PolitiJim note: I must caution my pro-Santorum and pro-Romney readers I am not one of those that will whine or complain once our nominee is selected. Unlike many I WANT to know all the facts about each candidate – good or bad – not only to form my opinion but to see if the charges are based on fact and not bias. I clearly have a bias (likely Gingrich first, Santorum second) but nothing is served by a Rick GOOD! Newt BAD! screed. It doesn’t win a single person (and in fact alienates those you might otherwise reach.) SNEAK PEAK at one reason why (full chart at bottom):
| 1st 5 Debates | Senator Santorum | Speaker Gingrich |
| Attacked Other Candidates | 12 | 0 |
| Didn’t Take Media Bait to Attack Opponent | 0 | 7 |
| Complimented or Acknowledged Good Position of Other Opponent | 6 | 12* |
Conservatives are looking ignorant. Jumping from Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich to Santorum to Gingrich to …. (this is really exhausting.) Two reasons for this. First, many supported these candidates not on who they really were, but who they WANTED them to be. Perry fit the perfect candidate until we got scared off by an “oops.” Cain was killed not so much by (seemingly) unfounded sexual allegations, but by our revelation that he just wasn’t ready for foreign policy. Clearly the other reason for the rising and falling of polls, is the simple principle of promotion. Even Hitler knew if you told a bold lie long and forcefully enough, people would believe it. Advertising proves it EVERY day. Is there really ANY sneaker worth $200? In actual labor and materials, Lebron James’ shoe isn’t any more expensive to manufacture than the much less expensive Metta World Peace sneaker (aka “the idiot formerly known as Ron Artest”). And while the main stream media and GOP establishment is taking it’s talents to Mitt Romney’s aid, “true” conservatives are trying to sell us a product inferior to a Chinese sweatshop knock-off. The two “conservative” products of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.
Clearly to me they are not equal. A medical doctor candidate admitting that he is willing to give elective abortions does not, can not, and will not ever be a “conservative” no matter how you want to spin it. Why do you think Romney has spent so much effort distancing himself from his Planned Parenthood past? And I thought we proved with Pat Buchannan that we conservatives weren’t going to tolerate any more of this isolationist B.S. No, clearly Santorum doesn’t have that problem. I have gone as far as to say that Santorum might be the best candidate we have had this year on foreign policy, although in national security, military leadership, and theory – he just can’t compete with a 30 year Military War College professor in Gingrich.
Monty Python’s Life of Brian is perhaps the greatest move of all time after Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. (That is, if you overlook the nudity and cussing.) For those who are culturally deprived or who are recent refugees from Amish country, “Brian” is mistaken for being Jesus. One of the greatest moments in the film is where people who are willing to worship anyone – chase Brian thinking that he is the next “savior.” Very similar to those who don’t have a relationship with Jesus and who are religiously following a ritual – the Brian followers are split as to whether to worship the sandal he dropped, or the gourd that he gave away. If you don’t think this is funny you aren’t human. (For the very religious who think this is mocking Jesus – you should remember that He too mocked the religious.)
Although it isn’t ONLY religious conservatives jumping from “ideal” conservative candidate to the next, it makes up a large portion. I’m kind of one of them. (Jesus-lover not jumping-lover.) And the refrain from these people in my Twitter timeline consistently says things like:
- I just can’t trust Gingrich.
- Santorum is a good Christian (and married to his first wife).
- Gingrich has too many ethics problems and “baggage” and won’t survive a general election.
The inference is that “real” Christians would be unrepresented unless they nominate Saint Santorum. Humboldt Republican Women’s blog sent me a video of Rick Santorum and Dr. Dobson with the Santorum’s comment, “If GOP Voters Pick Romney or Newt...We Lose.” (The “video” is merely a bad rock music track with pictures of Dobson and Ricky the Righteous shaking hands, badly promoting Dobson’s endorsement.)
What is the stereotype of Christians? Ignorant, uneducated, and fervently devoted to an ideal unsupported by “facts” or objective reason. Of course, you and I know as many (or more) liberals that do the same – but that doesn’t help us in the REAL world. The election ultimately is about the PERCEPTION of who would make a good President– not reality. If it were, the Governor of Texas would be writing his convention speech. And Obama would NEVER have gotten elected in the first place.
