Two pieces on Santorum’s candidacy throw into relief the narrative being developed around his what is becoming a real and growing challenge to Mitt Romney’s campaign of inevitability. First is Byron York’s Washington Examiner piece, which attempts to strike a fair tone and largely succeeds. The thesis — that Santorum’s 18 point loss in Pennsylvania will have to be better explained eventually — is a solid one, and presents a rather simple truth: people want to consider reasons. And there are several presented — from Santorum’s support of the Iraq war to his tendency toward being argumentative to his support for Specter over Toomey in a move that alienated his base of support.
But there are other considerations not mentioned that need to be added to the mix: Santorum’s Democrat opponent, Bob Casey, was the son of a popular former governor. He ran as a moderate (to Santorum’s FAR RIGHT IDEOLOGUE WARMONGERING SOCIAL CON). The DNC poured a ton of money into the campaign, outspending Santorum by a 3-1 margin. And Specter, not surprisingly, fucked Santorum.
Yet:
Santorum twice won a blue state running as a FAR RIGHT IDEOLOGUE WARMONGERING SOCIAL CON. Romney, for his part, lost by 16 pts to Ted Kennedy — and he didn’t bother trying to run for re-election as Massachusetts governor, because he knew he was going to get smoked.
So. Yes, Santorum can come across as argumentative and people often don’t like him because he won’t back down, even on points that seem minor. This makes him appear arrogant, etc.
To which I say, I can relate. And I’d vote for me. Therefore…
Which brings me to the second piece, this time from the Weekly Standard:
[…] since the only reason Romney didn’t become a “Washington insider” himself is that he failed to win election in either of his two bids for federal office, and since the vast majority of the Republican party’s Washington insiders are backing Romney, this claim is likely to persuade precious few GOP voters. That leaves Romney with only one real line of attack against Santorum: that the former Pennsylvania senator’s record isn’t that of a fiscal conservative.
So, is Romney’s claim true? Was Santorum a spendthrift in the Senate? Fortunately, credible third party analysis is available to help us answer this question, so we need not merely accept the Romney campaign’s verdict as the final word on the matter.
The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.
For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.
NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.
Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.
This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.
[…]
[…] considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorum’s represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. It’s an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.
[…]
As for Santorum’s potential opponent in the fall, Barack Obama’s three years in the Senate (2005 through 2007) overlapped only with Santorum’s final two years. (In 2008, Obama effectively left the Senate to campaign for President and therefore didn’t cast enough votes for NTU to score him that year.) In both of the years that the two men overlapped (2005 and 2006), as well as throughout Obama’s three years’ worth of preparation for the presidency, Obama’s GPA was 0.00 — a rock-solid F.
Now that’s acting like a Democrat — something Santorum has never done.
The case against Santorum — being pushed by Romney people — is just plain silly.
Romney supported stimulus, TARP, an individual mandate, state-run health care, gun control, federal minimum wage increases tied to inflation, Cap and Trade, and when push came to shove, acceded to the bureaucrats on mandating certain types of coverage over the objections of those in the religious community.
You can fault Santorum for certain party votes and for certain persistent ideological tics that tend to alienate some of the more hardcore libertarian ideologues (which is itself something of an irony, if you think about it). You can disagree with his support for private unions, or earmarks, of subsidies for local businesses in the farming and manufacturing sectors.
But the fact is, those latter traits make Santorum appealing to Reagan Democrats in ways that Romney is most certainly not — and if voting for Santorum means they don’t have to vote for Obama, I predict that many in the mid west rust belt will happily climb aboard.
Too, as Santorum’s grading shows — not just NTU’s grade but the grades from other groups who track such things — he is a conservative, or at the very least, was certainly more conservative by a considerable margin than the average GOP senator during his tenure.
As TRS points out, Paul Ryan’s record, cherrypicked the way Santorum’s is being cherrypicked now, would make him seem demonstrably like a big spending liberal.
And yet who that calls him or herself conservative wouldn’t vote for Paul Ryan over Mitt Romney, save maybe Ann Coulter?
