Is Rick Santorum The Leader America Is Looking For?

One of the troubling things about Rick Santorum is that he wants people to vote for him because he will be a great leader in the future. For example, when Rick Santorum was criticized for his support for unions in the Senate, he excuses himself for failing to lead because he stood for state's rights in not supporting right to work in Pennslyvania:

"And you need to remember, I was from the state of Pennsylvania. State of Pennsylvania does not have a right to work law. The state legislature and our governor for a long time had rules in place that were inconsistent with right to work. 

"And I wasn't, as United States senator, representing the states of Pennsylvania going to go down and by federal vote change the law on the state. I believe the state has the right. If they want a union dues requirement, that the state should be able to do that."

Its hard for voters to support someone who couldn't be a leader in the past but promises to be a leader in the future when it comes to supporting right to work legislation:

"As a president, I have a very different point of view. I have already signed a letter and sent it to the national right to work that I would sign a national right to work bill because now, I'm no longer representing that state."

Santorum has never wasted an opportunity to remind people that he's a follower and not a leader. 

During the Arizona GOP debate, Rick Santorum defended his endorsement of Arlen Specter by explaining that the George W. Bush Administration instructed Santorum to support him so Arlen Specter could be chairman of the judiciary committee. He offered the same explanation when it came to explaining his support for the controversial No Child Left Behind by stating that that "sometimes you take one for the team." Not surprisingly, Rick Santorum gave the same excuse when explaining his vote for the NCLB. As a result, Mitt Romney wondered what team Rick Santorum was on because he voted for laws he disagreed with but still voted for it to "take one for the team" while calling himself the "outsider" who is capable of leading America.  

Rick Santorum has also failed to demonstrate leadership during this campaign by blaming other people for his problems. Lets look at a few examples. 

When Rick Santorum was criticized some statements about women in the workplace in his 2005 book, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," he failed to take responsibility for the statements in his book by stating that his wife wrote the offending passage.

After Romney won the 2012 CPAC convention, Rick Santorum whined that Mitt Romney rigged the poll.

When Rick Santorum was unhappy with his own performance at the Arizona GOP Debate, he complained that there was an alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  Both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney denied these accusations. Tim Pawlenty stepped in and affirmed that there was no back room deal between these two candidates. These accusations lead many people to believe that Rick Santorum was starting to get desperate.

After Santorum's failure to win the Michigan Primary, he complained that the Michigan GOP changed the rules of the caucus in order to give the remaining two delegates to Mitt Romney. The Michigan GOP denies the allegation.

Most leaders often stick by their controversial statement and decisions. Yet, Rick Santorum is busy retracting his statements. During the Arizona GOP debate, Mitt Romney reminded Rick Santorum that he endorsed him in the 2008 election. After the debate, Santorum publicly retracted his 2008 endorsement of Romney. Rick Santorum called Obama a "snob" for encouraging people to attend college and is now admits that it wasn't a wise thing to call the President a childish name. 

After a video of Rick Santorum emerged showing him making a statement that there was a line in John F. Kennedy's famous address that he gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association made him want to throw up, he now wishes that he could take that statement back.

Rick Santorum was not a leader in the past and he hasn't demonstrated any leadership skills in this election. Yet, he promises voters that he will be a great leader in the future. However, many of us are wondering when and if he will lead. People know that if a person fails to lead in the past, its not likely that they'll be able to lead in the future.

Mitt Romney Wins Arizona And Michigan!!

For Mitt Romney, tonight's victory in Michigan was an absolute success. He did better in tonight's primary than he did four years ago in the 2008 primary. In 2008, he got 39% of the vote with 338,316 votes going to Mitt Romney.  According to the New York Times, Mitt Romney defeated Rick Santorum by 31,119 votes with Romney receiving 403,886 votes whereas Santorum got 372, 747 votes. Moreover, Mitt Romney won 41% to Rick Santorum's 37%. This is an achievement for Romney since he has beaten his 2008 total votes by a wider margin.

For Rick Santorum, he suffered a devastating loss in Michigan tonight. His loss is embarrassing for him for a number of reasons. He made robocalls to democrats across the state begging them to help him defeat Romney and was successful in getting them to the voting booth:

According to CNN, 10% of those who voted in the primary identified themselves as Democrats, representing a larger share of the electorate than in the 2008 vote. Of that group, 50% said they voted for Santorum, 19% for Ron Paul and 15% for Romney, exit polling showed.