There are only 4 ways for an intellectually honest person to look at the viability of a candidate:
- Policy positions and voting track record
- Qualifications for the job of PRESIDENT (not chief law writer)
- Ability to get elected
(raise money, persuade people, survive attack) - Personal beliefs and character
On policy Santorum and Gingrich are essentially tied. People keep mentioning that Santorum didn’t vote for TARP, but ignore the other 4,000 votes (exaggeration alert) for the government to pay for non-profits, free FAIR CAIR benefits, clean energy projects, and even Pet Animal Welfare. (You heard me. ANIMAL welfare. It’s even worse when you realize the Humane Society started contributing to Rick’s campaign and PETA says Santorum has voted nearly 100% with the exception of the oil drilling in Alaska.) If you add in the fact that Santorum’s tax and jobs policy is weaker than BOTH Gingrich, Paul and Romney you honestly would still have to give the edge to Gingrich. At least like their respective 90% and 88% lifetime ACU ratings.
Is Santorum “electable?” As my co-blogger Max Jacobs recently wrote, there is NOTHING to suggest Santorum can ever get the support of the GOP, much less the general electorate who haven’t yet heard his past statements on gays and women yet. If you can’t get enough money out of your first “win” in Iowa to compete in a tiny state like South Carolina finishing third, (and then third in Florida and fourth in Nevada), what evidence do we have he will suddenly shed his cardigan geeky image and suddenly attract enough of a following to compete against Romney? He was the last kid you had to pick for backyard football. The truth is that even after the entire main stream media and a majority of the conservative media, as well as tens of millions of dollars in negative ads against Gingrich – he is STILL soundly beating Ricky the Vest-Wearing Prayer nationally. And no one has spent a dime to point out Rick’s very numerous skeletons. Overwhelming advantage: Gingrich.
Which leaves us with “Character” and “Principle.” Yes, Pat Boone just endorsed Rick Santorum. He won the evangelical leader endorsement in Texas also but Santorumites neglect to tell you that he was only ahead of Newt by 9 votes on the first ballot. When you have Don Wildmon and Tim LaHaye (aka Extreme Right Wing Religious Nut Jobs in the MSM) endorse you, clearly not everyone who is important in the Evangelical movement agrees that Gingrich is character challenged.
This is not to say Santorum is NOT pro-life. He absolutely is. He certainly wouldn’t pull all Federal prohibitions against abortions as Paul would nor write Planned Parenthood into a state wide healthcare system as the Mittster Slicster did. But how can you POSSIBLY argue after this that he is more principled? He has proven less trustworthy on the two man topics he claims to be the “best at” despite being inferior to Gingrich on both.
You certainly are entitled to dislike Gingrich. But if you are condemning a fellow Christian who has repented and demonstrated – and even promoted - a faithful life and devotion to God, what hope is there for you? My bible says that even the BEST works humans do, is as filthy rags in comparison to the righteousness of God. I would think you would LEAP at praising someone who could only have changed his life by the grace of God and use it to give hope to those who feel they’ve made one too many mistakes in their life to start “living right” now.
You THINK Rick is more loyal or honest than Gingrich? How do you explain dishonestly suggesting Gingrich would be for climate change when A) this is the man that gave you a political career and B) Gingrich was the keynote rebuttal to Al Gore’s testimony on the hill?
When the evidence of data changed, so did Newt. Rush Limbaugh has never given as strong of a defense against Cap and Trade as Newt did on Capitol Hill. Do we want a candidate that is so dogmatic that they refuse to change their perspective when it is warranted? Has Santorum ever apologized for his vote on unions or minimum wage? No. He explains it was a “political reality” in a blue state like Pennsylvania. In other words, “I’m allowed to vote liberal to get elected.”
Sounds very similar…scratch that.. EXACTLY like Romney’s excuse for RomneyCare and all of his tax increases and liberal track record.
Remember Santorum trying to make a big deal out of the “House Banking Scandal?” Not only did he not acknowledge the multiple bloody noses Newt incurred from his own party as a Junior Congressman from Georgia, SANTORUM WAS PART OF THE SCANDAL! (In fact, many congressmen including Gingrich used the ability to overdraft checks because it was there. Neither abused the privilege and both immediately stopped the practice. But isn’t it a bit hypocritical not only challenge the man who fought not just the Democratic establishment – but his own – to get YOU elected, much less accuse him of taking a blind eye to a scandal YOU were a part of?
