From the Emboldening of a Serial Adulterer to the Bashing of Social Conservatives

In 2008 the conservative media, and with this I mean the conservative and not the mainstream or establishment media, has greatly emboldened and pedestaled Romney over McCain despite McCain having owned a more conservative record. They did have the justification, though, that Romney has years of executive experience under his belt, something McCain never had. However, four years later, after the power of the conservative media has diminished somewhat due to their own actions in ’08, the conservative media is once again doing what it seems to do best; destroy itself.

Instead of these conservatives proving themselves as the only ones who will stick to the truth no matter what, they choose to ignore all liberalisms which not only make up a large chunk of Newt’s record, but have been emboldened and become fact only because of Newt’s support and sly tongue. Where is their focus on his 2010 endorsements where he hadn’t endorsed a single conservative over a RINO during the primaries?

The conservative media, for whatever reason, despises Romney yet is okay with Newt despite the fact that Newt’s record is far more liberal than Romney’s AND Newt hailed from a conservative state so there was no reason to bend to the people’s will who elected him into office, unlike in Romney’s situation. They tout the words he currently spouts despite being aware that Newt never remains with his original positions, and he’s already flipped several times on the current campaign trail (which too gets ignored by these conservatives). I have made this comparison between Newt and Romney not because I support Romney since they are both at the lower end of my list, but in response to Erickson’s article from last week.

Erickson bashed the Iowans and social conservatives living in Iowa as responsible for the Santorum rise, blasted Santorum as a non-conservative, and listed the handful of big-government bills he’s voted for. That original article has been followed by about a dozen additional anti-Santorum articles. What Erickson failed to note in each of these articles, is that Newt too supported each of those expansions plus many many more.

Newt Gingrich had voted for the creation of the Department of Education, has greatly expanded its size during his speakership, and continues to support its growth. Unlike Santorum, Newt supported individual mandates, co-sponsored environmentalist bills, supported Bush’s amnesty plan, and said he would’ve voted for TARP if he were in Congress. The list can go on and on with examples of Newt’s liberalism in contrast to Santorum’s conservatism.

In addition to Newt’s terrible record, he’s also a serial adulterer (!) yet Erickson can’t understand why someone would support Santorum over Newt?

The entire conservative movement has united to impeach Bill Clinton because of his immoral behavior and his cover-up lies. Hasn’t Newt behaved cheated on two separate wives? As for lies, his leaked divorce records have proven he’s an adept liar as well. How can a conservative support Newt? How will a conservative currently supporting Newt ever be able to stand up for his values down the road if they had defended a serial adulterer in the past?

My fellow conservatives, you can argue whether Santorum is or isn’t a conservative and to which degree, but when Erickson only quotes the few negatives mentioned in Club for Growth, while totally ignoring his above average conservative ratings he’s received from them, totally ignoring his conservative aspects, totally ignoring the reasonable explanations for many of his not-so-conservative votes, and most important of all – totally ignoring similar and worse action from Newt, this leads to some serious questions. Where is Erickson’s article lauding Santorum for his positive aspects such as his having stood up as a freshman Congressman and fought corruption amongst fellow Congressmen, in what was later dubbed as the Gang of Seven?

More importantly, if the conservative media can’t distinguish themselves from the mainstream and establishment media guys in sticking strictly to the truth, what will make them any more credible than the rest? Why will anyone except for their own small base pay any attention to them in 2016 if say, Newt wins the primary yet loses the elections? The only reason they support Newt is because of his supposed electability, despite all this electability talk having been proven wrong in so many past elections. I don’t know whether Newt can make it to the White House if he wins the primary since it is something no one knows two years in advance, although some pretend to. One things that is clear, however, is that in all of American history, serial adulterers haven’t received too many votes from women, which happen to make a considerable percentage of the swing voters.

Erickson’s and the others who cry foul play over Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter in ’04, are absolutely wrong in their assessment since they ignored the complete picture. Which junior Senator from a state has failed to endorse the senior Senator if the senior was a member of his own party? Don’t forget that the Specter of ’04 hadn’t yet voted for Obama’s stimulus package, nor was imagined to switch parties in the future. On top of the junior/senior explanation, Santorum served as chairman of the Republican Conference in the Senate, and as such,was expected to support an incumbent senator’s reelection campaign.

When questioning one’s endorsement one must also remember to look at the broader picture. ’04 was prior to the Tea Party and a time when anti-Bush and Anti-Republican sentiments were pretty strong. A Toomey victory in purple Pennsylvania was quite questionable while a Specter victory was basically guaranteed. Specter’s victory helped the Republicans take control of the Senate, which enabled President Bush to appoint TWO CONSERVATIVE JUDGES TO THE SUPREME COURT; Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. No additional explanation necessary.

Besides, how about listing the conservatives Newt had endorsed over the establishment candidates during the primaries of 2010? When you find none, how about taking him to task for it?

Similarly, Santorum’s reeelection loss in ’06 is given greater credence than necessary. Those who focus on it, stress that he lost his own state yet fail to mention that Newt had been thrown head-first from his leadership position in the House by his fellow Republican colleagues! Santorum has won two state-wide elections in the purple-blue state of Pennsylvania before facing defeat. Newt served in a red state and has never won a state-wide election, period. One of Santorum’s victories occurred at the same time that Bush lost the state of Pennsylvania. Santorum is the only current Republican candidate who won reelection in a blue state-wide election. (Gary Johnson did too lol)

It’s a shame to watch Conservatives embracing a big-government guy like Newt who belongs behind Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and yes, even Romney. Only nuts like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are less conservative than him. Iowans will let us know tomorrow who they support, and just as no one would’ve predicted two months ago that Santorum has gotten a chance in winning Iowa, no one can definitely declare that an Iowan victory won’t be sufficient to continue and grow the Santorum surge onward to other states and throughout the entire election.

Instead of being pessimistic and attempting (uselessly) to prevent his surge, how about doing everything in your power to help the surge from changing directions?


Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on twitter.