2012 Contender: Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum believes in families, which is a real change of pace from those other candidates, who advocate the forcible separation of families. Rick believes in “freedom” too, only his definition and yours probably aren’t the same. Beyond that, it gets kind of hazy. One thing is clear though, Rick loves to paint himself as the victim. This isn’t going to be pretty.

1. Compassionate Conservatism: In 2005, Rick called himself a believer in “compassionate conservatism,” which should send up huge red flags for conservatives everywhere. His website sends up more red flags.

According to Rick’s website, Rick believes in “healthy families,” in the American experience, in compassion and in freedom, and that's about as specific as it gets. But here’s the interesting thing. Rick is well known to be obsessed with gays and abortion. Yet, his website barely mentions either. He never uses the words “gay” or “homosexual,” and he only mentions gay marriage by saying that he tried to protect “traditional marriage” from “activist judges” back whenever that happened. And he only uses the word “abortion” once, when he says he opposed “partial-birth abortion” and he voted for a couple pro-life bills. That's it. He doesn’t even say what he believes in these areas or if he has any plans with regard to these issues. This is a serious red flag. Any candidate who hides their agenda, no matter what that agenda is, should not be trusted.

Besides hiding what he believes, Rick also tries to paint himself as the victim, claiming he had to stand up to his own party, to “the liberal elite,” and to a media that ridiculed him and called him a “bigot” for sticking to his beliefs. . . whatever they may be. You will see this becomes a common theme.

Rick also recently gave an interview to Rush which is worth noting. While he kept talking about “freedom,” his definition of freedom was “not economic” and “does not mean doing whatever you want.” Instead, he defined “freedom” as “living life according to a Christian code.” This is the “freedom” he “intends to fight for and protect” as President. Naturally, he never said how he intends to impose his religion through government policy, but two parts of his record give us clues as to how he would use government force in this manner:

● He tried to include an amendment in the No Child Left Behind Act that would have required public schools to teach Intelligent Design as science. His amendment was not approved.

● Under the guise of religious freedom, he authored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which forces employers to accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs. Fortunately, this bill did not pass.

2. Economics: N/A. He does not mention a single economic policy he seeks to implement.

FYI, here are the economic achievements he trumpets on his website:

● Rick supported a Balanced Budget Amendment and Line Item Veto in 1994.

● Rick supported the 1996 Welfare Reform law.

● Rick supported the Bush tax cuts.

● In 2005, Rick argued that we should fix social security. . . somehow.

These aren't horrible, but there's a catch. In each instance, Rick describes himself as a leader on the issue and describes how he "spearheaded" it. He also makes constant references to sticking his neck out or putting his political career at risk in supporting these bills. But none of that is true. He was never more than a co-sponsor, if even, and in each instance these bills had overwhelming bipartisan support.

Rick also suggests that he's a Tea Party person, though he endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, he voted to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs, and he was a noted porker. He says he opposes crony capitalism, but he actually tried to use federal legislation to shut down a competitor to a local contributor (Accuweather). And he works for a large K-street law firm.

3. Foreign Policy: Rick believes in American exceptionalism, which he thinks has something to do with 9/11, and he won’t “back down from those who wish to destroy America.” (No word on whether he would back down from those who only wish to maim us or take our stuff.) To protect us, Rick wants to change the name of the “War on Terror” to the “War on Radical Islam.” I'm not kidding. That's his plan. . . because going from WOT to WORI should make all the difference.

He claims that in 2003, he authored the Syria Accountability Act, which imposes some sanctions on Syria. But the bill was actually written by a House Democrat and came to the Senate after passing the House. It passed the Senate 89-4 and was signed by Bush.

He then adds that in 2005, he authored the Iran Freedom and Support Act (to give money to pro-democracy protesters), in the face of intense Democratic and Bush Administration opposition. And Rick paints himself as the victim of a media smear campaign for his unwavering insistence that Ahmadinejad poses a threat. But that's not true. There was no opposition. The bill passed the House by voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent and was signed by Bush, who praised this as an example of bipartisanship at work. And there's no evidence of the media smearing him for this.

He also claims that in 2005 he became “one of the nation’s first leaders to understand the threat posed by Iran.” Never mind that the problems with Iran started in 1979 and the nuclear issue first became known well before 2005.

Conclusion

Santorum has a demonstrated record of self-aggrandizement and falsely wrapping himself in the victim flag. These are not conservative traits. What’s more, he’s being deceptive about his goals and he has no economic policy. . . none. In fact, he hasn't announced a single goal or policy he hopes to implement in any area. Is it any wonder Rick managed to set a record for the largest loss ever by an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania. Would he make a good President? I can’t see how.

P.S. Tune in tomorrow night for Thaddeus McCotter. You might be surprised.