And just for the record, it was this debate where Santorum claimed the House held a coup and “threw him out” which has been proven to be an overt lie. At least Romney lies about stuff he didn’t have first person knowledge of.
WHERE’S THE PRICINPAL IN THAT?
Would a man of principle:
- Lie about where he lived while taking state “home school” money he wouldn’t get if he admitted he lived in Washington?
- Only give 12% of money he collected for charity to the causes they were supposed be for?
- Only give out 18% of money collected by your own SuperPAC?
- Take a favored home loan while a Senator breaking rules?
- Pass off to the public he went to FL to visit Terry Schiavo’s family but was really there for fund raisers? And not cancel these events out of respect for the Schiavo family?
I won’t even get into the whole issue of his K Street lobbying efforts that are FAR worse than ANYTHING that Gingrich is accused of. Gingrich said he would not lobby – and he didn’t.
LET ME REITERATE: I do not believe Rick Santorum is a Bill Clinton, Charlie Rangel or Christopher Dodd like politician. But all of these would kill Gingrich if they were levied against him.
You can tell a lot about character from how people deal with other people. ESPECIALLY under pressure. I consider good moral people to believe the best of everybody, and try to give respect to everyone no matter how much you disagree with them. (I personally fail at this nearly every day on Twitter or my blog.) But it is a standard of whether I will take advantage of others weaknesses to promote myself at their expense or, whether I will “turn the other cheek.”
How does Saint Richard fare in that regard? Regarding that vote AGAINST pro-life demonstrators we discussed earlier, (the one that funded Planned Parenthood) WATCH Santorum’s answer to a question:
So he first attacks the person asking the question (can you say Saul Alinksy Michelle Malkin?) and then doesn’t even tell the truth about what the bill was about. Frankly, as a conservative I could even stomach him saying “Some pro-life groups were blocking entrances to legitimate health care services and I didn’t know that Planned Parenthood would indirectly have gotten money.” (And I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here because he NEVER said that.)
Now let’s look at how the “characterless” Newt Gingrich handles challenges to his record (this on Pelosi):
Or someone who asks something MUCH more disrespectfully than the Ron Paul supporter did of Santorum:
Or where Gingrich might have been in actual danger from a heckler/protestor here.
BASED ON YOUR OWN OBSERVATION – WHO SHOWS MORE CHARACTER? Newt or Rick?
Santorum not only misleads what the central issue of the bill was about, he has to demean and diminish another candidate’s supporter. In my Christian studies, “integrity” isn’t making up excuses for bad moves or blaming other people. Gingrich apologies and repents, Santorum lies and laments.
Give me more Gingrichs in Washington any day.
What really got my goat last week was Michelle Malkin’s characterization that somehow Santorum had acquitted himself more honestly and maturely in the campaign. So I went and checked the first 5 debates. Go read them or watch them yourself. Remember Gingrich didn’t even participate in the 1st one, so this is with a 1 debate handicap for or against Newt.
Here is the score:
|
| Senator Santorum | Speaker Gingrich |
| Attacked Other Candidates | 12 | 0 |
| Combative With Other Candidates | 4 | 0 |
| Demeaned Other Candidates | 3 | 0 |
| Didn’t Take Media Bait to Attack Opponent | 0 | 7 |
| Complimented or Acknowledged Good Position of Other Opponent | 6 | 12* |
* This includes an instance where Gingrich said “Rick and I worked on Welfare Reform together” TOTALLY understating the reality of whom deserved more of the credit. Gingrich put Santorum on the committee and on the team to write the bill, and it was Gingrich who led the national campaign and worked directly with Clinton as well as envisioning it as part of Contract With America. Yet he graciously allowed Rick an equal footing and gave him equal credit.
And I didn’t even get to the debates where Gingrich stopped the media from trying to get each of the candidates to go after each other. Gingrich on the other hand DEFENDED other candidates from unwarranted attacks.
Here is Santorum from the August 12, 2011 debate. Notice he isn’t asked about Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann, but goes out of his way to attack them. Look at the acknowledgements and attacks.
