Rebuttal to Santorum being the true anti-Mitt

Daniel Greenfield wrote an article entitled, “The One True Anti-Romney,” which turns out to be much more balanced than the title would suggest.  However, it gets a couple of things wrong.  My rebuttal is below.

I must say I had a knee jerk reaction to the title that seemed to be another Canada Free Press writer who is completely blind to the facts of the so called "conservatives." I commend the writer for his balance, but disdain whoever gave it that title.

However.

The writer still demeans Gingrich as not being 'above' charges of 'big government' actions.  True, Gingrich advocated Medicare Senior Drug program.  But Santorum was actually in power to vote on it and did.  Also, Gingrich's reasoning for his support (although flawed) was a strategy to reduce entitlements eventually. Santorum on the other hand EMBRACES George Bush government solutions to "Compassionate Conservatism" for the SAKE of spending money. (his 2005 speech here - http://race42012.com/2011/11/09/what-if-_this_-rick-santorum-ran-for-president/)

Look at earmarks under their two respective terms in congress.  Rick was as bad as most in his attempts to obtain pork and even battled Jim Demint who wanted to eliminate them.  (Ref: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/04/this-wont-play-well-in-south-carolina/) 

Not only did Gingrich oppose Santorum and stand with Demint, Santorum yesterday LIED about Demint's position to make himself look better.

Graft?  Santorum's campaign STILL hasn't given any serious reason for the favorable mortgage he got from the bank for which he lobbied and obtained Federal money. 

Knock Gingrich all you want on Freddie Mac but A) Freddie was a private corporation that has assisted about 75% of all mortgages in America (likely including yours dear reader) B) Gingrich himself profited only about $35K a year and NONE for lobbying while being a PRIVATE citizen, and C) Bloomberg has corroborated that Gingrich told Freddie Mac to reform.  Be as ignorant as you want that somehow FNMA and FHLMC are evil entities but until the late 90's (after Gingrich was out of office) they packaged and resold GOOD loans on the market to provide liquidity to smaller banks and mortgage companies.

It sounds like I'm defending Gingrich here and I'm really not.  I've written extensively on my problems with his softness on climate change understanding, weakness on subsidies and ignorance on the Senior Drug Program.

The best line in this article is the truth: There are no Porshe's here. (And if we were honest we'd find out that Reagan, Thatcher and other supposed canonized conservatives weren't quite so clean and pure on these issues as we remember.)

But the title seems to assume Santorum is the best chance against Romney when, in actual fact, his record is WEAKER as a conservative than Gingrich save his unwillingness to go with Heritage Foundation and majority of conservatives on the mandate against HillaryCare.  And he should get kudos for that.

So if these mutually admitted "very good friends" are essentially the same in policy (give or take), do you want someone that lost his seat by 18 percent against a Democrat and facilitated the Democrat control of the Senate - or someone that engineered the most historic conservative takeover of the Congress in US history?  Do you want someone who cant even inspire a majority of the Tea Party to follow him or perhaps the greatest rhetorical leader we have today?  Don't forget,  only about 22% of American voters are as socially conservative as Rick Santorum.  Not only does he have to convince the remainder of the GOP and the Independents to follow him, he has to sell and defend his initiatives amidst an extremely agitated, hostile and social-conservative-fearing MSM and electorate.  This idea that somehow middle American voters are going to suddenly just accept that gay marriage is wrong because Rick believes it is truly naive.

I am NOT saying he can’t do it.  But it is an uphill battle for someone that is not shown ANY leadership quality among his own peers, let alone set a national agenda the way Gingrich has.  Santorum has YET to get a major endorsement FROM ANYONE in Congress.  Yes there are a bunch of RINO’s there and if it’s John McCain – you can keep it.  But not even among CONSERVATIVES has he picked up an endorsement.  When people like Thomas Sowell and Art Laffer endorse someone, it’s not a guarantee of any future victory or a prophecy of future success in governing – but these hero’s of conservative thought putting their reputations on the line isn’t “nothing” either.

I suspect Santorum would be as good or better than Gingrich in foreign policy and certainly on everything except his economic plan.  What he needs to do to galvanize the conservative vote and beat Mitt is found here. 

I promise you it’s entertaining if nothing else.