Struggling with Santorum

Newt is done. There are no if's and's or but's about it. His "Southern Strategy" became a "Deep South Strategy" after Super Tuesday and now he doesn't seem to have a strategy to win at all. If someone has any ideas that are both logical and doable and don't include some sort of deus ex machina resolution to the primary race, I'd love to hear them (Politijim has some ideas but I'm not sure they are enough to get him over the top). I am still thoroughly convinced that Newt is the best man for the job, by far. He is the smartest, the most inspiring and has the best experience to get us through these difficult times. Unfortunately, most conservatives seem to be enamored with Rick Santorum, who has very wisely decided to market himself as Newt without the personal baggage. He has gone so far as to actually steal lines from Newt's speeches, if you watched the Alabama Presidential Forum, you'll know what I mean.

And at this point, I WANT to like Rick Santorum, to endorse him and be done with it. He clearly is the only conservative in the race who can even have a chance of over-taking Romney, especially if Newt endorses him and gets his delegates to vote for Santorum (a scenario I didn't think about in my previous piece on the possibility of a brokered convention, which focused on each candidate's individual chances without combinations). A Newt/Santorum alliance would only need to outperform Romney by about 8% (in both hard bound and total delegates) to be officially ahead of Romney at the convention and all bets could be off if that happens. Even the establishment will think twice before screwing a candidate who is so popular with the grassroots who also came in at #1 to the convention. Though I have no doubt they will try anyway (though there is a difference between sort of trying and pulling out all the stops).

Unfortunately, I'm just not there yet. Yes, Santorum is a conservative, is very supportive of Israel and generally conservative on the important issues of the day, like repealing Obamacare and getting our national finances in order. Unfortunately, he is a George W. Bush compassionate conservative with very major holes in his record. Just compare his ACU ratings from 1991-1994 with Newt's. I picked those years because that was when they both overlapped in the House of Representatives and therefore are being judged on the exact same versions of the exact same bills. In 1991, Newt scored 100% while Santorum only scored 80%. And those 20% of votes where he didn't vote conservative were actually quite important. He voted against caps in discretionary spending, SDI funding, against allowing employers to hire permanent replacements for striking workers and for NEA funding. In 1992, Newt against scored a perfect 100% and Santorum scored 83%. Santorum voted against school choice and a spending freeze but voted for NEA funding. In 1993, Newt scored 96% and Santorum scored an abysmal 70%. Newt's only indiscretion was that he voted against a bill which would have required the military to ask new recruits if they were gay. Santorum once again voted against SDI, school choice, employer rights to hire replacements and quite a few more (7 key bills in all). In 1994, Newt was once again a perfect 100% and Santorum scored 81%. He voted against the Trident II missile and against NEA termination, but for halting development in the deserts of California (I guess both wetlands and very very drylands need to be "saved").

That is all not very reassuring. Of course, though, he did improve over time and in his last year in the Senate he did have an ACU rating of 96% and a lifetime rating of 88%. Also, if you look at Newt's record in his first year, it wasn't perfect either. Yes, he had a score of 89 but he voted for the Department of Education and also something called the Energy Mobilization Board, which would have allowed a panel of political appointees to overrule business decisions to "mobilize" the energy sector. Long story short (I know, too late), Santorum seems to have become more conservative and currently is using rhetoric indistinguishable from Newt's but I'm just not sure if, once in office, he won't run things as a moderate, as many Republicans do once elected to higher office.

I am also struggling with Santorum's social views. Look, I'm pro-life but otherwise I'm a live and let live kind of guy who thinks people should be free to do what they like in the privacy of their own home if it is not infringing on someone else's rights. He is not that kind of guy at all. He has a very paternalistic view of society which kind of scares me. As President, he will speak out and try to curtail things like gambling, porn and contraception which I don't think is the business of government. The only reason I might let this category slide is because I really don't think as President he will have much power to do much in the social sphere, which is a good thing.

Basically, I'm just not sure if I vote for Santorum it will actually be a vote for him as opposed to a vote against Romney and then against Obama. I've done that before, quite a few times actually, and I'm sick of just voting for the lesser of two evils. I want to vote for the good and I'm not sure yet if Santorum is good enough. Yet. Though given how much I hate Romney (who has even flip flopped on the subject of Catfish) I might just bite the bullet once again.

Cross posted from libertarian neocon's blog.

Posted in: Mitt Romney,ngfiles,rsfiles