Ten Reasons Why My Iowa Caucus Vote Goes to Rick Santorum


Samaritan's Purse - Helping In Jesus' Name

I put a lot of thought in who I was going to support on January 3rd when we have our Iowa Caucus.  Eliminating who I wasn’t going to vote for was a lot easier than making my final decision after narrowing it down to four.  By last week I had narrowed my decision to two, but after prayerful consideration I am confident in my choice of who I would like to see be our next President.  That person is the former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.

This isn’t an anti-endorsement of the other candidates as I think many of them have merit and strengths and I would be happy to support them in a general election should they win the nomination.  It also doesn’t mean my candidate of choice lacks weaknesses or is perfect.  There was only one Person who walked the face of the earth who was (and is) perfect and He isn’t on the ballot.

Why am I choosing Rick Santorum?  Ten reasons:

  1. He is a man of integrity.  What you see is what you get.  There hasn’t been any doublespeak.  He doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet.  He doesn’t flip flop.  He’s a strong family man. If you spend any time around him it is quite evident that he loves his wife Karen and their seven children.  He has strong character, and is faithful both to his family and God.
  2. He has consistently articulated and boldly defended a worldview that closely aligns with mine.  This doesn’t mean we agree 100% on every issue, but he understands that our rights come from God and that man’s law cannot and should not trump the laws of nature and nature’s God.  He understands that since our rights come from God it is government’s role to protect those rights not add to or subtract from them.  I agree with him when he has talked about some people’s position on the 10th Amendment as “states’ rights run amok.”  I agree with him when he said that an individual state does not have the right to legislate wrong.
  3. He has been a faithful champion of the family.  He has been so for years, and this campaign has been no different.  I had mentioned that he was spot on when bringing up the fact that the chief cause of poverty is the break-up of the family.
  4. He has been a faithful champion for life.  He believes in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.  He has a solid track record on life.  He will be an advocate for a personhood amendment to our constitution and fight for the advancement of the prolife cause, not just give it lip service.
  5. He has a tangible social and cultural policy agenda that outlines what executive orders he’ll issue and legislative directives that will be areas of priority.  One of which is the elimination of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
  6. He will be a champion for parental rights and religious liberty.  As a homeschooling father that is vitally important to me.  He also understands that the ultimate stakeholder with the education of children are parents, and that they, not the State, are the ones who bear responsibility.  He will scale back all federal expansion into the area of education, and undo what has been done unconstitutionally through executive order.
  7. Not only is he a solid social conservative, but he is a proven fiscal conservative as well.  His leadership with welfare reform has unfortunately been largely ignored.  The National Taxpayer Union has deemed him to be a “friend of the taxpayer.”  His plan to help expand manufacturing jobs is specific, bold and I believe doable early in his first term.  If passed it would surely make a positive impact on manufacturers.  He was against TARP and the Stimulus packages from the beginning.  He also understands that Obamacare must be repealed and federal entitlement spending mandates on the states must end.
  8. He understands our national security threats.  Many people who focus on just his social conservative record tend to forget that he is a foreign policy wonk (that was the focus of a lot of his work post-Senate).  He was one of the first to see the threat in Iran.  He believes in American exceptionalism and understands what it will take to defend our nation against future threats.
  9. He is a fighter and I have no doubt he would match up well against President Obama in a debate.
  10. Frankly, he’s earned my endorsement.  Nobody has campaigned harder in Iowa than Rick Santorum.  He’s kept his promise to campaign in every one of our 99 counties, nobody else in the field has come close to that kind of commitment to our state.
He is a full-spectrum Reagan conservative.  He’s a man of character.  Hes’s a proven champion for the family and life.  He has a proven record of ending federal entitlement spending.  He understands and recognizes threats to our national security and is not afraid to meet those threats.  I commend Senator Santorum to you, and am proud to give him my support in the Iowa Caucus on January 3rd.  I encourage all of my readers whatever state they may live in to take a close look at his record and experience  and support him in your state’s caucus or primary as well.
Picture by Dave Davidson – Prezography.com

Update: I’m in good company Iowa conservative grassroots activist and campaign vet, Chuck Laudner, just endorsed Santorum as well.

Please read our comment policy before leaving a comment.

  • Jamie Johnson

    Yes! Thank you, Shane! You are one of many endorsements that the Santorum Campaign will be receiving in the next couple of weeks!

  • Argon

    I can’t go with Santorum. I recall Santorum’s lap-dog performance under Bush-II too well (96+% alignment). He voted for the Medicare Part-D and the Bush tax cuts which helped drive this country deeply into debt. He’s also been in favor of a balanced budget Constitutional amendment (sounds good to the simple-minded, but terrible fiscal policy), a ban on flag burning (contra Bill of Rights), loosened restrictions on wiretapping, and permitting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He voted against investigations of how contracts where awarded in the Iraq & Afghanistan.

    So I wouldn’t call him a Constitutional or fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatives ensure that we have the fiscal reserves to fight the wars they want. They don’t write blank checks and forgo oversight. He is a social conservative. Simply being a social conservative cannot cover a host of other problems with his actual legislative record (as opposed to the ‘policy’ positions he’s adopted since being voted out of the Senate).

    And again, he’d lose in the general election.

  • Argon

    I can’t go with Santorum. I recall Santorum’s lap-dog performance under Bush-II too well (96+% alignment). He voted for the Medicare Part-D and the Bush tax cuts which helped drive this country deeply into debt. He’s also been in favor of a balanced budget Constitutional amendment (sounds good to the simple-minded, but terrible fiscal policy), a ban on flag burning (contra Bill of Rights), loosened restrictions on wiretapping, and permitting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He voted against investigations of how contracts where awarded in the Iraq & Afghanistan.

    So I wouldn’t call him a Constitutional or fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatives ensure that we have the fiscal reserves to fight the wars they want. They don’t write blank checks and forgo oversight. He is a social conservative. Simply being a social conservative cannot cover a host of other problems with his actual legislative record (as opposed to the ‘policy’ positions he’s adopted since being voted out of the Senate).

    And again, he’d lose in the general election.

    • Anonymous

      Okay.

      But who’s your candidate?

      • Argon

        Huntsman is probably the only one in the main field who could beat Obama. But as I noted in a thread elsewhere, he’s a bit too reality based to win the primaries.

      • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

        “a bit too reality based to win the primaries”

        Outstanding! Not surprising that Huntsman was rejected before he opened his mouth. His brand of conservatism is simply not extreme enough.

      • David j Shedlock

        Huntsman is a conservative?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LB3LDHWZXK7GXIW6DYVOYSVPHE SJ

        You don’t believe it?  Just ask Hillary Clinton.  LOL.   

      • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

        From Politico:

        Huntsman has a strong pro-life record, both as a chief executive, signing several innovative pro-life laws as Utah’s governor from 2005 to 2009, and as a private citizen, as a father of seven, two adopted. He also supports gun rights and has an unwavering commitment to Israel.

        Huntsman signed the largest tax cut in Utah history. During his tenure, the state was named the nation’s “best managed” by the Pew Center on the States, and cited as one of the top three states in which to do business. Forbes labeled Huntsman’s Utah the most “fiscally fit” state for its combination of low debt and taxes and low unemployment.

        On the hustings, Huntsman has already voiced support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, and has pledged to repeal Obamacare.

        Not that Huntsman is a perfect conservative candidate. He does look like a moderate on the environment and immigration, as well as in his support of civil unions for gay couples — though he has opposed gay marriage.

      • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

        Even Erick Erickson at Red State concedes this about Huntsman:

        I still find it shocking that the guy running as the liberal in the race, or at least the media accepted moderate, came up withe boldest, most conservative economic plan. His deficit reduction plan alone makes all the others look weak.

      • Anonymous

        Bob . . . did you clear that comment about being “opposed to gay marriage” with Argon-head?  He may not appreciate your future adulations and genuflecting over his comments if he suspects you are a closet homophobic!

        Next time . . . do the right thing: Talk to AH BEFORE you post something that might not be quite politically correct!

      • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

        Prefer not to belittle other commenters.

      • Argon

        Thanks Bob.

      • Anonymous

        Yes Bob. Thanks. You may continue to fawn over every leftist thing Argon-head says for your abeyance.