QUESTION: Senator Santorum, I’ve got one for you. You said that you were, quote, the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. But a top Tea Party goal, particularly in Iowa, is to revert back to the gold standard, something you oppose. How do you consider yourself in line with the Tea Party without agreeing on this major issue?
SANTORUM: Well first off, I didn’t say that the Washington Post said it. I simply commented on what they said. …What I’ve said is that I agree with Newt. I think there’s some reforms we can do at the Fed. And I agree we need to audit the Fed.
Disagree with most of what Ron Paul said. Just because he’s mostly wrong, doesn’t mean he’s always wrong.
(BOOING)
SANTORUM: I appreciate his contribution in that regard. I want to talk about, because I didn’t get a chance to comment on this debt ceiling. But Congressman Paul and Congresswoman Bachmann both in the congress, and they had an opportunity to lead. They’re asking you have them lead this country, and they couldn’t lead the congress to do something responsible in making sure that we didn’t have the fiasco that we have in place now.
We should have balanced the budget. The balanced budget amendment should have been the focus from the beginning. To suggest that we never need to raise the debt ceiling, that — that is, again, showmanship, not leadership. Of course we have to raise the debt ceiling at some point.
Let us now look at a moment for Speaker Gingrich when, unlike the last example, he was baited by the moderator to attack Governor Perry.
Mr. Speaker, as you remember, you wrote the foreword to Rick Perry's most recent book called "Fed Up," and you called him, quote, "uniquely qualified to explain what's taking place with the economy." Does that mean, in terms of job creation credentials, he has your proxy at a gathering like this?
GINGRICH: No, but it means that, if he wants to write another book, I'll write another foreword.
(LAUGHTER)
As he himself -- look, he's said himself, that was an interesting book of ideas by somebody who's not proposing a manifesto for president. And I think to go back and try to take that apart is silly.
But let me just use my time for a second, if I might, Brian. I served during the Reagan campaign with people like Jack Kemp and Art Laffer. We had an idea for job creation.
We are told the “fruit” of the Spirit is Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness and Self-Control. Gingrich has conceded he was selfish and made mistakes early in his life; and we all admire the devotion or Rick Santorum to his wife.
But if you truly are a thinking person who WANTS to know the TRUTH and is willing to face FACTS; someone who believes that it is more important to be right on principle rather than simply being “right;” forget who is better qualified by experience. Forget who has the better policies and track record just for a moment. If the Bible is correct, that even a child is known BY WHAT HE DOES, which candidate has shown more of that “fruit” in this campaign? Because it is by their fruit we are supposed to know who they really are.
Now lest I be accused of not being balanced, let me do two additional things if you will bear with me. First, an EXCELLENT answer by Senator Santorum in the August 12th, Iowa debate. It is perhaps his best moment, in my opinion, to date:
YORK: All right, our next question — thank you, Representative Bachmann — our next question is for Senator Santorum. In June, you said, quote, “I believe that any doctor who performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.” You would allow no exceptions for cases of rape and incest. Polls have long shown that large majorities of Americans support at least some exceptions for abortion. Are your views too much, even for many conservatives to support?
SANTORUM: You know, the Supreme Court of the United States on a recent case said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, could not be subject to the death penalty, yet the child conceived as a result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn’t have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is…
(APPLAUSE)
That child is an innocent victim. To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. It is an innocent human life. It is genetically human from the moment of conception. And it is a human life.
And we in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations who’ve been traumatized already. To put them through another trauma of an abortion I think is
– is too much to ask. And so I would — I would absolutely stand and say that one violence is enough.
