A Reagan Democrats View on Rick Santorum and why he Should be President

 

By Sean Keller

rick-santorum-republican-presidential-candidate-2012-conservative-ronald-reagan-democratsWell I am writing this article on the behest of my friend who asked me to discuss why Reagan Democrats should vote for and support Senator Rick Santorum.  First, I will take a moment to explain to you the definition of a Reagan Democrat.  “The term was coined when traditionally Democratic voters were drawn to Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s for his social conservatism and fiscal responsibility.”  Now that you understand what a Reagan Democrat is let us now begin.

As I sit here I ask myself a fundamental question of relationships that all psychiatrists ask you to make when you think you may be in a bad situation.  Are you in a safer, better situation because the person you have aligned yourself enables this feeling.  Maybe you find yourself saying, “No this person makes me feel a little less whole of who I was before I met them.”  I am not saying that Obama is a bad person or questioning his religious beliefs.  We are a free country that promotes freedom of religion.   What I am saying is, “There has to be someone who represents my blue collar construction work ethic, while upholding my social and economic conservative beliefs.”  I believe that is Rick Santorum and not Mitt Romney.

I believe that your word is your bond.  If you state your belief in something, stick to that belief. I realize that sometimes when new facts come to light we may need to change our views this is only natural.  Except that one cannot constantly change your views and hold credibility.  I feel that with Mitt Romney I cannot trust him to stick to his word because he has changed his position so many times.

Health Care For example;

Romney, June 24, 2009: “Well, that’s what we did in Massachusetts, and that is, we put together an exchange, and the president’s copying that idea. I’m glad to hear that.” Watch video

Romney, Oct. 18, 2011: “Obamacare is bad news … and if I’m president of the United States I will repeal it.” Transcript and Video

I could write an article on Romney’s Political gaffs but I will use only one too illustrate my point.

Not only is your word your bond, in order to win the Presidency you need to energize your base and connect with the voter. This is something that Romney continues to struggle to do.  When I was watching him give his victory speech in Michigan last night I had the feeling that he was a car salesman trying to sell me on something I know I already want. Mitt we understand your views but we do not understand you. I keep asking myself who is this guy really?

When Rick gave his speech in Iowa stating about his grandfather, “And all I could do — eye level — was look at his hands. They were enormous hands. And all I could think was those hands dug freedom for me.”

I looked down at my calloused hands from doing construction and thought of my father who just passed away last year and those hard callused hands he had.  Not just from working on the railways of the light rail transit of Pittsburgh, but those who also fought as a Navy Seal. He gave up his youth to give me, and so many others the freedoms we take for granted. Rick touched something so very personal and deep within my core.  For the first time I thought, wow a candidate that I can relate to on at least some level.

Not only does he stir up my deep convictions he also cherishes my views of balancing the budget and cutting taxes. No one wants to talk about cutting programs for the poor and needy, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed. I am not against welfare or helping others who have lost their jobs and need to collect unemployment. What I am against is Americans who abuse the system and make it a way of life.  Since I do construction in a State that has bad winters I collect unemployment when I am laid off due to lack of work because of inclement weather.  But I do not make it a way of life it is something I do so that I can get through 3 months of inclement weather then I go back to work.  Rick’s work on the Welfare Reform act of 1996 was a great piece of legislation that helped many Americans escape the poverty line and enter back into the workforce.

In addition to that he also championed reform entitlement programs to cut spending.  We blue collar workers do hard manual labor that requires a disciplined work effort.  Rick champions these ideas.  My only concern is that Rick is now supporting the right to work effort, which I feel is a bad choice.  Since I am in the Labor Union I feel that it is imperative that we be able to negotiate for better wages and health care.  The Right to Work Law takes away these collective bargaining rights.  Now I can understand that policeman, teachers and local officials should not be able to go on strike and paralyze a city. Here is what Santorum said about the Right to Work Law in a Debate on September 22nd 2011. Those of us who do construction work on highways; bridges and sewer systems should have the right to collectively bargain.  I would only hope Rick would change his views on this one issue and go back to his roots of supporting the Union on this one issue.

Finally, the issue that has recently been hurting Santorum is his hard line religious views, and the topic of contraception (Santorum never said he wanted to ban birth control).  The majority of Americans feel that the use of contraception is not morally wrong. I feel that most women should have the right to use contraception if they so choose.  I understand that it is against the Catholic faith to use contraception, but not everyone that works for the Catholic hospitals, schools and churches are Catholic.  The law does not force people to use contraception; it only makes it an available choice for women.  But once again I commend Rick for staying true to his beliefs and doing what he feels is right.  Once again I say we know who Rick is unlike, Mitt.  Watch Rick Santorum’s interview on Meet the Press with David Gregory on the topic of contraception.

In conclusion, if you are a Reagan Democrat trying to make a choice for a President that upholds your values and gets you motivated to champion your fiscal and social conservative values Rick Santorum is the obvious choice.  I urge any Reagan Democrat who is looking for an alternative to Obama to take a good look at Rick Santorum and his views.  Furthermore, for those Republicans who are on the fence, just ask yourself, “Can Mitt Romney win the votes of moderate democrats and independents?” Take a look at a head to head comparison of Romney’s and Santorum’s election records.

If you truly want to vote President Obama out of office, you are going to need someone to win over independents and Reagan Democrats.  No Republican can win the Presidency without these votes.  So think long and hard about that and make the obvious choice for Rick Santorum. There is a lot more I would like to talk about but I will save it for another time.  I hope that those that read this keep an open mind.  Remember this is only my opinion.

Help Rick Santorum send Barack Obama packing!

Edited by Brian Hughes

We help you get to the top of Google

About these ads

19 comments on “A Reagan Democrats View on Rick Santorum and why he Should be President

  1. Very good article. You make excellent points! And I agree with you… Rick Santorum is the man who can win over the Reagan Democrats.

  2. Great article! Thank you. I’d like to point out what many in the media are either confused about or deliberately misrepresenting; Santorum has never suggested that he would in any way attempt to stop women from using contraceptives. Abortion is not contraception. A contraception prevents pregnancy, it does not destroy a life already created.

    • Very well explained Katherine. Thank you for the input. I just wish the mass media would get off the contraception issues. As well as politicians who want to use it for a soap box. Let’s get back to unemployment, deficit reduction, and energy independence.

      • Thank you, Sean. One of my pet peeves is the lack of concerned/informed people. I’ve heard Rick Santorum speak on several occasions live. Had a beer with him at the Amanas and listened to him take questions from anyone at anytime. His replies as well as his speeches are thorough. His web-site is also clear on every issue. But, people will be people and knee jerk reactions the norm. Alas!

  3. I greatly enjoy reading your article. It was definetly an eye opener that helped me to see what is in the mind of a Reagan democrat. You are the first one I have read from that truly represents that title. You have my thanks and supporting for your efforts to reach Reagan Democrats for Santorum.

  4. While I think this is a great article, I am still not convinced he is the go to guy for POTUS. I have seeing him flip flop on some important issues. One is “No Child Left Behind” Act. He voted for it and now he is against it. I can understand why he switched positions. In my opinion, a politician at the federal level should have enough education and experience to keep from making these mistakes. Also, he needs to understand a federal government cannot make decisions for an individual child. Let the local government make that decision. This is why the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate education.

    Another concern I have for Santorum is he thinks we should assassinated Iran scientists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0imqLFtPk4s). My question is why? Iran is its own country and has every right to make nuclear bombs to defend itself. If it chooses to bomb Israel, then let Israel defend itself with its 300+ nuclear bombs. What if Iran was telling us if we made bombs, then they would go to war with us? We would be insulted. We have no right to bully other nations just because we are powerful. Do unto other as you would have the do unto you. Also, where in the Constitution does it give the president this power?

    In my opinion, Rick Santorum will make some positive changes, but they will be too little. A 16 to 17 trillion dollar debt requires extreme changes. I believe after four year of Santorum, we will still be on the same path of self-destruction.

    • Randall,

      I agree with what you say about the debt being a major problem and that Rick Santorum isn’t the guy to get started at correcting it. The main reason for that may be that he is one of the guys responsible for the skyrocketing of the debt that we saw during the GW Bush administration. Ron Paul is the only one in the race, from either party, that is ready to take on the debt and start reducing it, rather than just reduce the amount it increases by as Santorum and the others would like to do.

      http://RonPaul2012.com

  5. As a Rick Santorum supporter, Sean I thought you made some very valid points and I comment you on your homework. Randall – Rick does have a plan to get us out of this debt. He is the most likely candidate who can go up against Obama and win. If anyone thinks our country can survive another four years of Obama, you must be kidding. We will be in bankruptcy – similar to what Greece has already gone through. I don’t think you realize the seriousness of just this one issue, not to even mention Obamacare – which is too similar to Romneycare. Romney cannot go heads up with Obama and win. People – I’m asking you to please weight in all of these issues. It is crucial if you want to continue to live in our country with the freedoms that we know today.

  6. Here are two of the reasons President Obama wants Senator Santorum as his opponent in the presidential election:

    Here is a story found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/rick-santorum-veterans-home_n_1212933.html
    The Armed Forces Retirement Home, which is run by the Department of Defense, bills itself as the “premier home for military retirees and veterans.” The facility sprawls across 272 acres high on a hill in northern Washington, DC, near the Petworth neighborhood. The nearly 600 veterans who now live there enjoy panoramic views of the city—the Washington monument and US Capitol to the south, the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to the east. At its peak, more than 2,000 veterans of World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War lived at the Home.
    But with the rise of the smaller all-volunteer military, the Home began to run into serious financial problems. It was clear that one of its primary sources of revenue—a 50-cent deduction from the paychecks of active-duty servicemembers—wasn’t enough to keep the Home operating fully. In the 1990s, the Home scrambled to find ways to avoid insolvency trimming its staff by 24 percent and reducing its vet population by 800. Still, the money problems began to show, with its older historic facilities slipping into disrepair and decay. To grapple with its worsening shortfall, officials running the Home eyed a valuable, 49-acre piece of land worth $49 million as a potential financial lifeline.

    Under one scenario, by leasing the parcel of land and letting it be developed, the Home could pocket $105 million in income over 35 years for its trust fund, David Lacy, then-chairman of the Home’s board of directors, told Congress in 1999. Lacy stressed that the Home wanted to keep the property, and not offload it to a buyer. “Once land is sold,” he said, “it is lost forever as an asset.”

    Enter Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.). At the behest of the Roman Catholic Church, and unbeknownst to the Home, Santorum slipped an amendment into the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act handcuffing how the home could cash in on those 49 acres. The amendment forced the Home to sell—and not lease—the land to its next-door neighbor, the Catholic University of America. Ultimately, the Catholic Church bought 46 acres of the tract for $22 million. The Home lost the land for good, and by its own estimates, pocketed $27 million less than the land’s value and $83 million less than what it could’ve made under the lease plan.

    Santorum doesn’t live here, but his tuition bills do
    Wednesday, November 10, 2004
    By Sally Kalson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    In his years in the U.S. Senate, Rick Santorum has fashioned himself as a strict steward of taxpayer money. Time and again he has voted against public spending that violated his fiscally conservative world view.
    But when it comes to his own family, the senator is more than happy to feed at the public trough.
    According to an Oct. 20 story in the Penn Hills Progress by reporter Vera Miller, Penn Hills taxpayers have been footing the bill to send Santorum’s children to a cyber charter school, even though the family lives most of the year in Virginia. The cost: $100,000 since the 2001-02 school year.
    Santorum’s office justified this to the Progress by noting that the senator’s legal residence is in Penn Hills. He owns a house there — two bedrooms and two baths for his family of eight — and pays about $2,000 in property taxes each year to the Penn Hills School District.
    Compare that $2,000 tax bill to the estimated $38,000 that the district will shell out this year for five of Santorum’s children to attend the Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, based in Beaver County.
    That’s a big windfall for the senator, paid for by the good citizens of Penn Hills — even though the family spends most of its time in Herndon, Va.
    In response to questions from the Progress, Santorum’s office explained that he has to keep a residence in Washington to be available for official votes.
    This is no doubt true, just as it was for former U.S. Rep. Doug Walgren when Santorum defeated him in 1990, in part by painting Walgren as a carpetbagger who lived outside of his home district.
    This, however, begs the pertinent question. Pennsylvania law requires local school districts to pay charter schools for students who live in the district. But what is the definition of “live”?
    The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had something to say about this in a January 2000 ruling. In that case, the court said the Cumberland Valley School District had to educate a woman’s children after she moved to a townhouse there because:
    “She and the children actually live there. They stay there during the days and sleep there at night. Mail and phone calls are received there. Clothing, books and supplies are kept there as well.” And that, the court notes, is the “classic definition of ‘residence’ ” in the school code.
    Hmm. If I were a Penn Hills taxpayer, I’d sure want the senator to explain how the above description fits his domicile in Penn Hills better than it fits the one in Virginia.
    Plenty of U.S. senators and congressmen live in Virginia and send their children to school there. Santorum could do the same if he chose. Of course he’s entitled to take a different route. But even if it’s legal to do so, is it fair, ethical or moral to stick other Penn Hills families with the bill for that decision when the family spends most of its time somewhere else?
    As it happens, this story fits right into a larger one playing out across the country. A very interesting map has shown up on the Internet. It shows how much the states pay in federal taxes compared to how much federal spending they consume. And guess what? The blue states that voted Democratic shoulder more of the burden while the red states that went Republican suck up most of the benefits.
    You can check out the map at taxprof.typepad.com by typing “red states” into its search engine.
    The site makes reference to a report by the Tax Foundation, which found that 32 states (and the District of Columbia) get back more federal spending than they pay in taxes. Some 76 percent of those states voted for Bush in 2000. Indeed, red states account for 17 of the top 20 recipients, while blue states account for seven of the bottom 10.
    So much for those rugged, independent, go-it-aloners who exhale rants against “big government” while inhaling its largesse.
    And so much for fiscal conservatives who favor cutting off public funding for others while gaming the system for themselves.
    First published on November 10, 2004 at 12:00 am
    Sally Kalson can be reached at 412-263-1610 or skalson@post-gazette.com.

    Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04315/409553.stm#ixzz1o1x8awH1

    Note: This story may also be found in the following locations:

    10/20/04 Penn Hills Progress Vera Miller original source
    http://www.gatewaynewspapers.com/pennhillsprogress/3688… /

    11/11/04 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Frazier & Jewell
    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/tri

    11/12/04 Tallahassee Democrat (AP) Jennifer Yates picked up nationally
    http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/10169219.htm

  7. Points well made.

    One clarification regarding the “contraception issue”. Contraceptives are already available for women for medical reasons if their insurance policies cover perscriptions. What this mandate does that should concern all Americans is it requires ALL insurance policies to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and “emergency contraception”, with NO COPAY, NO COST SHARING, NO DEDUCTIBLE. For Catholics this is an infringement upon our freedom of conscience by forcing us to pay, through our premiums, for those specific things that are morally evil in the eyes of our religious faith.

    Though our Catholic faith teaches that those things are morally evil, we are not asking that a law be passed to make them unavailable (other than for those that are direct abortifacients). We are asking that our rights of conscience be respected by letting us provide and purchase health insurance that doesn’t violate our conscience.

    This HHS mandate is fundamentally an attack on our first Amendment right of religious freedom, and all Americans should be greatly alarmed.

  8. I almost never drop remarks, but after browsing a great deal of remarks on this page A Reagan Democrats View on Rick Santorum and why he Should be President | Rick Santorum For President. I actually do have a couple of questions for you if you don’t mind. Could it be only me or does it look like like a few of these comments come across as if they are left by brain dead folks? :-P And, if you are writing at additional online sites, I would like to follow everything fresh you have to post. Could you make a list of every one of all your social community pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

  9. I do not create a leave a response, however I read a ton of remarks here A Reagan Democrats View on Rick Santorum and why he Should be President | Rick Santorum For President. I actually do have a couple of questions for you if it’s okay. Could it be just me or does it give the impression like some of these responses come across like they are left by brain dead individuals? :-P And, if you are writing at additional online social sites, I’d like to keep up with you. Could you post a list of every one of all your public pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s