      • Anonymous

        Oh heavens no . . . never say anything negative about a liberal. We don’t want to hurt their sensitivities while their busy destroying the social fabric of our nation . . . wouldn’t be sporting would it?

      • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

        I find comments that belittle others to be more of a reflection of ourselves than others.

      • Anonymous

        Interesting . . . I find that people who won’t stand for something . . . will fall for anything.

      • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

        You did it again. I rest my case.

      • Anonymous

        So did you . . . I rest mine.

      • Argon

        Yes. Don’t confuse being a ‘theocratic culture warrior’ with ‘Conservative’. He’s just not part of the culture of denial that characterizes much of GOP field.

      • Anonymous

        Ok . . . and I won’t confuse you with anyone that matters . . . .

      • Anonymous

        Who is “Huntsman?”

      • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

        Exactly!

      • Anonymous

        As opposed to you . . . who has lost all basis in reality.

        By the way: who is “Huntsman?”

    • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

      Have to agree with your assessment Argon. In addition I’d add that he simply does not seem to have experience leading on a large scale. 

    • Anonymous

      “So I wouldn’t call him a Constitutional or fiscal conservative.”

      That’s ok . . . I wouldn’t call you anything but a libtard nutjob!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christopher-Levi/1580899777 Christopher Levi

    Thank you for your thougthful analysis. Santorum is on my short list for many of the same reasons.

    An analysis of any candidates principles is more important than a piecemeal consideration of his or her position on the issues. Santorum’s principles are right on.

  • Kevin Subra

    Santorum is at the top of my list. I did feel that his policy announcements at Friday’s event showed that he is holding an inconsistent view on life. If life begins at conception (which he states and which I agree with), why would he be OK passing a law allowing abortion prior to the time when a baby feels pain (as an interim measure)? That caught me off guard (chest wound). Why would it be OK to champion or pass such a bill, and still be for the personhood amendment? That is a glaring inconsistency in my eyes.

    I’m also curious how one could determine pain in pre-born children, and if, since we can be put in a state of painlessness (for surgeries, etc.) if that really determines anything. If “no pain” is the threshold, we’ve prevented no abortions if we can indeed remove the element of pain. (Great argument for euthanasia.)

    If one is a person at conception, then all such abortion is murder. Incremental protection of some is still a death sentence for the rest.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXXXUOD2FJVQDGGVQOVN4NTNPM juliecache

      Yay! I was not the only one confused on Friday when he started talking about the age at which a person feels pain.

    • http://anonymoustroll.myopenid.com/ anonymous

      He thinks an incremental, imperfect action to protect life is better than none at all. He also obviously prefers a complete solution, such as the Human Life Amendment, but he relies on the theory that something is better than nothing, as most pro-lifers do. (Same theory is behind the push to ban partial-birth abortions.)

      • Kevin Subra

        I understand. Yet incrementalism has gotten us nowhere. Even the partial birth abortion ban has not prevented partial birth abortion. Protecting life is protecting life. Otherwise, it is just compromise that loses. (And I like Santorum.)

      • http://anonymoustroll.myopenid.com/ anonymous

        Eh. Incrementalism has made abortions much more difficult to obtain, saving many lives. If you had the choice between the status quo and limiting abortions to a narrower time period than the status quo (which is what Santorum said, according to you–I didn’t see the comments), you would choose the status quo? Either way, there is nobody better on life than Santorum.

      • David j Shedlock

        Bachmann is better.  She doesn’t endorse pro-aborts, as far as I know (please inform me if I am wrong)

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LB3LDHWZXK7GXIW6DYVOYSVPHE SJ

        That’s what I was thinking.  Bachmann has a lot of shortcomings, but she might well be the best of this dismal bunch, even though I can understand why many are behind Santorum.     

      • Kevin Subra

        Incrementalism hasn’t stopped anything in Iowa. The conservative element failed to prevent even partial birth abortions last session. The abortion market is full steam ahead, and it is easier to get an abortion than some cough medicines. (Why be anonymous?)