That result would suggest that the combined efforts of the Santorum campaign and state Democrats to appeal to the left were successful, though their motivations were different.

Santorum said his campaign launched automated calls to urge Democrats to vote because the GOP needs to show "we can attract voters we need to win states like Michigan" in November. Many Democrats had a different goal: prevent Romney from winning his native state and extend the Republican battle for the nomination. An article in the Detroit Free Press quoted several Democrats who said they voted for Santorum on Tuesday, but would vote for President Obama in November.

However, Rick Santorum's efforts and the Democratic Party's attempt to derail Mitt Romney failed. 

Rick Santorum's loss tonight is also embarrasing due to the fact that he lost the female vote by a wide margin with only 38% while Mitt Romney had 43% of women voting for him. Finally, Santorum got 37% of the Catholic vote while Romney received 43%.

Moreover, Rick Santorum had a significant polling lead a week before the Michigan primary but saw it quickly evaporate after a dismal performance at the CNN Arizona debate. His lead also disappeared because the voters began to look deeply into Santorum's record and were not pleased with what they found. He was not the conservative he held himself out to be. 

Rick Santorum is going to have an uphill climb trying to defeat Mitt Romney. He's already has lost 9 delegates in Ohio. He's not on the Virginia ballot and was initially not on the Indiana ballot but is apparently now on the ballot. I don't see Rick Santorum staying in the race after Super Tuesday.

Mitt Romney also did a great job in Arizona. He clobbered Rick Santorum with winning 47% of the vote with 213, 706 votes while Santorum only got 26% of the vote with only 121,197 votes. In 2008, Mitt Romney lost to John Mcain, got only 34% of the vote and received 186,938 votes   Just as Mitt Romney improved his game from the 2008 Primary, he did better tonight than he did in 2008 in almost every county in the state. 

Mitt Romney will continue to do well on Super Tuesday and beyond. However, I predict that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will drop out of the race after Super Tuesday while Ron Paul will hang on until the bitter end. I also see Mitt Romney winning the Republican nomination in Tampa, Florida.

Rick Santorum Doesn't Understand The Separation Of Chuch And State

After Rick Santorum's disastrous performance at the CNN GOP debate in Phoenix, Arizona, a video surfaced of him expressing his disgust with John F. Kennedy's famous address that he gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, about the role of his faith will play in his bid to become President. During the 1960 presidential election, many protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith could make decisions free from any input by the Catholic Church.

Before I get to the video of Rick Santorum's comments, I would like present the speech that Rick Santorum is referring to. Watch the clip below: 

You can read the transcript of Kennedy's speech here.

Rick Santorum gave a speech at the St. Thomas More College of Liberal Arts’ Symposium on Catholic Statesmanship and you can watch a brief clip of that speech below: 

A few days ago, Rick Santnorum was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos in which he was asked about why he strongly disagreed with J.F.K's speech: 

Here's the specific quote from J.F.K's speech that Rick Santorum has problems with:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him,” 

Rick Santorum's comments reveals why he isn't fit to be president because he believes that that religion should have an influence or involvement in the operation of the state but that "the state has no business telling the church what to do."  He fails to understand that religion oversteps its bounds when it attempts to tell their members who to vote for or forms a relationship with government in which it involved or has influence on the day to day administration of our government.

In a previous article, I explained the why the Founding Fathers did not allow religion to play a role administration of the affairs of the people: 

While the Founding Fathers wanted religion to play a role in public life, they also wanted to prevent the federal government from endorsing a specific denomination or sect. They also wanted people to vote for candidates running for Congress or President to focus on a candidate's values and not their religion. That  is  why the Founding Fathers specifically forbid religion as a litmus test in the Constitution.It was intended that a person's faith was never a factor in considering someone for elected office or as a requirement to hold a job in the federal government. 

Why did the Founding Fathers focus on values rather than religion when drafting the Constitution? 

The reason is because the Founding Fathers were purposely trying to avoid the mistake that Old Europe had made in that there was one religion had the endorsement of the Government at the exclusion of all other religions. In fact, England herself has suffered a wave of political instability as Catholic and Protestants fought to place a  Protestant or Catholic King or Queen on the throne. 

As a result,  the Founding Fathers understood many countries with a religiously pluralistic society, such as England, have struggled to unite their people of different faiths. The solution in Europe was to force unity through governmental endorsement of a particular religion. In other words, they thought religious unity could come from forced conformity to a particular faith. However, that created political and social instability.

The Founding Father had a different yet radical and novel solution to governing a religiously diverse society was to unite people based on common values shared by all faiths rather than uniting people based on a common religion. That is why America was and still is a politically and socially stable country.

Given that Rick Santorum is a Catholic, it amazes me that he wanted to throw up over a single but important line in J.F.K's speech given the fact that in the early period of American history, many states passed religiously bigoted laws simply because the majority of Americans at that time believed that Catholics were not Christians. 

The reasons why we need an absolute separation of church and state can clearly be seen today because we face those very problems that J.F.K warned about. For example, our government for many years have been trying to tell churches to do things that are contrary to its religious beliefs whether it be adoption, marriage or birth control. 

Furthermore, JFK's speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association also warned people about the dangers of  voters refusing to vote for a candidate simply because that candidate belongs to a different religion:

"For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist...Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril."

In the previous election and current presidential elections, we have seen religious leaders telling their members not to vote for a candidate because of his faith and we have seen people admitting that the will not vote for a candidate because of the religion they belong to. Yet, Rick Santorum believes that voters can look beyond a candidate's religion but fails to understand why they should.

J.F.K clearly understood this from European history and early American history that religion has a place in American life but it cannot tell politicians what to do nor who the American people should vote for. Rick Santorum apparently doesn't understand that concept which is why he doesn't understand why Kennedy said what he said in that speech in 1960. 

Kennedy was a devout Catholic talking to a large audience of Baptists who were suspicious of having a Catholic president who might simply obey the orders of the Church. As a result, Kennedy simply reiterated what Thomas Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists in response to a letter they sent to the newly elected President Jefferson. 

Rick Santorum is expected to and should have understood Kennedy's message, but he doesn't. In contrast, Mitt Romney understands J.F.K's speech much better than Rick Santorum because in his speech at the George Bush Presidential Library, he tells American people this: 

"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

While I admire Rick Santorum's deep commitment to his Catholic faith, he doesn't have the proper perspective and he has a limited view as well as understanding about the proper roles of government and religion should play in American life. Mitt Romney has a broader and comprehensive view because he understands that our country was created on a foundation of common values that unites us as a people regardless of their faith and will govern our country on that basis. 

As a result, Mitt Romney is the best choice that voters can make in this election. 

Mitt Romney Is The Winner Of The CNN Arizona Debate

Tonight, Mitt Romney gave another stellar debate by going on the offensive and giving solid answers. The biggest loser in tonight's debate is Rick Santorum. 

Mitt Romney was agressive towards Rick Santorum the moment the debate started. When the issue of support for Congressional earmarks came up in the debate, Mitt Romney mentioned that Rick Santorum supported the Bridge to Nowhere. Rick Santorum tried to defend himself by pointing out that he accepted government money for the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. Mitt Romney gave a memorable response: "I was trying to save the Olympics while you were trying to defend the Bridge To Nowhere." The audience went wild.  

About half way through the debate, Mitt Romney mentioned that Rick Santorum supported Arlen Spector over Pat Toomey. Rick Santorum never recovered from that attack and it went down hill from there for him. Mitt Romney reminded the audience his support and endorsement for Arlen Specter was essentially a vote for ObamaCare since Specter supported ObamaCare. Later during the debate, Rick Santorum's explanation for endorsing Arlen Specter was that the George W. Bush Administration instructed Santorum to support him so Arlen Specter could be chairman of the judiciary committee. Although it was not mentioned in tonight's debate, Arlen Specter was the 60th vote to pass the $787 billion stimulus.

Later during the evening, an audience member asked about No Child Left Behind. When it came time for Rick Santorum to respond to this question, he looked like a someone who was confessing to a Catholic bishop for supporting the law and was looking for forgiveness from the audience. Rick Santorum's excuse for supporting No Child Left Behind was that he voted for it because the Bush Administration wanted him to. 

