Rick Santorum for President

[Dennis Hardin]

Oh, I'm quite impressed with her "qualifications". . .

[Selene]

Oh, I'm quite impressed with her "qualifications". . .

Yes, she has a very nice balanced pair of positions on foreign and domestic policy.

I for one am more interested in her positions on the importance of exploring all the valleys for their natural resources. Drill now.

[GALTGULCH8]

Dennis,

<<" I would have major qualms about Dr. Paul because of his pollyanaish approach to foreign policy, but we all know he has zero chance of being the Republican nominee. ">>

Zero chance? Do you know what his strategy is regarding acquisition of delegates? I imagine you are aware of just how the delegates are chosen. If enough Ron Paul advocates manage to get themselves chosen to be delegates for Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, as well as Paul, to go to Tampa to the national convention, they might be able to pull it off.

Most would be committed to vote for one of the others on the first ballot. With so many in it until the end, it is unlikely that any one of them would get enough votes on the first ballot. Then they would be free to vote for anyone of their own choice, which might be Ron Paul.

His supporters are gearing up to do just that. Might not succeed but his chance is not zero.

Most of his supporters shudder at the prospect of having Romney or Santorum as president given their statist, big government inclinations. Santorum voted five times to increase the debt limit, for example. None of them will anticipate the worsening crisis with the Fed bailing out Europe via the IMF and the like which might trigger a hyperinflation. Only Ron Paul would deal effectively with such matters.

[Selene]

I found this graphic quite interesting:

Under RNC rules, the delegate count builds slowly: just 15% before Super Tuesday, March 6; 19% through Super Tuesday (brings you to 34%); 17% in the rest of March (brings you to 51%); with 48% in April, May and June (21%, 12%, 15%).

[Peter]

Dennis Hardin had several objections to Rick Santorum including:

One - The danger that Santorum represents is that his unique brand of anti- Americanism could critically warp conservatism as a political philosophy and further estrange American voters from their pro-freedom heritage.

From Rick’s site:

My passion for protecting and preserving freedom is a gift that comes to me from my grandfather, an immigrant who brought my father to this country and whose well-weathered hands mined coal in Southwestern Pennsylvania until he was 72. He left the totalitarian regime of Mussolini's Italy to bring his family to freedom.

end quote

Dennis wrote:

Two - He appears to be a G.W. Bush clone with regard to his lack of frugality when it comes to government spending.

From Rick’s site:

Every American should have access to high-quality, affordable health care, with health care decisions made by patients and their physicians, NOT government bureaucrats. America needs targeted, market-driven, patient-centered solutions to address the costs and underlying causes of being uninsured rather than a one-size fits-all, government-run health care system

end quote

Dennis wrote:

Three - It is highly questionable whether he would make much of an effort to restrain the growth of government, and his expressed philosophy would obviously work in the opposite direction.

From Rick’s site:

Reining in Spending and Reforming Government Entitlements for Sustainable and Better Solutions for America’s Families and Future.

Rick Santorum is committed to reviving our economy, restoring economic growth, and creating jobs in America again by unleashing innovation and entrepreneurship through lower and simpler taxes for American businesses, workers, and families. He also will roll back job killing regulations, restrain our spending by living within our means, and unleash our domestic manufacturing and energy potential. His vision for America is to restore America's greatness through promotion of freedom and opportunity for all.

end quote

I challenge Rick Santorum’s critics because they are using emotions to decide, the same as Leonard Piekoff. In real life it is never, “I like Ike,” OR “Off with his head.” You don’t like the guy and his religiosity so you find reasons to bolster your preconceived opinions. That tactic mirrors Piekoff’s basic misunderstanding of politics. Piekoff sees no difference between left and right because no politician is “ideal.”

I don’t mean to single Dennis out but when I am looking at the structure of his criticisms I see key words that are not objective.

In One - the words are “warp,” and “estrange.” Those are highly speculative estimations requiring omniscience to be true. Dennis has no special conduit to the psyche of American voters.

In Two - the key word is “appears.” Appearance is window dressing not substance. It may appear differently to others.

In Three - it is “highly questionable,” and “effort.” If someone can immediately find five good reasons questioning your speculative “highly questionable,” then that argument does not count as A is A. Why is Dennis so sure Rick Santorum will not make the “effort?” Crystal ball?

Rick Santorum is not as bad as Barack Obama. Any hypothetical harm he will do to Conservatism is speculative. Bill Clinton succeeded because he had the “Contract with America” Congress. If George W. Bush had had a Republican / Tea Party majority in Congress he would have fixed Social Security in his first term. Santorum’s success in office will also depend on The Congress.

Peter

[Selene]

Mr. Taylor:

Now that was a well reasoned, serious and intelligent post.

Kudos.

Adam

[Selene]

Ohio AG DeWine switches from Romney to Santorum

By JULIE CARR SMYTH Associated Press

12:25 p.m. CST, February 17, 2012

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine switched his endorsement from Mitt Romney to Rick Santorum on Friday in a defection he said was driven by his belief the former Pennsylvania senator can win the Republican presidential race.

DeWine, a former senator who led John McCain's Ohio presidential campaign in 2008, made the announcement in the company of Santorum at the Statehouse. He said he once felt Santorum could not overcome Romney's financial advantage but has decided he was wrong.

DeWine had endorsed Romney in the Republican presidential race after his initial choice, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, withdrew.

The defection comes as a sting to Romney, though he still has some major names in Ohio Republican politics behind him heading into the March 6 primary. They include Sen. Rob Portman, Reps. Mike Turner and Jim Renacci, and the former senator and governor, George Voinovich.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-us-santorum-dewineen,0,5456020.story

[Dennis Hardin]

I don’t mean to single Dennis out but when I am looking at the structure of his criticisms I see key words that are not objective.

Peter

People who make their decisions about candidates based on the statements they make on their websites--ignoring the context of their prior speeches, statements and voting records--have no clue about the meaning of the word 'objective.'

[studiodekadent]

I profoundly, unequivocally disagree with that view.

And you're entitled to your perspective.

That is absurd and reflective of rampant, subjective emotionalism, from all those named in my first sentence, AND unfortunately most Objectivists. That view is reflective of Peikovian Subjectivism.

To borrow a phrase, them's fightin' words.

Barack is better than Stalin, Adolf, or Mao but between Santorum and Obama, Santorum has light years of better philosophy than Obama, and is the better candidate. Measure the amount of harm Obama WILL do vs. the harm Santorum COULD do.

Comparing Obama to Stalin, Hitler and Mao sounds just like the kind of hysterical emotionalism that you accuse me (and others) of.

Second, "light years of better philosophy than Obama" is something I strongly disagree with. Santorum is probably more philosophical than Obama, but Santorum's philosophies are absolutely positively irreperably evil. Obama, even if we assume some sort of radical philosophy is still what he believes in (although the evidence I've seen shows me that he's not that much different from a European Social Democrat, although his foreign policy is more hawkish), I don't see how it could be WORSE than Santorum's explicit, unashamed declarations of hatred for every single vestige of the Enlightenment project.

Is it in the realm of possibility that Rick Santorum will:

Excise the phrase, “The pursuit of happiness,” from the Constitution?

That phrase is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. But that said, he won't be able to remove it, I agree. But nor will Obama.

Change the nature of American individualism?

American individualism is scarcely understood or embraced by most actual Americans. That said, American culture has a large amount of memetic social capital which supports Individualism (the fact that most Americans reflexively, if shallowly, prefer less State to more State is an example). Santorum will have a very hard time removing this, but so will Obama.

Ban contraceptives? Make Catholic doctrine on birth control a matter of important public policy?

He's made many statements which can be interpreted as coming damn close to this. He's already said public policy needs to address the issue of sexual morality and h

Put homosexuals into reeducation camps?

It would be no easier for him to do this than it would be for Obama to do this.

Make federal laws against promiscuity?

He's already stated that he believes public policy needs to address sexual morality.

Curb free speech on the internet?

He wouldn't be able to pull it off. Obama couldn't.

Ban gambling?

Gambling is a state issue, but do you really think he cares about federalism?

His convictions cannot become the law. Let me repeat, HIS CONVICTIONS CANNOT BECOME THE LAW.

That's easily 'fixable' with court-stacking. The progressives managed to get around the Bill of Rights; Santorum could easily do the same.

I implore all Objectivist to NOT THINK EMOTIONALLY. Work for Mitt, Newt, Ron, or a candidate who will emerge from a deadlocked convention, but if Santorum wins he could be a good President. His religious side will have little or no affect on policy. His fiscal Conservativism will.

You're assuming Santorum is in fact a fiscal conservative. He isn't. He's a consistent friend of large-scale government intervention in the economy. Catholic social teaching is no friend of free markets.

You are aware that social conservatism can severely damage economies, right?

Let me use an obvious example that we should all be able to grasp; Atlas Shrugged was a novel about a strike by the kind of people Richard Florida called "the Creative Class."

The Creative Class cannot thrive in a socially conservative environment. This is why that in spite of the fact that urban metropolises often are economically leftist to a large degree, they are hotbeds of the Creative Class. Creatives flourish in cosmopolitan, tolerant atmospheres. Remember that Silicon Valley is part of the Bay Area.

A Santorum administration could just as easily cause an Atlas Shrugging as a second term of Obama.

Remember an important principle not just of Objectivism but of the entire classical liberal political project; freedom has cultural pre-requisites. A free market economy cannot operate in a society that is hostile to the underlying institutions and beliefs that free markets assume. Anti-market economics is a symptom of the underlying problem, and not the underlying problem itself.

Santorum might, occasionally, make one or two statements which seem friendly-ish to free markets (although he's made plenty of statements which show he is an enemy of free markets), but he's just as (if not more so) infected with the underlying problem as Obama.

[Dennis Hardin]

David Limbaugh in Townhall Magazine online:

Republicans can reasonably disagree about who is the best presidential candidate. Unfortunately, however, there's a lot of acrimonious infighting on the right, much of which is centered on the hysterical charge that Rick Santorum is some kind of theocrat who wants to outlaw contraception and surveil our bedrooms. It's a spurious claim and one that Santorum has specifically denied, saying he would not attempt to impose his personal views on contraception through policy. He would appoint strict constructionist judges, just as the other Republican nominees say they would, and his worldview would doubtlessly inform his policies -- a universal, inescapable phenomenon.

Gene Healy at reason.com:

"This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do," Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, "that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues ... that is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

Apparently he has heard rumors that sometimes people put their sexual organs in places other than where God intended.

How long before President Santorum proposes denying federal funds to states that do not have anti-sodomy laws? Or states that legalize prostitution? Or states that do not outlaw or impose strict limitations on pornography?

How about some creative "revenue enhancement" like a sin tax on all contraceptives?

Zealots who believe God has called on them to legislate morality and declare war on sin will let nothing stand in the way of righteousness.

Rick Santorum: American Taliban.

[studiodekadent]

How long before President Santorum proposes denying federal funds to states that do not have anti-sodomy laws? Or states that legalize prostitution? Or states that do not outlaw or impose strict limitations on pornography?

Exactly. There are many ways to extort states into being socially conservative.... the hysterical moralist lobby group "Mothers Against Drink Driving" managed to get the Reagan administration to deny highway funding to states which had a drinking age below 21 years old. Santorum could easily pull off similar stuff.

The government has more weapons than the ability to pass legislation.

Rick Santorum: American Taliban.

Agreed.

[GALTGULCH8]

<<<"On the campaign trail, Santorum is frequently asked about his belief in the right to privacy. His position is that no such right exists under the Constitution. He said, “…this right to privacy doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution.”

It is because of this belief, in part, that Santorum is comfortable supporting legislation that imposes his own values on everyone else. For example, Santorum supports the prohibition of contraception – a position he was recently challenged on during an appearance on the O’Reilly Factor.">>>

The above comes from a lengthy article found on the Nolan Chart site and subtitled: "The most comprehensive review of Santorum's big-government hypocrisy and corruption on the web."

http://www.nolanchart.com/article9242-the-real-dirt-on-slick-rick-santorum.html

[Selene]

I would think that we should be very careful in endorsing the use of any federal funds for any specific agendas.

Our stance should be that federal funds, which are extorted from us by a progressive income tax and repressive fees, should only be spent on national defense, a system of dispute resolution domestically and maintaining a domestic system that is proactive in preserving the individuals rights from any and all intrusions from other individuals and the state.

[Dennis Hardin]

The point is that, in the political reality that exists today, the Congress and the president can and do use federal funds to influence the states, and this represents a very real threat to individual freedom. Of course it’s true that the federal government should never use federal funds in this way. The point is that, as it stands now, they do.

Another bone-chilling Santorum headline:

Rick Santorum Says He’d Criminally Charge Abortion Providers

“I believe that life begins at conception. And that that life should be guaranteed under the constitution… I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.”

The article writer comments:

This, of course, raises a crucial question: if he’d criminally charge abortion doctors, what would he do to doctors who provide birth control?

Any doctor who would prescribe ‘morning after’ pills is clearly a murderer. Right? Here again, he would likely try to use federal influence on state legislatures rather than attempt to pass federal legislation.

[Peter]

studiodekadent wrote through a glass darkly:

Santorum might, occasionally, make one or two statements which seem friendly-ish to free markets (although he's made plenty of statements which show he is an enemy of free markets), but he's just as (if not more so) infected with the underlying problem as Obama.

end quote

I will disagree with studiodekadent about Santorum’s integrity. Most folks recognize that he means what he says, even when he agrees with you 8 -) You can’t have it both ways. He is an honorable man, so if he says he supports free market solutions, he will. Say, I thought studiodekadent was an Aussie? What are you doing butting in on a private election? I bet you snuck across the border along with Joan Sutherland, Nichol Kidman, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana. Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Toni Collette, Heath Ledger, Keith Urban and Elle Macpherson. You broke our laws with the first step you took across the Pacific, wet back. How do you know so much about us?

Dennis Hardin echoes his disdain for poor Rick: Zealots who believe God has called on them to legislate morality and declare war on sin will let nothing stand in the way of righteousness . . . . Rick Santorum: American Taliban.

end quote

Ach! So now he is Darth Vader’s Mother, Teresa. What has got you guys so ticked off, and sounding like Leonard Piekoff? Almost all the candidates support the positions that Rick supports as “policy.” No same sex marriages but civil unions, “Gag!” OK. Contraceptive and abortion available though not if it conflicts with the First Amendment. I know, I know, Rick is against it, but he could only PUSH to ban federal funds for contraceptive clinics. None of the candidates “like” abortions but would not fight to overturn Roe v Wade. I had not heard about him trying to ban the morning after pill. How would he enact any of his social agenda in America? Or is your opposition something deeper than any highly speculative harm he might do? Could it be Rick’s “family values?” That is what made me blink when I looked at his site. Everything goes back to the family.

All I ask is that Americans do not demonize whoever becomes the Republican Candidate because your life, your freedoms, and your country will suffer greater harm if Obama stays in office. Except for Newt. Newt is fair game. Just kidding. I guess I did do a number on that guy. Send Crocodile Newt back to Australia!

Peter Taylor

[caroljane]

studiodekadent wrote through a glass darkly:

Santorum might, occasionally, make one or two statements which seem friendly-ish to free markets (although he's made plenty of statements which show he is an enemy of free markets), but he's just as (if not more so) infected with the underlying problem as Obama.

end quote

I will disagree with studiodekadent about Santorum’s integrity. Most folks recognize that he means what he says, even when he agrees with you 8 -) You can’t have it both ways. He is an honorable man, so if he says he supports free market solutions, he will. Say, I thought studiodekadent was an Aussie? What are you doing butting in on a private election? I bet you snuck across the border along with Joan Sutherland, Nichol Kidman, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana. Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Toni Collette, Heath Ledger, Keith Urban and Elle Macpherson. You broke our laws with the first step you took across the Pacific, wet back. How do you know so much about us?

Dennis Hardin echoes his disdain for poor Rick: Zealots who believe God has called on them to legislate morality and declare war on sin will let nothing stand in the way of righteousness . . . . Rick Santorum: American Taliban.

end quote

Ach! So now he is Darth Vader’s Mother, Teresa. What has got you guys so ticked off, and sounding like Leonard Piekoff? Almost all the candidates support the positions that Rick supports as “policy.” No same sex marriages but civil unions, “Gag!” OK. Contraceptive and abortion available though not if it conflicts with the First Amendment. I know, I know, Rick is against it, but he could only PUSH to ban federal funds for contraceptive clinics. None of the candidates “like” abortions but would not fight to overturn Roe v Wade. I had not heard about him trying to ban the morning after pill. How would he enact any of his social agenda in America? Or is your opposition something deeper than any highly speculative harm he might do? Could it be Rick’s “family values?” That is what made me blink when I looked at his site. Everything goes back to the family.

All I ask is that Americans do not demonize whoever becomes the Republican Candidate because your life, your freedoms, and your country will suffer greater harm if Obama stays in office. Except for Newt. Newt is fair game. Just kidding. I guess I did do a number on that guy. Send Crocodile Newt back to Australia!

Peter Taylor

Funny post, Peter. I think you guys should offer to send Mel Gibson back to Oz, in return for keeping SDK who is a lot smarter. Newt could slither back on his own. Or Alberts could charter him a jet.

[Selene]

Folks O'biwan is losing Iowa an early sign of how much trouble he is actually in for his re-election bid.

This is a bell weather poll that I have been waiting for. The Des Moines Register Seltzer poll is extremely accurate. It was released late last night.

Iowa Poll, main story: Obama trails trio from GOP

Three of the four Republican candidates would beat President Barack Obama in Iowa if the general election were held today,

signaling that a state where the Democrat found first love four years ago is now a danger zone.

Only Newt Gingrich would lose to Obama, according to a new Iowa Poll of likely voters of all political stripes.

Here’s a news flash: The candidate who does best against Obama in Iowa is Ron Paul, a Republican <<<<

Good News for Gulch!

with crossover appeal with non-Republicans.

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney also win head-to-head match-ups with the Democratic president.

“This is not a secure state for Obama,” said J. Ann Selzer, pollster for The Des Moines Register.

The president’s job approval is 46 percent in Iowa, just one point above his lowest low of 45 percent in September 2010.

No president has been re-elected with a national approval rating under 49 percent, according to Gallup polling dating to 1964. It’s a watershed mark, and about 8½ months from the election, Gallup national polling Saturday had Obama at 46 percent — underwater.

The Hawkeye State has been awash in GOP messages, and, perhaps as a consequence, it’s in a Republican mood.

Millions of dollars of attack ads and months of campaign trail harping about Obama did their damage, said Paul Bengal, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic strategist and political commentator for CNN.

“More than any other early state, the discussion in the Iowa GOP contest centered on attacking the president,” Begala said. “The enduring lesson is that unanswered attacks do real damage.”

Iowa equipped Obama with training wheels by handing him a win in the first-in-the-nation Democratic caucuses in 2008, then handed him a driver’s license with a

9.7 percentage-point win in the general election.

Obama needs a strong and vigorous counterattack to nail a repeat victory here, said Begala, also a close adviser to Bill Clinton during his 1992 presidential race. Obama will need to be in Iowa — campaign in Iowa, run advertisements in Iowa and organize his get-out-the-vote operation in Iowa, Begala said.

“And I’m sure he’ll do all three,” he said. “These Iowa numbers are counter to the national trend, which suggests President Obama can turn them around.”

Obama’s favorability numbers are rising nationally, while the GOP favorability numbers are going down, Begala noted.

The Iowa Poll was conducted Feb. 12-15, surveying 800 Iowa adults, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Election questions were asked of 611 likely voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.0 percentage points.

Even as the national economy shores itself, only 30 percent of Iowa adults think things in the nation are headed in the right direction, while 64 percent say things have gotten on the wrong track.

Independent voter Krissy Dewandel,

a teacher

from Larchwood, said

she would vote for any of the Republican candidates

, and she especially likes Santorum. She has disdain for Paul, but she would still vote for him against the president.

