Rick Santorum: Blog Endorses Santorum for President of teh United States

This blog has said from the beginning that RickSantorum is probably the most solid conservative in the GOP field, but he has not previoiusly gained any traction.


Therefore, this blog has previously endorsed Michele Bachmann , and then Herman Cain. The reason, in both cases, was that this blog believes that we need not just a "conservative", but a person who will SHAKE UP an establishment (GOP and Democrat) which is fiddling while Rome--that is, America--burns (not to mention th eworld, for which we are no longer providing any kind of god example at all). This blog withdrew its endorsement of Michele Bachmann-NOT because of media SMEAR ATTACKS, but becaue she proved a disappointment at actually converying the conservative message and--more importantly--a disappointment at actually proposeing ACTIOIN in Congress that had an impact. Bachmann's failure to do anything about the gOP adopting the Senate two-month "payroll ttax cut" bill by 'unimous consent" (or whatever) showed that this blog was corrrect to withdraw its endorsement of her. This blog never withdrew its endrosement of Herman Cain, and never would have becaue of the RACIST attacks upon him. The only way Cain could have lost this blog's endorsement was the same way Bachmann did: by disappointing on his seeming ability to shake things up in Washington. Cain, however, left the race without ever having forfeited this blog's endorsement (for any otehr reason), despite some indications that Cain's inexperience and lack of having really thought a lot o fissues through was going to be a problem., Boldness makes up for a lot, and Cain was BOLD. Santourum is not, or at least does not come across that way . He comes across as something of a standard politician, although a solid conservative all of his political career (which cannot be said of Gingrich or Romney). You can argue that Santourm is a more THOOUGHTFUL, experienced conservative who might actually get things done. He would definitely have been considered for endorsement, instead of Bachmann or Cain, if Santorum had seemed able to get any traction for being more than a standard politician who has just decided he wants to be President (albeit a solidly conservative standard politician, which distinguishes Santourm from the rest).


The last pronouncement from this blog was that I would consider another endorsement ONLY of Rick Santourm or Michele Bachmann (again), but only if either showed signs of being able to actuallyl carry the conservative message to the people. Otherwise, the endorsement would be an exercise in futulity (even beyojnd the fact that my endorsement mayy not carry much weight with enough people). Well, Rick Santorum is now showing some SIGNS that he is gaining traction with his conservative message in Iowa. As you should know, this blog considers polls as EVIL things which should be elimintated from American life (which we all could do simply by refusing to cooperate). Thus, this blog discounts the CNN poll showing Santorum up to 16% in Iowa--a "gain" of 11%. Nevertheless, something is going on. It is enough for this blog to formally endorse Rick Santorum for President of the United States. He appears to be the ONLY chance to have a real conservative--if not one as bold as I would like him to beo--as the nominee of the GOP (Grand, Outdated Party). And I can happpily support Sntorum for President (now, anyway, remembering how many betrayals conservatives have suffered in the past). I do not delud myself--again, at least at this point--that Santorum is the second coming of Ronald Reagan. But he would be the second most conservative President (if he lives up to his past record) in my lifetime, and the third most consrevative NOMINEE of the GOP in my lifetime (behind Reagan and Goldwater, although it is underestimated just how conservative Eisenhower was because Eisenhower was a consummate politician who was not an effective ADVOCATE of conservatism, even if he practiced it, without, perhaps, being a "true believer").


Santorum opposed that fraudulent "payroll tax cut". Baachmann opposed it, as well, but Bachmannn had the misisfortune to be in Congress and BETRAY conservatives on the issue there (by not taking on the GOP "leadershi" in Congress, even to forcing a vote on that last betrayal). Santorum has been a solid, CONSISTENT "social issue" conservative, as well as a consistent economic conservative. As stated, his main"downside" is that he has difficuluty "exciting" people. At times,he has been good in the debattes. At times, he has been disappointing,--sounding too mcu like a standard politician. Part of this may be because he has often had sparse OPPORTUNITIES in the debates, as he has had to PSH to even be included in the questioning.


I don't see that Romney is more "electable" than Santorum. Be honest: Do you really see many people who are EXCITED byRomney? Romney is simply unable to CNNECAT to the common man. Santorum is challenged that way, as well, but hardly to the degree that Ropmney is. Santroum HAS won elections in Pennsylvania by CONNECTING with the kind of people the GOP needs to beat Obama. The only people Romney has ever "connected" with enough to WIN an election are the LEFTISTS of Massachusetts. Romney's only "advantage" is that he has business experience, and can "seem" more "Presidential" than Santorum. These just don't seem enough to give Romney an edge in being "electable".