Frankly, I’ve been surprised at some of the “conservative” red meat sites and players who have moved into the tank for Romney.
And by surprised, I of course mean not at all surprised. The writing was on the wall after Obama’s election in 2008. Conservatives who acted like conservatives were quickly told by putative conservatives to sit down, shut up, and show Chocolate Jesus some respect, lest the GOP be relegated to a regional party.
They were wrong then and they’re wrong now. And yet they keep right on fighting for the status quo as if their careers somehow depended on it.
Which —
(thanks to Ernst)
****
update: Big government insider and proto-liberal Rick Santorum vows to repeal every single one of Obama’s regulations.
Jeff,
I’m no fan of Romney’s, although I supported him over McCain in 2008 because, well, McCain. But Santorum does have a record that should be troubling at time and I’m not even including his recent negative comments about freedom. is it wrong to notice that Santorum:
Voted against the National Right to Work Act
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
Voted for minimum wage increases six times.
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representatives from criminal ethics laws.
Voted against creating an independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapists, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.
Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for The Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for The Arts.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
All I’m saying is that these votes trouble me as a conservative. Mitt’s flaws are well know. Heck, I’ve been pointing them out to people for the last 4 years. But I don’t if everyone has really looked closely enough at Santorum. If they have and still support him, fine. However, I’m not keen on people voting for someone whose words “resonate with me”. That’s how we got captain Barry.
No, it’s not wrong to notice any of those things. This is the problem with voting for legislators. You don’t know what the quid pro quo was, etc. And while that list looks impressive, it’s a short list when compared to the number of votes.
In the aggregate, though, the numbers show Santorum has been far more conservative than we’re being told to believe. And far more conservative than nearly any GOPer in the Senate during his tenure.
Couple that impulse to be right of the zeitgeist with the conservative movement today, and I suspect that Santorum is firmly planted where he needs to be, while Romney is interested in nothing so much as getting elected, and will (and HAS) say anything to make that happen.
Also, this isn’t about resonating words. It’s about looking at Santorum’s record and recognizing that his record is what it is in spite of where he’s from and who and what the GOP looked like at the time he was serving.
My own inkling is that Santorum is far more comfortable with the conservatism than he was as a Bush poodle.
And I would agree with you there. It’s pretty easy to cherry pick sound bites and frame someone as someone other than who he/she is. My guess is that that is what’s going on here with Santorum. Too many people on the right side of the aisle have bought into this electability myth of Romney. They probably believed it in 2008 when pundits proclaimed “McCain is the Republican that Democrats fear the most”. People do tend to have short memories when it comes to such things.
For the record, I’ll vote for Santorum if he wins the nomination because having watched Obama’s continued lawless actions, I’m more than a little concerned with what four years of not having to give a crap about getting re-elected will bring.
None of the knocks on Santorum I’ve seen rebut the premise that he’s the most conservative candidate still in the race.
Here’s an idea of just how many votes Senators make.
“Ace, stop throwing a public temper tantrum!”
“I don’t wanna stop!”
What with the site hack I’m not sure if this has been linked here. I know I linked it at Motionview’s site during the hack-timeout. h/t sdferr by email.
“Santorum on the elite snobs that want to control you”
Sorry, I just can’t get all pumped for Romney after spending so much time bashing Cain and Palin and Bachmann and now, Santorum.
If that’s what it takes to become a major conservative player, count me out.
During the first hour of rush today here in Michigan, “Restore Our Future” Super-PAC ran four anti-Santorum ads bashing him as a big spending Washington insider. Twelve more days of this “fun”.
YOU WILL BASH WHO EVER THE ESTABLISHMENT TELLS YOU TO BASH!!!!!
NB: They’ll never tell you to bash Obama. He’s a “good man”.
But that can’t be right! I was told, ad infinitum, by a certain PW commenter that the silly SoCon R’s just don’t get it, what with being all about their women- and gay-hating hatiness, and that this election would be “all about the spendings.” So, you know, Go Team Mitt!
I remember a Limbaugh theme about how people will get so mad over a 50 cent increase in ATM fees but not have anywhere near the outrage over huge tax of spending increases which affect them more.
Obama’s people seem to be using this mental quirk as both the payroll tax and the contraceptive thing involve $10 to $20 per week and are being pushed for the OUTRAGE! Whereas the trillions being spent and added to the debt and billions to the future interest payments on that extra debt get a subdued reaction.
Obama campaign asks for oppo-research on Santorum.
Your story will help hold him responsible for his actions — and could inspire other Pennsylvanians to get involved and raise their voices, too.
“He turned me into a newt!” in 5… 4… 3…
geoff – those anti-Santorum ads have been running NON-STOP on WJR.
I’m ready to put a crowbar through my radio.
I guess I just don’t get the Romney attack ads: “If you believe my dubious assertions, HE overspent TOO! So vote for me, because it’s my turn. Plus, the hair. Severely!”
The ads encourage conservative voters to be as stupid and ill-informed as the left, and they sound like the crap the liberal/union groups put out.
I’m sure if nishi were here we’d be hearing about optics and what not.
OT: The Demonic Right.
Thanks for the mostly clean argument Physics Geek (not quite sure about recent negative comments about freedom).
Santorum noted that your Constitutional rights are not without limits. This set off a firestorm among the easily enraged.
Of all those votes, I am least alarmed by increases in minimum wage mostly because I have a hard time seeing how that’s a bad thing.
“…because I have a hard time seeing how that’s a bad thing.”
That’s of course, the point. The evil is removed a couple of steps from the vote, so that the ordinary observer doesn’t make the connection between the apparent “benefit” to the entry wage worker, and the consequent detriment to business growth and hiring, resulting in the depression (artificially) of the labor market.
A minimum wage basically sets the limit on what kind of work one can legally be hired to do. If the minimum wage is $6/hour, but the job is only worth $5/hour, then one needs to hire illegally. You cannot force the value of labor to be higher than it actually is without causing distortions.
Comment snippet mashup:
I agree, cranky-ferr.
“Santorum noted that your Constitutional rights are not without limits. This set off a firestorm among the easily enraged.”
yea the commentary crowd:
link
What’s a bit wacky here is that I’m not a super great fan of Santorum on some of these things.
But, Happy Meals aren’t the same thing as Happy Families. It’s the sort of thing that people with super awesome childhoods might say. That isn’t universal.
I heard Mitt say today (and pardon me if it’s already been mentioned) that he would have managed the GM bankruptcy exactly the same way.
Arrgh, Mr. Inevitable! Wrong answer.
Oh, we’re going to have to remember Obama’s Illinios record then, yes? Like his “No” vote on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Let’s discuss America’s love of killing babies, shall we, Barry? That’s a hill I’d love to see you die on.
Where did Santorum go to law school? Did he make law review? I’d like his take on Barry’s lack of publication while at the helm in Harvard.
Thanks. When I had heard “Dickenson” I had originally thought Fairleigh-Dickenson, an entirely different school and alma mater of Peggy Noonan.
Ahh, okay! Thank you for the explanation on that one. I actually didn’t understand that about the minimum wage, s’all; I’d figured increases in it would follow increases in cost of living or be due to inflation or something like that (if the dollar is currently not worth as much, you may need to pay six of them for what used to be a five-dollar job, and so on).
That’s just me being dumb more than GUBMINT BEING INSIDIOUS.
Another important aspect that you might want to know, Pellegri: when labor costs (particularly unskilled labor) grow high enough, it makes more sense for a company to invest in automation than it does to keep paying human labor. Robots and machinery can be awfully expensive, but then so can worker bees, especially when the price floor keeps rising. Plus, robots don’t call in drunk, go on strike, or steal from you.
If only Obama had received the same vetting in 2008 as any of his challengers do in 2012.
[…] contrast, Jeff G. over at Protein Wisdom has a solid counter-argument, noting that Santorum had a very high grade from the NTU during his […]