“Somebody’s got to beat Obama — he sucks,” said Dewandel, 53.

“The debt, the stupid health care plan, the economy. There isn’t anything right.”

It also irritates Dewandel that Obama rejected a permit for a controversial oil pipeline from Canada to U.S. refineries.

“If they could get gas prices down to a reasonable level — I don’t have money to spend on other stuff because I’m plunking $50 into my car every time I turn around,” she said. “And the pipeline would provide jobs.”

Perceptions about the economy will be key to Obama’s fate, and if gas prices keep rising, he could be in real trouble, political analysts said.

Just 38 percent of Iowans approve of Obama’s handling of the economy.

Once again, take off the damn kids gloves and hammer this bastard day in and day out.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

I will disagree with studiodekadent about Santorum’s integrity. Most folks recognize that he means what he says, even when he agrees with you 8 -) You can’t have it both ways. He is an honorable man, so if he says he supports free market solutions, he will.

Even Obama has made speeches wherein which he has praised free markets. Not only that, but if you look at Santorum's actions, he has consistently expanded the realm of the State and diminished the realm of consent and contract.

"Most folks recognize that he means what he says" is a bizarrely naive view of a politician.

Say, I thought studiodekadent was an Aussie? What are you doing butting in on a private election?

Elections are not private matters and I'm perfectly within my rights to comment about American politics.

I bet you snuck across the border along with Joan Sutherland, Nichol Kidman, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana. Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Toni Collette, Heath Ledger, Keith Urban and Elle Macpherson. You broke our laws with the first step you took across the Pacific, wet back. How do you know so much about us?

I'm going to make the assumption that you're trying to make a joke.

As humor, your attempted joke is un-funny, inaccurate, and offensive.

I visit the US regularly as a tourist, with all my documentation, thank you very much. So I didn't break any American laws. And Australians are not 'wet backs.'

As for "how I know so much about you," I read a lot of US news and commentary (typically Reason and Cato). I know more about US politics than Australian politics.

I certainly hope my assumption that you were simply joking is a correct assumption, because that kind of nativist rhetoric (when said seriously) is a pretty blatant violation of Objectivist principles.

[Brant Gaede]

I will disagree with studiodekadent about Santorum’s integrity. Most folks recognize that he means what he says, even when he agrees with you 8 -) You can’t have it both ways. He is an honorable man, so if he says he supports free market solutions, he will.

Even Obama has made speeches wherein which he has praised free markets. Not only that, but if you look at Santorum's actions, he has consistently expanded the realm of the State and diminished the realm of consent and contract.

"Most folks recognize that he means what he says" is a bizarrely naive view of a politician.

Say, I thought studiodekadent was an Aussie? What are you doing butting in on a private election?

Elections are not private matters and I'm perfectly within my rights to comment about American politics.

I bet you snuck across the border along with Joan Sutherland, Nichol Kidman, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana. Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Toni Collette, Heath Ledger, Keith Urban and Elle Macpherson. You broke our laws with the first step you took across the Pacific, wet back. How do you know so much about us?

I'm going to make the assumption that you're trying to make a joke.

As humor, your attempted joke is un-funny, inaccurate, and offensive.

I visit the US regularly as a tourist, with all my documentation, thank you very much. So I didn't break any American laws. And Australians are not 'wet backs.'

As for "how I know so much about you," I read a lot of US news and commentary (typically Reason and Cato). I know more about US politics than Australian politics.

I certainly hope my assumption that you were simply joking is a correct assumption, because that kind of nativist rhetoric (when said seriously) is a pretty blatant violation of Objectivist principles.

Andrew, you and your comments are quite welcome here.

--Brant

yep, I plan on visiting Australia one day

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm fine with Santorum. Except when I'm not.

I see too much George Bush Jr. in him to like him much.

I think he would make an all-right president. Not great, but not a catastrophe like Obama.

Michael

[GALTGULCH8]

Michael,

I can't believe your virtual endorsement of Santorum unless you are simply unfamiliar with his record. This is from the Nolanchart.com site:

<<<"Topic: Election 2012

The Real Dirt on Slick Rick Santorum

The most comprehensive review of Santorum's big-government hypocrisy and corruption on the web.

by Jake Morphonios

(libertarian)

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has just released a hard-hitting ad against former Senator Rick Santorum. The ad, entitled “Betrayal”, exposes Santorum’s record of hypocrisy, duplicity and corruption. But is the ad fair?

Rick Santorum did well in Iowa and may do well in South Carolina because he is perceived to be deeply committed to family and social values. He is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage and abortion. He wears his religious beliefs on his sleeves.

Many fall for his pious act - but remember, Santorum is a sly lawyer-turned-politician-turned-lobbyist. Don’t let the sweater vests fool you. Santorum played the people of Iowa like a harp, and he’s hoping to do the same thing to social conservatives in South Carolina.

If Santorum is going to claim to be a champion of values, we need to look not only at what he says, but what he has done. And fortunately, Rick Santorum has left us with a voluminous record of big-government hypocrisy and outright corruption to sift through. Before making your decision about Rick Santorum, take a minute to learn the facts. There’s more to being a “values” candidate than simply bashing gays all the time. Personal ethics matter. And in that department, Santorum comes up short.

Who is Richard John Santorum? He is fifty-four years old and was born in Winchester, Virginia. He grew up in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. His father, Aldo, was an Italian immigrant. His mother’s lineage is half-Italian, half-Irish. As a high school student, Santorum’s nickname was “Rooster” because of his tendency to get riled up. He earned a degree in political science and later practiced law in Pittsburgh.

Santorum was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990 at age 32. He strongly criticized his opponent for living outside of his own congressional district for much of the year. Later, Santorum rode the wave of voter discontentment during the 1994 Republican Takeover to win a seat in the US Senate.

Santorum became involved in a scandal later known as the “K Street Project”. Lobbying firms were pressured to hire high ranking Republican lawmakers and to grant GOP lobbyists with access to influential decision makers. Led by Congressman Tom Delay, now a convicted felon, the Project had associations with lobbyists including Jack Abramoff. Santorum played the role of Senate liaison to the K Street Project. He soaked up the Washington lobbyist culture. The connections made by Santorum landed him high-paying lobbying opportunities after he lost his seat in the senate.

Santorum was reelected for a second term in 2000.

Senator Santorum cosponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act with Democrat Senator John Kerry. The legislation would impose on business owners the requirement that they accommodate the religious practices of their employees. It is Santorum's belief that if companies don't cater to their employees sundry faith observances then they should be compelled by law to change their business practices. Government is Santorum's solution to social and business problems.

Santorum built a reputation of being partisan, confrontational and divisive. His short-tempered behavior has been observed in recent Republican debates, earning him the unflattering nickname, “Scrappy Doo” - after the hot-headed cartoon pup whose temper frequently gets him into confrontations that require others to rescue him.

While in office, Santorum voted to spend taxpayer money to fight AIDS globally, to help underprivileged children in third world countries, to pay off debts owed to the US by other nations and to combat political instability in Sudan. He voted to increase welfare programs such as Healthy Start. Such social-welfare spending projects are not typically associated with the concept of Republican conservatism.

In 2001, Santorum created a charitable foundation. This organization, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation, gave out nearly $474,000 to community groups in its first few years. Sounds great, right? The problem is that it had actually raised over a million dollars in that time. The remaining half million dollars was paid out to as salaries and consulting fees to lobbyists and fundraisers connected to Santorum’s campaign. Only 36% of the money raised by the foundation actually made it to those it was designed to help.

Similar discrepancies can be found in a political action committee formed by Santorum. It was supposed to be raising money to help fellow Republican candidates. However, only 18% of the funds went to those candidates. Much of the remaining money was used to furnish Santorum with a lavish lifestyle. Reports also show dozens of trips to fast food joints, supermarkets, Starbucks and other everyday expenses that had little to nothing to do with the original intent of the funds raised.

Rick Santorum claims to be a fiscal conservative, yet voted five times to raise the debt ceiling - adding trillions to the federal deficit. He also strongly supported the largest hike in welfare entitlement spending in history (prior to Obamacare) – Medicaid Part D. This was George W. Bush’s free prescription medicine program, virtually socializing the pharmaceutical industry. Santorum gleefully voted to enrich the industry he had received so many campaign contributions from. In fact, Santorum was such a favorite of GlaxoSmithKline that, following the loss of his senate seat, executives wrote, “The defeat of [santorum] creates a big hole we need to fill.” The leaked memo is evidence that unprincipled politicians, like Santorum, can still be bought and sold in the USA.

Continuing the subject of corruption, retail giant Wal-Mart lined Santorum’s pockets with campaign cash – giving him $10,000 in one month alone. In return, Wal-Mart received votes in-kind from Santorum on issues relating to overtime, minimum wages, tort reform, charitable giving credits, etc.

In his current campaign for president, Santorum has compared himself to Ronald Reagan. Yet, Reagan himself campaigned in 1980 on a platform that included abolishing the recently created Department of Education. Santorum, on the other hand, voted and strongly supported legislation that doubled the size of the DOE, including the introduction of Ted Kennedy’s infamous “No Child Left Behind”.

Santorum proposed amending No Child Left Behind to include the requirement that “intelligent design” be taught in classrooms. In 2002, Santorum wrote in a Washington Times article, “intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taughtin science classes.” However, in 2005 Santorum said on National Public Radio, “I’m not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom.” Santorum, like Mitt Romney, changes his position to suit his audience. Some may call this "politicking". Others call it "lying".

When the Associated Press asked Santorum, a Catholic, to comment on his views regarding child sex abuse by Catholic priests, he responded that the priests were engaging in homosexuality. He went on to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, incest and sex with dogs. The latter comment drew this response from the AP reporter interviewing Santorum. He said, “I’m sorry. I didn’t think I was going to talk about ‘man on dog’ with a United States senator. It’s sort of freaking me out.” As well it should. Santorum is on record many times explaining that what happens in an individual's bedroom is the business of the entire community and that private, consensual sex should be a matter of government regulation.

One result of Santorum’s anti-gay remarks was a campaign to humiliate the Senator. In 2003, sex columnist Dan Savage launched an internet campaign to promote the new usage of the word “santorum” as a particularly vulgar sexual definition. The connection of the Senator’s name with this new definition on internet search engines is commonly referred to as the “Google problem.”

On the campaign trail, Santorum is frequently asked about his belief in the right to privacy. His position is that no such right exists under the Constitution. He said, “…this right to privacy doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution.”

It is because of this belief, in part, that Santorum is comfortable supporting legislation that imposes his own values on everyone else. For example, Santorum supports the prohibition of contraception – a position he was recently challenged on during an appearance on the O’Reilly Factor.

Santorum has a record of exercising punitive control over citizens through the strong arm of government. As Hurricane Katrina approached, the tax funded National Weather Service gave evacuation warnings. Santorum proposed that those people who chose not to follow the recommendation to leave their homes should be penalized for refusing to obey government warnings.

Santorum’s interest in weather services wasn’t limited to penalizing Americans who didn’t obey the federal weatherman. Just two days before he introduced a bill that benefited private weather services, he was paid thousands of dollars from… a private weather service.

Among other legislative favors, Santorum was given six thousand dollars from Miller Brewing just half a year after Santorum introduced legislation to cut taxes on large brewing companies. He received three thousand dollars from US Tobacco Corp. the day after he voted against a tobacco regulation bill. The list of favors to his campaign contributors goes on and on. Taking money from corporations and then voting for legislation that favors them is called corruption.

In 2006, Santorum was named the "Most Corrupt Politician" by a political watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported that Santorum took the most cash from corporate lobbyists of any other politician in Washington, adding that Santorum "has a black belt in hypocrisy" (10/22/2006).

Santorum was, and is, a strong supporter of the neoconservative “War on Terror.” He proposed sanctions for Syria. In 2005, Santorum sponsored a bill aimed at overthrowing the government of Iran, called the Iran Freedom and Support Act. As part of hisopposition to Iran, Santorum recommended that America fight for “a strong Lebanon, a strong Israel and a strong Iraq.” These pro-zionist positions are unconstitutional and are not in the best interests of our national security.

Santorum supported the invasion of Iraq. In 2006, he announced that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq – a claim later proven false.

Accusations of corruption and scandal plagued Santorum while in office. One issue that led to charges of hypocrisy against Santorum was the fact that he and his family moved to Virginia while he was a Senator, spending less than a month a year residing in the state from which he was elected. His former criticisms of his first congressional opponent had come back to haunt him. This permitted him to maintain residency in Pennsylvania so he could keep running for his existing senate seat without having to actually live in Pennsylvania. It's kind of like Hillary Clinton moving to New York and putting on a Yankees cap to be able to snatch a senate seat.

Additionally, while living in Virginia, Santorum kept his five children enrolled in an expensive Pennsylvania “cyber school”, expecting the local district to pay the tuition costs. This benefit to Santorum cost the Pennsylvania school district $73,000. The district sued Santorum to reimburse $67,000 because his residency status disqualified him for their educational services. Santorum capitalized on the controversy to champion himself as a family man. He ran campaign ads featuring his son saying, “My dad’s opponents have criticized him for moving us to Washington so we could be with him more.” Some would argue that a true family man would not exploit his own child for political advantage.

Santorum made headlines when he stopped in to visit Terri Shiavo, who, in 2005, lay on her deathbed in Tampa, FL. Shiavo was the figure at the center of the national right-to-die debate. It turns out that Santorum already had other business in Tampa. The real reason for his visit was to collect a quarter of a million dollars in money raised for him by the executives of Outback Steakhouse. Oddly enough, Santorum strongly agreed with Outback execs that the federal minimum wage should not be increased. The Senator returned home on a Wal-Mart corporate jet.

In 2006, Santorum faced difficulties in his quest for a third term. Corruption allegations dogged him everywhere he went. He trailed his Democrat opponent by double digits for most of the campaign. To try to siphon votes away from Santorum’s opponent, many of his supporters helped finance a Green Party candidate. There were suspicions that Santorum’s campaign may have violated some federal election laws. Ultimately, the Green Party candidate was denied access to the ballot and Santorum lost his seat in the Senate. The Democrat won with 59% of the vote to Santorum’s 41%. It was the biggest margin of loss for an incumbent Republican senator in US history.

Also contributing to Santorum’s loss was an erosion of his base of supporters over his decision to endorse his liberal Republican colleague, Arlen Specter, over social and fiscal conservative Congressman Pat Toomey in a senate race. Santorum’s ease in walking away from his alleged social values was unforgivable to many Pennsylvanians. It is speculated that Santorum was repaying a favor to Specter for having provided Santorum with important political staff during his first Senate race. It is also speculated that Santorum's allegiance to social values is partly a political ploy to maintain the support of social conservatives.

Following his departure from the Senate, Santorum joined a Washington DC “think tank”, earning a quarter of a million dollars. He also became a Fox News contributor. He quickly found other employment as a lobbyist for various industries, earning himover a million dollars in 2010 alone.

Santorum considered running for president in 2008, but instead chose to support Mitt Romney. In 2011, he announced his own candidacy for the presidency. He remained in single digits until a last minute surge prior to the Iowa Caucuses. Now that he is under the spotlight, Santorum is beginning to stumble.

In New Hampshire, Santorum made a statement about giving money to “black” people that drew accusations of racism. In an interview, Santorum said that what sounded like the word “black” was actually an accidental mumble. He said that he doesn’t even refer to that demographic as “black”, but as “African Americans”. However, by the end of the interview, Santorum had used the term “black” three more times, not once having used the phrase “African Americans” in his dialogue.

This incident is reminiscent of a 2011 slip-up in which Santorum implied that President Barack Obama should be pro-lifebecause he is black. Santorum said, “The question is… is that human life a person under the constitution? And Barack Obama says ‘no’. Well, if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.”

It seems that Rick Santorum is truly a mix of values. There are those values of which he speaks - and then there are those of which he lives. Facts can be pesky things. Let’s just hope that the people of America care enough to learn them before casting another vote for Slick Rick, aka "Scrappy Doo" Santorum. His own behaviors prove him to be a corrupt, big-government puppet whose strings are pulled by the highest bidder. He has demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and oppressive aggression when granted power. The truth speaks for itself.

This is the corrupt politician that Ron Paul rightly accuses of Betrayal - "a serial hypocrite who can't be trusted."

If you liked this article, give it a "thumbs up" and share it using the Facebook link below!

Jake Morphonios has worked as a political consultant and campaign strategist for over two decades and is the author of "Organizing a Grassroots Political Machine", used in the Steve Forbes 2000 Presidential campaign.

">>>

[GALTGULCH8]

Michael,

This is from the ronpaul2012.com site:

<<<"

SANTORUM’S ANTI-LIBERTARIANISM IS A RECIPE FOR BIG GOVERNMENT

Writes Philip Klein at The Washington Examiner:

Nobody expects the Republican presidential nominee to be a libertarian purist, but it helps if he or she at least has a libertarian streak. In Rick Santorum’s case, he’s actively hostile toward libertarianism…

(Santorum’s) been coming under fire for his many votes to expand government. He took earmarks, voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan and backed No Child Left Behind. He pushed dairy subsidies, steel tariffs and sided with unions over workers.

As Cato’s Gene Healy noted in his Washington Examiner column on the topic this week, Santorum explicitly declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

This is a stark departure from Ronald Reagan, who had this to say to the libertarian Reason magazine in a 1975 interview:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism…

The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Ever since that time, Republicans have gotten into trouble when they have veered too far from libertarianism. If Santorum had a modicum of respect for libertarian philosophy, he would have been reluctant to embrace big government Republicanism during the Bush era. Instead, he cast votes that will make it harder for him to consolidate conservative support in the weeks and months ahead as his record undergoes more scrutiny…">>>

While you pontificate here, Ron Paul supporters are actively promoting his candidacy, have registered Republican so they can vote for pro liberty delegates to go to Tampa where they might be able to vote for Ron Paul to be the nominee.

gulch

[Peter]

It was a good hearted jest on my part saying Aussies were not welcome studiodekadent, after listing a bunch who have obviously brightened America’s day.

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote:

I'm fine with Santorum. Except when I'm not. I see too much George Bush Jr. in him to like him much. I think he would make an all-right president. Not great, but not a catastrophe like Obama.

end quote

That is about my summation too. He makes Mitt look much better. Thanks to Gulch for the articles on Santorum because all that was said there bothers me. I had forgotten about all those corruption charges. I read must of it and left convinced that I will need to hold my nose to vote for such a pious hypocrite. Rick is not letting up on the religious talk and is now in a battle with the White House over who is more religious.

It is idiotic for a candidate for President to say he opposes contraception, early term abortions, gays, etc. What happened to Sarah Palins “putting the social issues on the back burner?” It proves he is authentic and truthful but I do not like seeing the real Rick. What a jerk.

Peter Taylor

[GALTGULCH8]

Peter,

thanks for the thanks. I'm glad that I come in handy.

Today is the day that Ron Paul supporters who are veterans will be staging a march on Washington, D.C.

So far I haven't seen any sign of it in the press.

We do know that Ron Paul receives more financial donations from active duty military than all the others combined.

It costs one trillion dollars a year, year after year, just to maintain our 900 some odd military bases worldwide in over 130 countries, not counting the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

Michael, you have to realize that the federal budget keeps adding two trillion dollars to the national debt each year. This is unsustainable especially with interest rates bound to rise. Than would make the interest on the national debt rise to close to one trillion dollars just for payments on the debt alone!

That is why the country needs someone other than Santorum or Romney who are oblivious to the crisis we face financially. That someone is Ron Paul.

gulch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I can't believe your virtual endorsement of Santorum unless you are simply unfamiliar with his record.

gulch8,

I think any one of the Republican candidates is better than Obama.

As I've stated several times.

You are free to believe otherwise.

I just get sick of the nonstop spin, exaggerations and demonizing.

Michael