BOTTOMLINE:
Unelectable:
chances.
Historically highest defeat in 2006 last election, lowest rating of all 100 senators. (Political
Experience:
A lawyer/politician not a manager/decisionmaker (same mistake as employing Obama without
qualifications)
Romney wins on experience and on practicality, to get real results, rather than theoretical
Santorum became the ultimate Washington insider. profiting off of contacts, visavis Gingrich, stealth lobbyist.
Lobbyist Close Connections
Held every-other-Tuesday meetings with lobbyists to brief them on legislation; K Street Project
More contributions from lobbyists than any other senator
Supported unions, earmarks, big spending - "Seen the light" since...
___________________________________________________________________________
CONSERVATIVE SCORES: COMPARING THE TWO
Santorum Romney
Opposition to on-demand abortion Yes Yes
Opposition to same sex marriage Yes Yes
Balanced budget amendment Yes Yes
Tax cuts, opposition to tax increases Yes Yes
Welfare reform Yes Yes
Strong military, strong stands Yes Yes
MBA, J.D (Romney with high honors) Yes Yes
Governing and managment experience Zero Lots
Consulting, ran businesses with excellent record - A+
Governor No Yes
Legislator (of course, as governor one deal w legislation) Yes No
Practiced law (S - 4 years initially, then lobbyist) Yes No
Law? for special interest groups (influence? Wash. insider) Yes No
Historically high large reelection loss, potential for repeat Yes -
__________________________________________________________________________
EXPERIENCE: LAWYER/POLITICIAN, NO MANAGEMENT
Political:
House of Representatives, 4 years: 1990, reelected 1992
1993 sided with Democrat to support legislation that prohibited employers from permanently replacing striking employees (said he voted in his district's interest)
POSITIONS
Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, is a strict anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage social conservative whose lucrative career as a Washington consultant... (See also Too righteous/extreme )
Huge loss of Senate seat
Santorum aimed a television ad suggesting that Casey's supporters had been under investigation for various crimes. The negative ad backfired, as the The Scranton Times-Tribune found that all but a few of Casey's contributors donated when he was running for other offices, and none were investigated for anything.
A heated debate between the candidates occurred on October 11, 2006. Bill Toland of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described both candidates' performances during the debate as "unstatesmanlike."
Lost by 18%, the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980[92] and the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever; lowest favorability rating of all 100 senators.
Endorsed Romney
On February 1, 2008, Santorum said he would vote for Mitt Romney in the 2008 Presidential Republican primary race. "“If you’re a conservative, there really is only one place to go right now. I would even argue farther than that. If you’re a Republican, if you’re a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now, and that’s Mitt Romney.”
Endorsed individual mandate
“And I ran on a patient-driven, consumer-driven health healthcare system that is consistent with the philosophy of America, which is free markets, build it from the bottom up.” (which is what Romney proposed also)
Three reports of:
"Santorum and Watkins ([994 primary opponent] both oppose having businesses provide health care for their employees. Instead, they would require individuals to purchase insurance."
He also co-sponsored a bill with different penalties if employers and also individuals didn't do certain things with regard to health care coverage - in substance the same idea as "fines" for not doing something, the equivalent of the so-called mandate [pay a penalty if you don't do "x"].
Mischaracterizations, incorrect statements about Massachusetts Health Care Bill
- Accused the bill of having caused a five times increase in free riders (who he said preferred paying the fine instead of paying for health insurance; they then used the free care system): Factcheck.org:
1. Romney is right. The percentage of insured residents in the state went up from 93.6 percent in 2006,
the year the law was enacted, to 98.1 percent in 2010.
2. ...show a 46 percent decline in the number of free care medial visits paid for by the state's Health Care Safety net.
3. The number of inpatient discharges and outpaitent visits uner the program went from 2.1 million in 2006 to 1.1 million in 2010.
- Santorum: "The law is a failure and he has stood by it." Factchecked.org : The law succeeded in achieving it main goal: reducing the number of uninsures. As of the end of 2010, 981 percent of state residents and 99.8 percent of children, had insurance.
- Santorum: ...Romney put forth the Massachusetts Health Care bill, which was not a bottom up free market... it was a government-run health care system. (NOT TRUE!) Factchecked.org The Massachusetts law doesn't create a system in which the government is the insurer or provider of health care. Instead it expanded business for private insurers.
- Massachusetts has the highest health insurance premiums of any state in the country. It is 27% more expensive than the average state in the country. Factchecked.org Seven states and the District of Columbia are higher. And it's 5.3% more than the state average. It was that way before Romney became governor.
- Savings: MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised the Romney administration on the health care law, told FactCheck.org that individual market premiums dropped by as much as 40 pecent. We found an 18 percent decrease in premiums when we looked at the indiviual market premium in 2006, per person per month, and compared that with the premium in 2008.
ALSO PROBLEMATIC
Also problematic was Santorum's 2004 endorsement of his Republican Senate colleague Arlen Specter over conservative Congressman Pat Toomey in the 2004 primary for Pennsylvania's other senate seat. Many socially and fiscally conservative Republicans considered the Specter endorsement to be a betrayal of their cause
STEALTH LOBBYIST, ALA GINGRICH
Santorum earned $1.3 million in 2010 and the first half of 2011.
The largest portion of his employment earnings — $332,000 — came from his work as a consultant for industry interest groups, including Consol Energy and American Continental Group. Santorum also earned $395,414 in corporate director's fees and stock options from Universal Health Services, and $217,385 in income from the Ethics and Public Policy Center think tank.[71][103][104] In 2010 he was paid $23,000 by The Philadelphia Inquirer for his work as a freelance columnist.[71]
"FLIP-FLOPS"
Earmarks
He supported costly federal programs in education and transportation and frequently used earmarks to fund Pennsylvania projects.
Though he once defended earmarks as a way to get federal money for needed state projects, he now opposes earmarks,[6] entitlements and big government programs.[5]
Medicare Part D
He now disavows his 2003 support for the unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Union dues requirement; voted against right to work
I believe the state has the right. If they want a union dues requirement, that the state should be able to do that. As a president, I have a very different point of view. I have already signed a letter and sent it to the national right to work that I would sign a national right to work bill because now, I’m no longer representing that state.
Pro-life stance
He says he is pro-life; yet opponents have labelled him a counterfeit conservative[126] pointing to his votes that continued the federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Now he says he does not support it.
1990 cast himself as a progressive conservative who did not have a firm position on abortion.
Ia "pro-choice Republican."
n a separate interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Santorum said he evolved into a more hardened pro-lifer once he gave the issue more thought.
"That's where I am and where I've got to be," he said. "I can't give you an exact date when I arrived at a position. So it was a gradual evolution, I guess."
Not a Reagan Republican
1990: this candidate promised not to be a Reagan Republican. "Progressive conservative"
Criticizes Romney for saying he "didn't want to return to Reagan-Bush", whatever that means.
Impartial on unions
1990, said he was "impartial on unions"
Santorum sided with Democrats to block cuts to federally-funded food stamps programs and to raise the minimum wage.
CONTROVERSIAL, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION VULNERABILITIES
Santorum has stated that he does not believe a "right to privacy" is part of the Constitution
"Santorum's Google problem
In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003,[1] and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.
he did not have a problem with homosexuals, but "a problem with homosexual acts"
the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"
sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family"
"I can't deny that I said it, and I can't deny that's how I feel."[
At another event, Santorum suggested that children would better off having a father in prison than being raised by lesbian parents.[
Vulnerability here: sharp criticism from Howard Dean that "gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral"
"Just take a peek at Rick Santorum's Big Government voting record, not just his current rhetoric, it's clear he is also a counterfeit conservative,"
Paul attacked Santorum for everything from voting to raise taxes on oil companies and expanding the Department of Education to voting to send foreign aid to North Korea.
‘I don’t believe breast cancer research is advanced by funding an organisation that does abortions where you’ve seen ties to cancer and abortions.’
Mr Santorum’s statement on the conservative station seemed to have little basis in fact. According to a large 2007 study conducted by the Archives of Internal Medicine showed there was no link between abortions and breast cancer.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097021/Rick-Santorum-doesnt-believe-federal-funding-Planned-Parenthood-ties-cancer-abortion.html#ixzz1m1fABEIq
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097021/Rick-Santorum-doesnt-believe-federal-funding-Planned-Parenthood-ties-cancer-abortion.html#ixzz1m1f5vfO7
You can say well, it's not that anymore. It’s not far from where it was in my opinion in its activities and its motivations
voting to subsidize abortion and Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in America, while serving in the U.S. Senate. He has also backed pro-abortion candidates and voted for legislation that is being used to federally prosecute peaceful pro-life protesters who demonstrate outside of abortion clinics. Critics are outraged.
