This should be all the breakdowns, for now. If there are any others, I'll put em up.

Now it's time for us to start breaking these down further, and getting the news out to our colleagues.

LOL, he has attacked the warmies very hard. He has been very outspoken and harsh on the AGW people. No beating around the bush here even if it is nothing but rhetoric. He also voted no on the 2003 cap and trade bill in the Senate. I give him a plus here on the AGW fraud.

He has a strong record on supporting the 2nd amendment in both deeds and rhetoric. He gets a strong plus here.

Club for Growth rates him high on opposing taxes and voting many times for tax cuts and against tax hikes. However, on spending they give him a mixed record. His initial record was very good in opposing spending until the Bush years came along. There he supported Bush’s spending programs, No Child, the Drug program, TARP etc. He also gets bad marks for supporting earmarks, but that is 99% of them. Its hard to fault him for supporting a Republican President but it is a negative. Note that CFG may be wrong on the Bush drug vote. The "On the Issues” site says he voted against it.

On regulation they give him a mixed record having flip-flopped on a couple of issues like ethanol mandates and Housing regulations. He also voted for Sarbannes-Oxely which was a huge POS. He gets no plus for me in this one.

So overall, his record on small government is mixed. Good on taxes, mixed on spending mainly due to Bush, and I would actually say poor on regulations. Overall neutral here. After reading this again I think he deserves a negative here. Comments?

He has been very outspoken against Obamacare and MAcare. His record in both votes and rhetoric shows heavy opposition to public funding of medical coverage. He gets strong points here.

Has an outstanding record on this issue. Voted no on the McCain amnesty bill of 2006 (remember that this passed the Senate but he voted against it). He has consistently called for closing the border and stopping the flood. Both deeds and rhetoric are good here. Strong plus.

Strong pro-life record and rhetoric. He has been a consistent supporter of right to life. Strong plus here. Overall, he is a strong social-con.

I was VERY surprised by this evaluation. I had expected Santorum to come up as mainly a social-con and weaker in the other areas. Mostly not so, except for the negative in small government, he is solid pluses in everything else.

5 good 1 Negaive

If I was surprised by this eval think about the average voter who doesn’t keep track of politicians the way we do here. It is no wonder he is not leading in the polls. People just don’t know about him. It is still name recognition this early in the primaries.

Posted by: Vic at June 27, 2011 12:34 PM (M9Ie6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment