Mike’s Endorsement: Rick Santorum

by Mike on January 3, 2012

in Election 2012,Politics

Like Ryan and Sal, I am not overly thrilled with this year’s choices for President. My political philosophy is centered around Ronald Reagan’s belief that we are a country with a government, not the other way around.  The American people are good people.  Government must allow them to do what they do without interference.  It must provide people with the freedom necessary to be innovative, to use their talents to create goods and services that people want to buy, to make profits which help them enrich their lives and expand their businesses and create jobs, and to live their lives in accordance with their values so long as they do not harm other people.  Unlike in previous campaigns, I think there is a shortage of people in this year’s field who truly understand that concept and share my thoughts on the role on government.  Three of them who come pretty close though, and one of them is my choice for 2012.

I gave serious consideration to Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, but I endorse Rick Santorum for President.  Although some candidates are better on some issues, Santorum is an across-the-board conservative who will move this country in the right direction on a wide range of issues.  Over the course of his career as a Congressman and Senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum stood firmly on the principles we share, even risking his political career to do so.  There was a reason he was my favorite Senator in the 1990s.  Whether you’re most concerned about fiscal issues, social issues, or foreign policy, you can trust Rick Santorum.  He won’t let us down.  He deserves your vote.

Rick Santorum has a bold proposal to lower tax rates and simplify the code.  That plan calls for five deductions and two brackets, 10 percent and 28 percent.  It would also reduce the capital gains tax to 12 percent, lower the basic corporate tax rate to 17 percent, and provide a generous, one-time repatriation rate of five percent to encourage business with off-shore money to reinvest in America.  Santorum’s plan isn’t my ideal system; I prefer a flat tax (Gingrich proposes a 15 percent flat tax and Perry a 20 percent flat tax; however, both would make the plan optional and not provide the simplicity of Santorum’s plan), lower corporate rates than Santorum proposes, and a zero percent capital gains rate.  Nevertheless, Santorum’s plan lowers rates and simplifies the code.  Add in Santorum’s plans for reductions in the size of government and deregulation, and you have an economic program that will remove obstacles to private-sector job creation and allow the American people to do what they do with less interference from the state.

Economic issues are important, but no issue more important than protecting the sanctity of human life, and there is no politician alive more committed to protecting the unborn than Rick Santorum.  He is pro-life and has always been so.  His battles on the Senate floor with the bloodthirsty Barbara Boxer are legendary.  Many candidates in this field claim to be pro-life, and with the exception of Mitt Romney, I believe them.  However, none of those candidates share Santorum’s passion on the issue or his track record of defending the unborn.  Rick Santorum will not sell out the unborn to win over moderate voters or convince the New York Times to write a nice story about him.  Even if Santorum were tempted by the fleeting praise of the cocktail circuit, he is too committed to the right to life to surrender.

On matters of foreign policy, Santorum believes that America is safe when America is strong.  He recognizes threats that exist from abroad and has the courage necessary to stand up to those threats.  He supported the war in Iraq even when it was politically unpopular in 2006.  As he demonstrated in that Senate race he lost to Bob Casey, Santorum won’t betray this country’s safety to save his political hide.  That will be a valuable asset when the next President deals with Iran,one of Santorum’s areas of expertise.

Electability matters too, and Santorum is a proven winner.  Unlike most of his opponents, Santorum never had the luxury of running in a red state like Georgia, Texas, or Utah.  He won four elections and lost just one in the blue state of Pennsylvania in an era when other national Republicans were losing the state.  Two of the wins were against Democrat incumbents.

Santorum’s critics are right when they point out that he lost his 2006 Senate race by 18 points, but what those critics forget or choose to ignore is context.  In certain parts of the country, the power of a name can be too much to overcome.  In Pennsylvania, the name Casey carries a lot of power that outsiders cannot understand.  The late Bob Casey was a popular, pro-life Governor who even flirted with the idea of running for President himself.  In 2006, Santorum had the misfortune of running against the man’s son, who also claimed to be pro-life.  When you consider the name Casey, the crossover appeal of a pro-life Democrat (In 2006, I told you idiot pro-life Republicans not to trust Casey), the unpopularity of the Iraq War which Santorum continued to passionately support, and the fact that Pennsylvania is a blue state, then it is easy to see why Santorum lost that one.  Any candidate worth having would have lost that race.

And ultimately, that’s my point.  Politics is a lot like sports in that we want our team to win.  But in sports, the thrill of victory is an end we want for its own sake.  In politics, we do not seek victory for the sake of victory.  Victory in politics is important because the winner plays a role in implementing policies we all have to live under.  It is not enough for the Republicans to win the White House if the winner ultimately leaves much of the Obama agenda in place because he is too concerned with merely trimming around the edges.  You must elect someone you trust to make the right decisions.  Santorum will make the right decisions.  He should be the next President of the United States.

Like Ryan and Sal, I will now address the other candidates.

 

Newt Gingrich:  I came really close to endorsing Newt because he has proposed bold, conservative plans and is capable of articulately defending them.  On the down side, he has some character issues which I think he has overcome, but I’m not sure.  He has also changed his mind a little too often for my liking.  Would vote for him in a heartbeat if Santorum were to drop put.

Rick Perry:  He really understands the need for deregulation.  Most of his proposals are excellent, but he can’t seem to string two sentences together.  I like him, though.

Jon Huntsman:  He has proposed the best tax plan.  Unfortunately, he seems to be addicted to media praise.  For that reason alone, we can’t trust him.

Mitt Romney:  You need a stock-exchange like ticker to keep track of where this guy stands on any issue at any given point in time.  Research him carefully if you’re considering voting for him. . . then be sure to hit the refresh button.

Ron Paul:  He was wrong about Hale-Bopp in the 1990s and he is wrong about Iran today.

Michele Bachmann:  I like her, but she isn’t as experienced as Santorum and has a tendency to make things up.  That would hurt her in the general election.

{ 1 trackback }

Baby Forever Blog
January 7, 2012 at 10:09 am

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Ryan January 3, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Love the Hale-Bopp reference!

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: