspent Santorum 6:1, and similarly in Ohio, how much easier will it be for Santorum to pick up those two states, loaded with cash and an experienced army of volunteers, and with a blue collar conservative message that no other Republican candidate has?

No, the refrain has no truth in it. No truth in it back then, no truth in it now. Anyone who sings it simply is uninformed and resorts to it only when they have nothing else to say. The more accurate song to sing is, Game on.

RLC 2014 Round Up

RLC 2014 Round Up

He did not announce his candidacy, but Santorum’s presence at the 2014 Republican Leadership Conference was more than a cameo appearance.

In 2012, Santorum ran on the argument that Mitt Romney was the worst possible Republican candidate to challenge Obama. I’ll not review the subpoints, but in post-election reflections, all the pundits suddenly came to the same conclusion, and did so as if it were their own discovery.

Santorum was the last not-Romney candidate, and by the end of the campaign, he carried 11 states, despite party elitist meddling to prevent victory announcements in Iowa until after the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. The most frequently expressed complaint against Santorum was that he had no chance to win; what a difference the end result would have been if South Carolinians had seen Santorum victorious in Iowa.

Santorum had been labeled as a one-song candidate for social values. This was a marginalizing and tidy pigeon hole, a popular narrative that put Santorum into a precisely defined category for a media and an electorate focused more on Gangnam style in 2012 than on the future of the country. In reality, Santorum was the candidate most expert in the Middle East, the candidate with the most comprehensive economic recovery plan, the candidate whose balanced budget plan was projected for five years precisely so that he and the House and Senate members supporting it would be held responsible by the voters in a second term election. Indeed, it was by a single Senate vote that Santorum’s 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment failed, a day whose infamy should be altogether clear to Americans who now face an $18 trillion deficit with a clear path and a pedal-to-the-medal Legislature that will see that number double and triple by the time Hillary’s grandchild will be enrolled in NYC’s most prestigious elementary school.

What is Santorum up to now? He’s making sure that everyone knows him as the Blue Collar Conservative, one who consciously integrates his social values into a compelling economic message that should rebrand and re-vision the Republican Party. He capably explains how this is a winning message for Republicans and that it is a message which brings with it all the urgencies of conservative Constitutional Republicans. Santorum sang a different song at RLC, one which was dominated by this new vision, with red meat anti-Obama rhetoric served only in small portions so that the audience might grasp that one does not win elections by anti-Obama-ism alone, but with a message which each American’s name on it. 

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.

Game Still On! Why Santorum’s Campaign Cannot Be Leveraged Out to Support Newt

For the past two weeks, Gingrich supporters have argued that Santorum should quit and support their efforts to keep Romney from winning the nomination. This assumes that Santorum supporters prefer Newt to Mitt, a badly mistaken assumption. I’ll explain why.

Preliminarily, let me note that the three candidates have all won a state, and that Rick has beaten Newt in two of the three contests. Moreover, the fundraising boost that Newt will get from winning South Carolina is likely to go to relieve his campaign’s indebtedness, rather than to propel his campaign forward in Florida. In contrast, despite polling badly in South Carolina, the Santorum campaign reached its million dollar goal 24 hours ahead of its 3-day deadline this past week, finishing with 1-1/2 million in the moneybomb. Meanwhile, Santorum already has campaign captains in every Florida county, and his campaign offices are fully staffed by campaign professionals. Also boding well for Santorum is that prior to the South Carolina election, Rick was polling second in Florida. All this to say, pundits like Palin, Morris, and Rove all have good reasons to agree with Santorum that the game is STILL on.

So, the suggestion that Rick should quit is patently absurd. But that Santorum should quit in order to keep Romney from winning is even more problematic.

The reality is that Santorum supporters find both Gingrich and Romney equally flawed. To be sure, we think that Romney is a conservative of convenience, and that when it is no longer convenient to be conservative, his true DNA will re-sequence back to its Massachusetts moderate form. But this is not any worse than Newt’s problems.

Newt is the erratic conservative, or in the words of one of his own supporters, he is “volatile, to say the least” (Bob Livingston, R-LA). We could point to all the anti-Newt talking points of the season, but the bottom line for many of us Santorum supporters is inability to provide principled leadership. This assessment is especially evident in how he was so soundly repudiated by his own caucus in his ethics scandal, with 75% of Republicans joining Democrats for a 395–28 vote against Newt, serving him with a $300,000 fine.