Santorum had "a long and storied history of campaigning for radical pro-abortion candidates” such as former Sen. Arlen Specter
Beyond abortion, Santorum’s voting record in the Senate also includes other evidence that the GOP hopeful is not quite as “conservative” as he would like voters to believe. For example, he supported unconstitutional gun control, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, raising the debt ceiling, invading Iraq without a declaration of war, and expanding the unconstitutional Department of Education. He also backed indefinite detentions, torture, removing habeas corpus, and other legislation repugnant to American traditions and the Constitution.
ABILITY TO ORGANIZE AND RUN A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN
Although he is raising more money, he has shown no ability to run an organization and has been largely a do-it-yourself "person to person" candidate.
CONTRACEPTION
“One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.
ON HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE RIGHTS TO INVADE THE BEDROOM
In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003,[1] and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.
he did not have a problem with homosexuals, but "a problem with homosexual acts"
the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"
sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family"
When Jordan asked "Okay, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?" Santorum's response concluded:[7]
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —" (At this point, Jordan commented, "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", coining a phrase widely used in connection with this incident.)[7]
has a record of backing certain social policies based upon the notion that government exists to ensure a certain behavior from its citizens
the spending he voted — including budget deficits and expanding Medicare by $9 trillion — will no doubt lead to tax hikes down the road
But those on the right who embrace Santorum as an alternative should do so with no illusions. To his credit, Santorum did not support the kind of mandate and subsidize approach to health care as Romney, but as Senator, he still voted like a big government Republican on many occasions. Some of this had to do with being a loyal soldier during the Bush era, when he backed the Medicare prescription drug plan and No Child Left Behind. But a lot of it had to do with his parochialism.
As a Senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum took earmarks, pushed a support program for dairy farmers, sided with unions and backed steel tariffs. In these instances, when free market principles clashed with local concerns, he abandoned limited government conservatives.
He worked as a lobbyist, then worked in congress, and then went back to being a lobbyist.
HOW SANTORUM WON THE THREE STATES
Painting Romney as a liberal and himself as the only true conservative, threw suspicion that Romney wouldn't be conservative. No difference between Romney and Obama, a hugely false statemetn.
In all 3 of these states his favorability is over 70%- 74/17 in Minnesota, 72/17 in Missouri, and 71/19 in Colorado. He's far better liked than his main opponents- Romney's favorability is 47-60% in those states and Gingrich's is 47-48%
Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, and those describing themselves as 'very conservative.'
Santorum (36 percent) is seen by GOP primary voters as the candidate most “in touch” with everyday Americans.
When talking about Gingrich, the first thing that comes up in conversation is that he’s been married multiple times (17 percent), that “he has big, sometimes unrealistic ideas” (14 percent), and he was speaker of the House (14 percent). Smaller percentages say the first thing is Gingrich’s consulting work for Fannie & Freddie (9 percent) or his debate skills (9 percent).
By a 50-35 percent margin, voters overall say a Washington outsider could do a better job than an insider of making things work in Washington. Among Republican primary voters, the preference for an outsider is even greater -- 59-28 percent.
GOP primary voters are about ten times more likely to describe former Speaker Gingrich as a Washington insider than any of the other Republican contenders. And who is seen as a political outsider? Some 25 percent say Romney and 14 percent say Santorum.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/fox-news-poll-santorum-surges-nationally-after-three-state-sweep/#ixzz1m1pCHbNr
doesn’t gain anything by winning - but stands to lose a lot if they come up short. *****
Despite the transparent efforts of his rivals to remind America that he is indeed less than perfect (only Democrats can claim such a mantle) Rick Santorum not only possesses an extremely admirable track record as a conservative powerhouse during his sixteen years in the Congress and Senate, he has made the best and most consistent case for conservatism during this campaign season. Considering the dire straits in which the nation currently finds itself, and the widely recognized need for decisive and unshakable action to fix the mess, Santorum’s hard-headed resolve looks increasingly appealing to middle-America.
