Replies

That's the problem; the double standard. Santorum is not Newt, and Newt is not Santorum, but they are both conservative men. Both men are better than Romney and certainly better than Obama. The problem is that Santorum was attacked when Newt was winning as being in to split the vote to give it to Romney and being in to be Romney's VP. Now that Santorum is on top and has beaten Romney in multiple states and would have won in others if not for a few percentages of split vote, the Newt people are silent. The same calls made before about Santorum being a Romney shill are not made.

He does have solutions; his site has a list of what his policies whill be. He is solidly social conservative and will stand up proudly for life and traditional marriage. Nearly every speech he talks about how rights come from God, and strong family units mean less government intervention. Numbers USA gives him an A- rating. The National Rifle Association gives him an A+ rating.

This site also goes on to address him on being a fiscal conservative:

On fiscal conservatism

Rick Santorum, one of the most fiscally conservative as rated by the National Taxpayers Union:

Excerpt:

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html

Excerpt:

Citizens Against Government Waste told us that Santorum left the Senate in 2006 with a lifetime rating of 80 percent with the anti-earmarks organization, ranking him in the top 25 percent of Senate Republicans. That put Santorum in CAGW’s “Taxpayer Hero” category.

And the fiscally conservative National Taxpayers Union provides a flattering big-picture assessment of Santorum’s voting record on fiscal issues. The NTU looks at legislators’ votes on everything from taxes to spending to debt regulation and fiscal policy in general and then grades them. You can see all of the Republican candidates’ scores here. NTU doesn’t provide a composite score for legislators, but in yearly grades issued during Santorum’s Senate years, NTU gave him an “A” grade seven times, a “B+” three times and a “B” twice. He also got Bs in his last three years in the House (as far back as the NTU ratings go). Santorum got better grades than most of his fellow Republicans during his 12 years as a senator.

“Some would say that would average closer to an A- grade, while others would say it’s closer to a B+,” Pete Sepp, executive vice president of NTU told us in an email. “We tend to choose the side of caution when speaking about any lawmaker’s average, because it’s also important to examine the individual parts of the overall record.”

– Robert Farley http://factcheck.org/2012/02/romney-vs-santorum-a-misleading-contrast/#.Tz7AuB5cytM.facebookExcerpt

One source is Club for Growth, who give excellent summaries of where candidate stand and how they acted on economic and fiscal issues. Key points on Santorum:

Santorum has consistently supported broad-based tax cuts and opposed tax increases either by sponsoring key legislation or by casting votes on relevant bills. Some high profile votes include: ■Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993 ■Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997 ■Voted NO on a cigarette tax hike in 1998 ■Voted YES on repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1999 ■Voted YES on the 2001 Bush tax cuts ■Voted YES to repeal the Death Tax in 2002 ■Voted YES to the 2003 Bush tax cuts ■Voted YES to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2006

Here are his ratings from when he was in Congress:

American Conservative Union — 88%

National Right to Life Committee — 100%

Americans for Tax Reform — 95%

National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%

U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%

League of Private Property Voters — 94%

http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-yes-he-is-a-true-conservative/

Here is what John Hawkins/a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News had to say of Santorum’s fiscal plan:cutting $5 trillion of federal spending within 5 years, freezing spending levels for 5 years, a Balanced Budget Amendment that caps spending at 18% of GDP, implementing Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms, reforming Social Security, freezing the pay of non-defense workers for 4 years, and eliminating the funding for Obamacare. That is an agenda that should get the blood pumping for fiscal hawks who’ve been disappointed in the conservative leadership from D.C. over the last few years.Based on: http://www.ricksantorum.com/spending-cuts-and-entitlements-reform

John Hawkins went on to say:Romney supported the McCain-Kennedy amnesty, TARP, Cap and Trade, and Obamacare was based on Romneycare. Those are huge issues that go right off the table if Mitt becomes the nominee. Santorum, on the other hand, voted against McCain-Kennedy, has an A- grade from NumbersUSA on illegal immigration, opposed TARP, voted against Cap and Trade, and opposed Obamacare. Being on the right side of those elephantine issues may be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012 and Santorum has credibility there, while Romney doesn’t.

The numbers reveal the TRUE conservative and here’s the stats to prove it:

http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com/2012/02/fact-checking-santorums-conservative.html?spref=fb

Romney is liked by the most politicians, but that doesn't mean we support him. That's not a reason not to support him. That said, Rick has a pretty darn long list of endorsements, many from Pennsylvania:

http://ricksantorumforpresident.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/list-of-endorsements-and-supporters-for-republican-presidential-candidate-rick-santorum/

I'm not saying you have to vote for Santorum. I am pointing out a huge double standard. You know if things were flipped right now, you would be calling loudly for Santorum to leave. The bottom lines is that Santorum would likely have won Ohio, Michigan, Alaska, and Washington sans the split vote. Based on recent polls, Santorum is very close in Texas and California, but the split vote could again toss it to Romney. I'm also not saying Newt is a bad man. At this point, I just don't see where Newt can go. He has won two states and can't win the south. He's staying at around 14% nationally. I don't have a problem with Newt. I have a problem with the attacks against Santorum, the names like "Reverend Rick" (which I saw on DU by the way), "Sweatervest", "Little Ricky", "Saint Rick", etc. Just today, I saw 4 hit pieces posted within hours over at the Huffington Post on Santorum. If Santorum wasn't a true conservative, the liberals wouldn't hate him with the same passion they reserve for people like Sarah Palin. Yet some conservatives here attack him the same way the people at Huff Post and DU do. They must love coming over here. I see conservatives eating their own, and I don't like it.