Let us be frank here. WHY is it that the GOP establishment, and the media establishment, say that Romney is more "acceptable" to "independents"? It is becaues the political and media establishment BELIEVE that Romney is a LIAR on things like abortion. Romney SAYS he is just as pro-life as Santorm. Romney SAYS he is against homosexaul marriage. Romney SAYS things that are jsut about as conservative on "social issues" as Santorum. If anything, the Mormon Church is MORE CONSERVATIVE than the Cahotlic Church on things like premarital sex (which Romney and his wife DNEIED, in answer to that truly dsigraceful and EFIL "Sixty Minutes" question in 2008) . Santorum, owever, actually TALKS about "faith" and "family" as if he BLIEVES it, and has been CONSISTENT his whole life. The media does not BELIEVE that Romney is a "true conservative" on these issues, and the media thinks independents think that way too. That is because the media believes that "independents" are UNBELIEVERS just like the members of the media, and jsut like leftists like Nancy Pelosi and BarackObama. The media agrees with Bill Maher that many of these politicians are not really religous, but merely pretending for political conveninece. You do get the impression that Santorum REALLY BELIEVES, which is to his credit (even when I don't share the religious beliefs themselves).


The mistake Santourm maay make, if he listens to the GOP establishment AFTER he is nominated, will be to BACK OFF his positoins on "social issues"--to try to dowan play them. Sure, it would be an even bigger mistake for Santorum to put his EMPHASIS on "social issues', instead of the obviously dominant economic issues. But it is NOT TURE that the conservative position on "social issues' is a "loser". That is simpoly where the GOP and media establishment stand, because THEY don't believe in ANYTHING (except their own generally leftist agenda).


Thus, this blog is glad to endorse Rick Santorum for President, especially as it means that this blog sees a cHANCE that a conservative may yet emerge to take the nomination That conservative, at this point, can ONOLYY be RickSantorum (barring a deadlocked convention).


Note that this blog has been proven RIGHT yet again. Ever since 2008, this blog has told you that Newt Gingrich will never be President (and that this blog could never support Gingrich for President, even if he--by some miracle--got nominated). For a abiref while, it seemed that there was a CHANCE that this blog could be WRONG (not about Gingrich on sustance, but about whether Gingrich might actually WIN). That show you should NEVER doubt this blog . Gingrich will not be the nominee. Neither will Ron Paul (even though Ron Paul, nuts though he is, is one of the three GOP candidates who I could VOTGE FOR asPresident--along with Santorum and Bachmann). Romney still looks like the most likely nominee, and the establishment is "all in" as the "full court press' has begun for Romney. This blog, of courfse, has already stated that I could NOT support Romney for President, even against Obama. This istrue even though I supportred Romney in 2008. My opinion of Romney has gone DOWN almot every day since 2008 (along with my opinion of the GOP establishment and the unfair and unbalanced network). No, it is not even RomneyCare that bothers me. No, I would not do 'RomneyCaere", even on a state level, but I AGREE with Romney that states SHOULD make that decisions (and that states have the POWER to make that decision, without violating the Constitution). However, on so many things Romney sounds just like Obama--from teh 'payroll tax cut" to the Romney capital gains tax cut "for the iddle class" (using the same Obama cutoff of $200,000) to the way he sounds about "global warming". Romney just comes across as a Big Government guywho thinks he can MANAGE better than Obama. And I am sure he can. I jsut don't think "management" is what we now need. We need a NEW APPROACH. We will not get it from Romney, and we will not get an ADVOCATE for conservative principles.


Santorum is it. Absent new entrants, somehow, this will be the LAST endorsement this blog will make. As I did in 2008, when Limbaugh BETRAYED conservatives by failing to endorse Romney IN TIME to derailMcCain, I challenge Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest to PSH FOR SANTORUM. Just as my judgment told me in 208 that Romney was the only REASONABLE alternative to teh terrible McCain, my judgment tells me that Santorum is now the only REASONABLE alternative to Romney (not as terrible as McCain, but still the poster child for "politic as usual'). No, I will have NO sympathy with Ru;sh Limbaugh and the rest when they WHINE about Romney, if they do not even TRY to get behind an alternataive. Really, if they don't pickSantorum as the only reasonable alternative, they need to explain what OTHER alternative there NOW is. If they can't, then they neeed to go with Santorum, or SJHUT UP about theGOP not nominating a conservative. Limbaugh admittted I was RIGHT in 2008, but did so TOO LATE. Will he make the SAME MISTAKE again? Stay tuned.


Oh, by the way, Iowa is looking even more meaningless as far as CHJOOSING a nominee. It is more likely to MUDDLE the question. That CNN poll had FIVE peple within "strikig distance": Ron Paul (who will not get the nomination, but will retain support until the end), Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry. Bachmann could even do a little better than expected. Unless Romney gets a SUBSTANTIAL victory in Iowa, it will mean NOATHING as far as who the WINNER will ultimately be. As previously stated in this blog, the main effect will be as to someone like Santorum. IF Santorum can mark hiself as a SERIOUS contender to Romney, then Iowa will mean something (as it did for Huckabee). It will NOT mean that Santorum will WIN the nomination, even if he were to WIN Iowa. But Iowa could give him his SHOT. That is really all he can expect, and what he has been aiming ata all of these months. Maye his strategy will be vindicated, although he will then face the HUCKABEE challenge of winning the nomination without establishment support or MAJOR MONEY. Again, the establishment--including the unfair and unbalanced network---WANTS ROMNEY. They may not be as nervous about Santorum as they were about Bachmann and Cain (and are about Paul), but these peole are ANTI-CONSERVATIVE. Never doubt it.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).