He goes against the progressive and modern view on almost all major issues, and has little experience when it comes to international or national economics, as far as I'm aware. He's an extremist Christian, which in itself isn't inherently bad, but it is when the policies he wants to bring in goes so against the wishes of so many tens of millions of people want. Kinda ironic considering he tweeted: ' ... Government cannot force you to pay for something that violates faiths or beliefs. Government has no right to do this'. Personally I just wouldn't trust someone who can't view anything from outside the perspective of his own small perspective with that much power. He seeks to control the US based on his religion much in the same way as many Middle Eastern governments do, living in an Islamic state, I would have more civil liberties here than I would living under him.

Santorum is an example as to why the Republican party needs to evolve. He has spoken against Libertarian ideals getting into the Republican Party because he feels (and knows) that Libertarianism will cause Conservatism to become obsolete.

Of course, if Libertarians took over the Republican Party the Democrats would probably have no chance (unless they adopted Conservative values, which they kind of do already, just not as greatly as the Santorum types).

But Santorum is just another example as to what our country is bastardizing into. The race between big government (Conservatives) and bigger government (Liberals).

I'm going to carpet bomb this site will all my beliefs, but I don't want to be seen as racking up points or anything, so I will keep my reasons to agree all together, for one point, for one subject:

Senator Santorum Was A “Prolific” Earmarker And Continues To Defend Earmarks

Reasons to agree:

The Erstwhile $400 Million “Bridge To Nowhere”: “Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is defending his votes to spend federal money on politically earmarked projects, including the so-called ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ in Alaska that was never built. … [Santorum:] ‘People say that I voted for “The Bridge to Nowhere.” I did. I went with the federalist argument…” (William Petroski, “Santorum Defends Votes For ‘Bridge To Nowhere’ And Other Political Earmarks,” Des Moines Register, 12/29/11)

$500,000 For A “Luxurious Polar-Bear Exhibit”: “Typical of his campaigning these days was a stop earlier this month at the Pittsburgh Zoo, where he boasted to local reporters about how he’d fetched $500,000 from federal taxpayers to build one of the most luxurious polar-bear exhibits outside Arctic climates.” (“Santorum Goes Full Circle,” The Washington Times, 8/22/06)

$900,000 For “Hides And Leather Research”: “$900,000 for Eastern Regional Research Center Hides and Leather Research conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture. The research, conducted at the Eastern Regional Research Center in Wyndmoor, provides the hides and leather industry with cost-effective and environmentally safe tanning processes which will enhance U.S. producers' competitiveness in world markets.” (Sen. Rick Santorum, Press Release, 6/23/05)

$400,000 For “Exhibits To Highlight Bird Migration”: “$400,000 for the Avian Conservation Center at the Philadelphia Zoo to develop exhibits to highlight bird migration and the mutually beneficial relationship between agriculture and conservation.” (Sen. Rick Santorum, Press Release, 7/17/01)

“2012 Presidential White Paper #4: Former Senator Rick Santorum,” Club For Growth, 6/6/11

“Santorum Was A Prolific Supporter Of Earmarks, Having Requested Billions Of Dollars For Pork Projects In Pennsylvania While He Was In Congress.”

Michael Luo and Mike McIntire, “Donors Gave As Santorum Won Earmarks,” The New York Times, 1/15/12

Santorum Brought Over $1 Billion In Pork-Barrel Spending Back To Pennsylvania.

“In all, Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated, Mr. Santorum helped secure more than $1 billion in earmarks during his Senate career, which stretched from 1995 through 2006.”

Fox News’ “Hannity,” 2/26/09)

Santorum, In 2009: “I’m Very Proud Of All The Earmarks I Put In Bills. I’ll Defend Earmarks.” SANTORUM: “I'm not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I'm very proud of all the earmarks I put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

“Under Attack, Santorum Defends ‘Good’ Earmarks,” The Associated Press, 2/9/12

2012: “[Santorum] Declined To Identify Any Earmarks He Regretted.”

Michael Tanner, “Santorum’s Big-Government Conservatism,” National Review, 1/4/12)

Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner: Fiscal Conservatism Is “Not Santorum’s Strong Suit.” “[T]he Tea Party and 2010 elections were largely about economic issues and the desire to limit the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government. And those issues are not Santorum’s strong suit. … He never met an earmark that he didn’t like. In fact, it wasn’t just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone…”

Santorum is too extreme to get elected. I will post all of my arguments that agree with this post, until I get argument, on this one post..

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorum-wants-to-fight-the-dangers-of-contraception/

Santorum Says Doctors Who Perform Abortions Should be Criminally Charged, even in the case of rape or incest.

He has shown nothing but contempt for what his book called the "radical" feminist "pitch". In his book he said that "radical" feminist want "men and women be given an equal opportunity to make it to the top in the workplace." It is not radical to think that women should have equal opportunity to make it to the top of the workplace.

I believe Rick Santorum is bad on labor issues

Rick Santorums’ position on "Right to Work" should be troubling to the 80% of Americans who believe workers should not be forced to pay dues or fees to a union just to get or keep a job.

Not only has he refused to answer the National Right to Work Committee’s Presidential Survey, but while in the Senate he joined with Democrats to filibuster the National Right to Work Act. Siding with Big Labor in favor of union boss forced dues powers should be particularly troubling to the people of South Carolina, who’ve spent the last year fighting off attacks by the Obama Labor Board on the state’s popular Right to Work law and the jobs it has helped create.

Below are some more of his actions. Please post your argument, if you think he was right to take those actions.

Bad Action:

1. He voted for the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act, which would have forced employers to punish workers who decide to work during a strike, virtually guaranteeing even the most outrageous union boss demands would be met.

2. He voted against National Right to Work Act, which would have ended forced union dues nationwide.

3. Voted against repeal of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages

4. Voted twice in support of FedEx Unionization

5. Voted for minimum wage increases six times, here here here here here and here

6. Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.

7. Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.

8. Santorum Joined With Congressional Democrats In Voting To Promote And Defend The Davis-Bacon Act

In 1996, Santorum Was One Of 14 Senate Republicans Voting To Affirm That The Davis-Bacon Act Should Not Be Repealed. “To protect the incomes of construction workers and their families and to express the sense of the Senate that the Davis-Bacon Act should not be repealed.” (S.Amdt. 4031 to S.Amdt. 4000 to S.Con.Res. 57, Vote #134: Motion To Table Failed 40-60: R 39-14; D 1-46, 5/22/96; Santorum Voted Nay)

In 1999, Santorum Was One Of 15 Senate Republicans Voting To Reject An Amendment That Would Have Limited The Applicability Of The Davis-Bacon Act In Federal Disaster Areas. “Amendment No. 1844 … At the appropriate place, insert the following: No funds appropriated under this Act may be used to enforce the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1931 (commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act) … in any area that has been declared a disaster area by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.” (S.Amdt. 1844 to S. 1650, Vote #320: Motion To Table Agreed To 59-40: R 15-40; D 44-0, 10/7/99; Santorum Voted Yea)

The Heritage Foundation: Davis-Bacon Artificially Inflates The Cost Of Construction Projects, Adds Billions To The Deficit Each Year, And Should Be Repealed. “The Davis–Bacon Act (DBA) requires the government to pay construction wages that average 22 percent above market rates. This shields unions from competition on federal construction projects. It will also add $10.9 billion to the deficit in 2011. Given that the federal government is already running historic and unsustainable deficits, federal policy should not unnecessarily inflate the cost of federal construction projects. Congress should repeal the DBA.” (James Sherk, “Repealing the Davis-Bacon Act Would Save Taxpayers $10.9 Billion,” The Heritage Foundation, 2/4/11)

During that same congressional session, Santorum also voted to retain the 1930s-era Davis-Bacon Act that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers (“On the Motion to Table (motion to table Kennedy Amendment No. 4031 to S.Amdt. 4000 to S.Con.Res. 57),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 134, www.senate.gov, 5/22/1996)

9. In 1993, Santorum Sided With The Clinton Administration And Congressional Democrats In Voting To Prohibit Employers From Hiring Permanent Replacements For Striking Workers

Santorum Was One Of Only 17 House Republicans Voting To Prevent Employers From Being Able To Hire Permanent Replacements For Striking Workers. Santorum, along with a small minority of Republicans in the House of Representatives, voted for the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act, which would have prohibited employers from hiring permanent replacements when employees go on strike. (H.R. 5, Vote #224: Passed 239-190: R 17-157; D 221-33; I 1-0, 6/15/93; Santorum Voted Yea)