And despite multiple counts by Santorum stretching the truth on what his opponent’s REAL stances are (ObamaCare repeal, Global Warming, etc.), I honestly could find only one two instance against Newt. And it was against himself, not anyone else. After the CNN debate in South Carolina where John King led off the debate asking about the charges of second wife Marianne Gingrich, the campaign said that Newt Gingrich had been in error about asserting that the campaign had offered “family friends” who would contradict her accusation of Newt asking for an “open marriage.” Now it is true that many friends HAVE come out to discredit Marianne’s character. We also know that Marianne had no qualms about breaking up Newt’s first marriage and reportedly was unfaithful to Newt as well. But, no explanation other than the campaign secretary’s retraction let’s us know if Newt was misinformed by the campaign, or whether he overtly lied to make his case stronger. Unlike Mitt Romney, there certainly is no pattern of exaggeration or definitions of what “IS” is, and many will give Gingrich the benefit of the doubt. But in fairness and balance, it is important to document. (It is debatable since Heritage and CATO were FOR an individual mandate – but Newt characterized that “most” conservatives were for an individual mandate. It may have been a large minority. Their thinking was since they couldn’t get the votes to repeal/reform entitlements, wouldn’t it be responsible for people to HAVE to pay something rather than opting for the Hillary Clinton plan to get it free.)
UPDATE: Did you know Santorum has a history of blocking conservatives and conservative ideas? He does. Here.
8 comments:
Wow, talk about getting something off of your chest! Great post!
WOW! I love this piece. People at NRO are twisting themselves in a knot trying to say that Santorum is the ONLY one to vote for. I still dispute that, and haven't given up on Newt pulling something off.
However, I don't like how Rick has bashed Newt when the fact remains that he launched his career under Newt's Speakership.
I wish you couldpost this article on Townhall.com because the war rages on daily over there with the Mittbotts and Paultards spewing their lies against Newt. I'm sick of it and want SOMEONE to speak out for Newt in a positive way.
Thanks for having this site. I just wish more people knew about it.
This post was biblical in length but a damn good read. I personally do not understand this all of a sudden Santorum worship.
For balance sake an opposing view on the vote for Specter. (http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/13/re-specter-scozzafava-etc) I STILL don't see how this proves Santorum is principled however.
Is it "family values" to help a fellow congressman cover up an affair with one of his married staffers (whose husband also worked for him) instead of confronting him with it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgjb6UZZ_EA&feature=youtu.be
This on Santorum's vote for Felon's ISNT to give FELONS rights, but to try and override constitution - http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/17/rick-santorum-felon-voting-and-the-constitution/
Fine, Fine article.
You're an inveterate Cub fan, alright.
In a great pennant run, though.
Some are accusing me of being "in the tank" for Gingrich. I'm getting close. So far I've defended Santorum from attacks by Bachmann, Bachmann by sexist attacks from the Santorum campaign, Bachmann from lies from Pawlenty, Romney from attacks by Santorum, and Gingrich from attacks by ...all of them.
PolitiJim doesn't CARE about defending a personality but defending fair balance and TRUTH. For instance - this attack on Santorum that he is "anti-semetic" is absolutely ridiculous (http://www.pjvoice.com/v1/news.html) Santorum is (according to Joel Roseberg) an "A" defender of Israel.
But if the Santorum people keep acting like he's "perfect" and keep misusing facts (as their hero has been doing) - I will formally announce support very shortly. In either case - I will defend EVERY CANDIDATE from unwarranted attacks and try (as best I can) to provide balance and perspective based on objective fact - not a warm tingle running up my leg.
Thak you for this post, is truly very well put. I have nothing against Santorum, he sound good, his points sound good, but in the end of each debate, I have very but gut feeling about him. something was not right.
I'm the type of person who considerate herself to be very analytic, I listen rhetoric all the time, for that I got use to point 'key words" I believe that my bad taste on Rick's comments or answers, has been two things.
No matter the question eventually end up on two issues "me and I" ( egocentric, very dangers, show allot ego and ambition, when ego is in place ambition is dangers, because became psychopathic problem in the long run ) The other one, he always find the way to attack the others while praising himself, that to me personally don't look like a good leadership. Those were the two main things that has me, create distance with him, i knew something was not right, and I know and his tenure as senator or congressman he has dirty clothes in the closet. You re-afirm today to me I was right.
Today in CPAC I see the same thing, no plans for the future, he talk to a group of people, while Newt has solutions, plans and talk to ALL American people, no matter where anyone come from or go too, ideology or belief's, that talk about a leadership.
Thanks very much.
Word is he surged to tie with Romney. I don't see how he can sustain it when ANY of this - or m last post (Team Mitt - Team Rick) gets out. Not cuz i want him to fail. I just can't see him sustaining it.
Post a Comment