  • Joseph Tomanelli

    This guy cannot be trusted. Santorum sold out the
    Republicans with two major conspiratorial, calculated, self-serving decisions.
    In 1997, he campaigned for and endorsed Christie Todd Whitman in a Republican
    Primary against Murray Sabrin. This was her reelection Primary after proving to
    be the most radical pro-abortion Governor in the history of our Nation. Murray
    Sabrin was backed by all the conservatives, anti-abortion, and social
    conservatives and Santorum sold out his principles to support Whitman. Maxine
    Waters could not have appointed a worse state Supreme Court than Whitman did.
    Yet, when she was running for reelection, Santorum carried her on his
    shoulders.

    Then in 2004, when the early equivalent of the Tea Party drafted Pat Toomey to
    rid the Senate of a worthless Republican whose moral compass was screwed up,
    Rick Santorum endorsed and campaigned for Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. The
    People of New Jersey could not fire Santorum for the Whitman endorsement but
    the good people of Pennsylvania fired Santorum for the Specter sellout.

    Now this devious, two-faced, self-serving, snake wants to be President? Let him
    run as a Democrat, he fits there. If he gets the nomination we will be voting
    on which color Democrat to put in the White House.

    • look it up.

      We nice people in Pennsyvania didn’t fire Santorum for “the Specter sellout.”  We failed to reelect him because his right-wing politics were repugnant to the majority of the voters.  We are centrists- check our voting history and you’ll see what I mean.

      • Joseph Tomanelli

        Nice try.  Santorum was repugnant to the the Conservatives and they didn’t show up.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah . . . well there is that and the fact that Penn. conservatives refused to vote for him in the general election after he douched Toomey.

        But, more-or-less, you are wrong . . .

    • Anonymous

      Wow!  . . . someone that gets it!

  • pete

    you do realize that Santorum is an ex-senator not by choice but by force?

  • Guest

    I get it.  I’m just surprised that you in particular could so easily forgive his support of No Child Left Behind.  When asked if he’d abolish the Dep. of Ed., he said that he wouldn’t campaign on it because it wasn’t a “winning issue”.  Pragmatically, he’s not the strongest anti-Romney.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Gustavsson/786860575 John Gustavsson

    Well Shane, as long as you don’t go with Perry I’m fine with it :) I’ll post my personal endorsement soon, probably after wednesday’s debate.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LB3LDHWZXK7GXIW6DYVOYSVPHE SJ

    Santorum is, overall, probably the best pick.  I’m not convinced he’s that solid on his principles, though.  He seems to sacrifice them when convenient, such as happily endorsing Romney in 2008, who is wishy-washy on life, when there were better candidates.  Of course, most Republicans do this (“I’m a Republican first, Christian second”), but that doesn’t make it right.  I’ve been disappointed in some of his other dealings as well.  

    In this depleted field, however, I suppose he’s as good a pick as any.  Problem is, his numbers are so low that it would probably take intervention by Tonya Harding to “bump him up.”  ;) 

  • Anonymous

    “He is a fighter”  Yeah, actually this is a problem.  He comes across as very argumentative, sanctimonious and unlikable.  For the life of me, I cannot understand how he appeals to anyone.

  • Anonymous

    Shane,

    I like Santorum and the reasons you stated. I have read his book “It takes a Family.”   I thought it was going to be Hillary vs. Santorum during that cycle. 

    That being said, If he mounts a  non- Campaign like he did against Bob Casey, He’s toast.

    Palin/West 2012 

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com/ Wading Across

    On pure principle, I will probably vote for Mr. Santorum if he’s still in the race by the time Missouri gets a crack at the primaries in March.

    Frankly though, I just do not see him getting the nomination and certainly not beating Obama.  Why?  Milque toast.  Mr. Santorum has not grabbed the attention of the public.  He appeals to strong conservative Christians and people who put principles first, but sadly, most people who consider themselves conservatives and Republicans are really pragmatists first.

    Pragmatism has its place – and to that end, ironically Newt Gingrich has been interesting me of late.  Cain and Perry’s campaigns are both hobbled, though not done – yet.  If I must consider electability, Mr. Santorum just doesn’t have it… and I disagree on the point that he could go toe to toe in debates against Obama.

    So for me, it’s a toss up between Santorum and Gingrich.

    Truly pragmatically, I’m an “anyone but Romney” kind of person, to the point that I will not vote for Romney if he is the Republican nominee.  That’s how much my principles mean to me.

  • Pingback: Good Question, Tina : The Other McCain