not concerned with the very poor
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/fox-news-poll-santorum-surges-nationally-after-three-state-sweep/#ixzz1m1oxMaGI
providing business and strategic counseling services to the firm's clients. In 2007, he joined the Board of Directors of Universal Health Services, a hospital management company based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.[101] He also began writing an Op/Ed column, "The Elephant in the Room", for the The Philadelphia Inquirer.[102]
Santorum earned $1.3 million in 2010 and the first half of 2011. The largest portion of his employment earnings — $332,000 — came from his work as a consultant for industry interest groups, including Consol Energy and American Continental Group. Santorum also earned $395,414 in corporate director's fees and stock options from Universal Health Services, and $217,385 in income from the Ethics and Public Policy Center think tank.[71][103][104] In 2010 he was paid $23,000 by The Philadelphia Inquirer for his work as a freelance columnist.[71]
whose life experience was “shaped primarily about politics.”
Rick Santorum’s social-conservative credentials are unquestioned, they have led to him making controversial comments, including criticizing “radical feminists” for encouraging women to enter the workforce, and comparing homosexuality to “man-on-dog” sex. Fortunately for him, these may cost him among independents and swing voters in a general election but are unlikely to wound him in a Republican primary.
STEALTH LOBBYIST, WASHINGTON INSIDER
Rick Santorum entered Congress with modest means. But not long after he left in 2006, the former two-term senator reaped the rewards of his time on Capitol Hill, earning more than $1 million last year in cash and stock for advising corporate clients, sharing his insights with social organizations, and consulting for media outlets.
"He has been, essentially, a stealth lobbyist," said Bill Allison, editorial director for the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. "He has been hired to try to influence policy on behalf of his clients without crossing the thresholds that would require him to report what he's doing."
Santorum accepted paid consultant jobs for insurance and energy firms with key issues pending before the politician's former colleagues.
The work has been lucrative -- in 1996 he reported assets ranging from $155,000 to $475,000 on the personal financial disclosure form he filed with the Senate. The report he filed in August 2011 as he began his presidential bid show his assets are now valued between $1.9 million and $4 million, including rental properties and robust investment and college savings funds.
Since leaving Congress Santorum has worked for at least seven different employers simultaneously, with several paying him a six-figure fee. As long as Santorum was not directly contacting members of Congress on behalf of his clients, he was not required to register as a federal lobbyist and disclose his activities. Only when he filed to run for president did he have to reveal these financial relationships.
He signed on with the American Continental Group, a lobbying firm co-founded by the late Peter Terpeluk, Jr., an ambassador and one-time finance chairman for the Republican National Committee. There he has reported helping insurance giant Fortegra Financial. Lobbying reports show the Florida-based insurance company hired the D.C. lobbying firm to help monitor the potential impact that Wall Street reform legislation would have on its business.
Allison said someone like Santorum would be extremely valuable in that regard. "He's an expert on the legislative process. He knows who the players are," Allison said. "Even if he's not contacting people, he can tell them where the levers are, who is receptive to hearing a message. And he also knows how the system works with money and influence, and can offer advice about who to contribute to, which leadership PACs to pump money."
Santorum also joined the board of Universal Health Services Inc. (UHS), a publicly traded health-care management firm that owns hospitals and healthcare facilities around the country. The company paid him nearly $400,000 in director fees and stock options before he stepped down from the board last year. The company has long served as a source of political support for Santorum, with company CEO Alan B. Miller serving as a major contributor to the senator and, now, presidential candidate.
Santorum's resume contrasts with campaign rhetoric that casts him as an outsider who would shake up Washington. It also appears at odds with the image that Santorum stresses as a candidate with hardscrabble roots in blue-collar Pennsylvania and as the grandson of an Italian immigrant coal miner.
Much of the money Santorum earned in recent years was for his work as a board member for a large health care company and consulting for a Pennsylvania energy company and a Washington lobbying firm.
Santorum's service on the board of a hospital conglomerate provided much of his income in recent years.
Santorum reported receiving $395,414 in director fees and stock options from Universal Health Services Inc., a hospital management company. He left the board last year as he launched his presidential bid. Santorum listed between $100,001 and $250,000 in Universal Health stock.
Santorum later focused on the states holding votes on February 7, a strategy that paid off as the former Pennsylvania Senator won all three