Among The Bill’s Co-Sponsors Were Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dick Gephardt (D-MO), Charles Schumer (D-NY), And Bernie Sanders (I-VT). (Library of Congress Website, http://thomas.loc.gov, 1/4/12)

For Organized Labor, The Bill Was “The Defining Labor Issue Of The Young Clinton Presidency, As Important … As The Air Traffic Controllers Strike Was In The Early Reagan Years.” “Organized labor, or what is left of it, has high hopes for the Clinton Presidency. But so far the Administration has put on the back burner all the proposals that might give labor more power, except for one: a bill that would prohibit management from replacing strikers permanently with newly hired workers. And now that bill has become the defining labor issue of the young Clinton Presidency, as important today as the air traffic controllers strike was in the early Reagan years.” (Louis Uchitelle, “Labor Has A Big Job For Its New Friend Clinton,” The New York Times, 6/27/93)

The Chamber Of Commerce And National Association Of Manufacturers Lobbied Against The Bill. “Organized labor says passage of the bill, called the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act, is needed to reverse the sharp decline in membership and influence that unions experienced in the 1980's. … Business groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers are lobbying against the measure, arguing that it would unwisely tilt the balance of power in contract negotiations to the unions' favor.” (Clifford Kraus, “House Passes Bill To Ban Replacement Of Strikers,” The New York Times, 6/16/93)

10. In 1992, Santorum Sided With Labor Unions Against Congressional Republicans And Then-President Bush In Voting Against A Measure To End A Railroad Labor Dispute:

Santorum Was One Of Only 15 Republican House Members To Vote Against Binding Arbitration To End A Nationwide Rail Labor Dispute. “Provides for settlement of certain unresolved railroad labor-management disputes. Sets forth conditions which shall apply during the resolution of such disputes. Requires all carriers and all employees affected by such unresolved disputes … to take all necessary steps to restore or preserve the conditions that existed before June 24, 1992 (when a strike and lockouts caused a railroad stoppage).” (H.J. Res 517, Vote #236: Passed 248-140: R 136-15; D 112-124; I 0-1, 6/25/92; Santorum Voted Nay)

Congress Approved The Measure Amid Conflict That Had Already Shut Down The Country’s Freight Rail Lines And Threatened To Shut Down Passenger Rail Service. “Congress approved binding arbitration late Thursday night to settle the labor dispute that shut down the nation's freight lines and threatened commuter rail service, mainly in the Northeast. The legislation was rushed early today to the President, who signed it immediately. … President Bush's signature insured that there would be no further disruption of freight lines as well as Amtrak, the Federally subsidized passenger carrier.” (Roberto Suro, “Congress Forces End To Shutdown Of Train Service,” The New York Times, 6/26/92)

“In Congress The Most Vocal Opposition To The Legislation Came From Democrats, Many Of Whom Rely On Political Support From Unions.” (Roberto Suro, “Congress Forces End To Shutdown Of Train Service,” The New York Times, 6/26/92)

Organized Labor Unions Engaged In “Vigorous Lobbying” Against The Bill. “Pressure to take some kind of action mounted in Congress all day Thursday despite vigorous lobbying [by] the unions to keep Congress from intervening. In addition to reports of the shutdown's effect on trade and manufacturing, the lawmakers faced the prospect that it might spread to commuter services along the heavily traveled Northeast corridor from Boston to Washington by 12:01 A.M. today.” (Roberto Suro, “Congress Forces End To Shutdown Of Train Service,” The New York Times, 6/26/92)

In the 104th Congress Sen. Santorum joined all Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995. (“On the Cloture Motion (motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to consider S.1788),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 188, www.senate.gov, 7/10/1996)

Santorum supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 helping Specter secure the nomination. Specter went on to cast the 60th vote for Obamacare and then lost, in 2010, to Pat Toomey. Toomey, now in the Senate, is co-sponsoring Jim DeMint’s National Right to Work legislation — the very legislation Rick Santorum filibustered.

I agree, too far to the right, he doesnt really stand a chance. I dont really think most of the republican candidates stand a chance

Rick Santorum is a radical and the majority of voters will never elect a radical for President.

Rick Santorum is a radical and the majority of voters will not elect a radical for President.