The portrait of Newt’s leadership as unfocused, undisciplined, erratic, volatile, unaccountable, unresponsive, and incapable of nurturing important initiatives to fruition, is reinforced by the testimony of his former colleagues over and over again. Many of them who had kept quiet over the years so as not to kick a dead horse, have come forward now to warn us of his unreliability. The 90s joke has been given new life with Gingrich’s re-emergence, that there was a roomful of filing cabinets in the Capitol Building, with each drawer marked “Newt’s Ideas,” but only one marked “Newt’s Good Ideas.” The fact that Newt kited 22 checks, including one for thousands of dollars, exemplifies this portrait of the undisciplined life.

Conservatives serving with Gingrich have professed a genuine fear that a Gingrich presidency would take on the kinds of complexity and intrigue reflective of his own personal life. They are not so concerned about the moral issues, but about the kinds of bad decisions that entangle and weigh a person down so as to impede progress and to haunt him years later. This pattern was evident in 1998, an election year following the Lewinsky scandal, and when the “six year itch” typically sees the incumbent president’s party losing house seats. We expected significant gains in the House, but Newt’s legacy of complexity and intrigue caused the Republicans to nearly lose their majority. Rather disingenuously, Newt sells this deep disappointment as one of his achievements.

Based on past performance, a Gingrich presidency would afford many occasions when defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory. Such was the case when House Managers were very effectively prosecuting Clinton’s impeachment and pressing their case. At the critical moment, while Clinton was still on the ropes, it was Gingrich who blinked, and the whole process wound down. So also the government shutdown—again, with victory in sight, Gingrich blinked instead of staying the course and delivering victory. One wonders why Gingrich could not stand toe to toe with Clinton.

With such fiascos, Newt projected onto Republicans the reputation of being hard core, without delivering any of the benefits that should have accrued from their uncompromising stance.

During those intense moments of the impeachment trial, what compromises would Newt have offered to keep his own adultery quiet? If Harry Reid were the one in possession of the embarrassing interviews with Marianne Gingrich, what would Newt have offered to keep them quiet? Entanglements like these can hogtie a president and his agenda faster than you can say Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North.

Santorum supporters know these things about Newt’s past leadership performance, but they also have other concerns about Gingrich facing Obama in the general election.

In a race that needs to be about the Obama record, Newt is too easily made the issue. It is not a matter of a skeleton in one closet, but a matter of multiple skeletons in many closets. Baggage? Yes, pick a bag, any bag—for there are many bags to choose from. There is so much baggage that the national debt could be paid off in Newt’s excess baggage fees. The Obama campaign would relish putting out a new campaign ad every week exploiting Newt’s own history, personal and public.

Moreover, the whole Santorum campaign has been predicated on Santorum being the full-spectrum conservative, the candidate who best embodies the 3 legged stool of Reagan conservatism: social conservatism, small government and fiscal conservatism, and national security. With Newt’s 10 or 20 year commitment to the individual mandate for health care, and with him carrying water for the global warming alarmists (check out his two books on this issue), much has been said to question Newt on his commitment to small government. But what is indisputable is Newt’s lack of commitment to social issues that are so critical to Santorum supporters.

First and foremost in the Santorum economic plan is the family. The Republican Party is pro-family. Santorum often affirms the Brookings Institutes data that people are most likely to stay out of poverty if they do three things: finish high school, get a job, get married before having children—and stay married. We Santorum supporters are passionate about this, and we cannot stomach a candidate who mainstreams serial adultery and multiple marriage.

Out of principle, we Santorum supporters will not vote for someone to be the candidate for the party of family values whose past personal decisions so profoundly undermine those family values. It is not a matter of us being unforgiving. Rather, it is a matter of whose profile picture is depicted with our banner promoting family values. The very notion of Newt promoting family values is utterly ridiculous. When he refers to himself and his wife by name, we always hold our breath for fear that he will say, “Marianne and I...” or perhaps “Jackie and I.”

All this to say, the effort to leverage Santorum out of the race in order to keep Mitt from becoming the candidate, wrongly and badly assumes that we’d rather have Newt than Mitt. Neither is a viable option for many Santorum voters. For this rease, Santorum MUST not quit this race.

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).