Rick Santorum did not come across as a leader tonight and he admitted that many times tonight. Nothing speaks to the American people like leadership as confessing taking one for the Bush Administration. While Santorum was being strictly honest about his record in Congress, the fact that he confessed to making too many mistaken votes did not impress conservatives across the country.  I don't think that Rick Santorum realized that when he was confessing his sins for supporting No Child Left Behind and Arlen Spectrum, he essentially admitted that when he followed what the Bush Administration instructed him to do, it was also admitting to be the ultimate Washington D.C. insider because he was willing to take a couple for the Bush Administration.

Rick Santorum lost big tonight because he couldn't defend his record. Mitt Romney exposed Santorum as someone who isn't a conservative as he claims to be and Santorum didn't help himself with his multiple confessions tonight. Rick Santorum hurt himself by exposing himself as someone who isn't a leader.

The Problem With Rick Santorum's Support for Unions

During the 2012 election, Rick Santorum has taken a hard stance against public sector unions but his record reveals that he has a soft spot for private sector unions:

1. On June 15th1993, Rick Santorum voted for Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act (HR 5) which prohibits employers from hiring permanent replacements when employees strike over wages or benefits.
   
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. He also voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
5. Has flipped flopped on his positions regarding unions. He routinely supported them but then abandoned them as soon as he started running for President. 
6. He also voted for Alexis Herman in which she was appointed by Bill Clinton to be Secretary of Labor.
7. He voted for a law to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board and also voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws. He also voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.
8. He voted twice for the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995 (HR 743 & S Amdt 4438) which amends the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 to allow employers to form labor-management cooperative organizations with employees without the presence of a union.
9. He also voted twice for the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 which would have forced Fedex to accept local unions (H.R. 3539)

Most bloggers simply provide a list of Rick Santorum's voting record as reasons why people shouldn't vote for him since each of the bills that he has supported has increase the power, size and influence of private sector unions. However, most bloggers stop there and do not continue their investigation for more facts about Santorum's ties with private sector unions. 

For example, I did some further investigation by using maplight.org to see if Rick Santorum had accepted donations from any unions at all. I discovered that as a result of Rick Santorum's soft spot for private sector unions, he had no qualms in accepting campaign donations from them while he was in Washington D.C.:

The public record of Santorum accepting private section union political contributions certainly lends support to the claim that he likes private sector unions. This may explain why Santorum has gone hard after public sector unions during the 2012 presidential primary election but conveniently fails to mention his support for private sector unions. However, for conservatives, supporting private or public sector unions is unacceptable. 

As I continued to dig further into Rick Santorum's support for private sector unions, I discovered that when he voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization, he was in the middle of a long standing battle between two large shipping companies. When it came time to pick a side, he chose to support the pro-union company United Parcel Service (UPS) that was attempting to force its competitor, Federal Express (FedEx), to accept local unions in their company.

The Battle Between UPS & FedEx

To understand how badly Rick Santorum betrayed the conservative principles of supporting the free market, you have to understand the story behind the long standing feud between UPS and FedEx. 

The source of contention between these two companies arises from the fact that FedEx operates under a different federal law than UPS does which makes it easier or difficult for employees to form unions. FedEx currently operates under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) which makes labor organization more difficult since employees working for FedEx cannot form unions on a location by location basis but it must be done through a company wide vote in which every employee must vote in a single nationwide election and must obtain a majority not just of the workers voting but of voters and non-voters combined.

The reason why FedEx operates under the RLA is because when FedEx became a company in 1971, it was chiefly an air transport company in which it shipped mail and packages by plane. Later, FedEx expanded its operations to include trucks who would deliver the items that were shipped by plane.

In Federal Express Corporation v. California Public Utilities Commission (936 F. 2d 1075), the 9th Circuit of Appeals explained why FedEx falls under the RLA:

The trucking operations of Federal Express are integral to its operation as an air carrier. The trucking operations are not some separate business venture; they are part and parcel of the air delivery system. Every truck carries packages that are in interstate commerce by air. The use of the trucks depends on the conditions of air delivery. The timing of the trucks is meshed with the schedules of the planes. Federal Express owes some of its success to its effective use of trucking as part of its air carrier service.

"Federal Express is exactly the kind of an expedited all-cargo service that Congress specified and the kind of integrated transportation system that was federally desired. Because it is an integrated system, it is a hybrid, an air carrier employing trucks. Those trucks do not destroy its status as an air carrier. They are an essential part of the all cargo air service that Federal Express innovatively developed to meet the demands of an increasingly interlinked nation."

Unlike FedEx, UPS is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which allows for unionization at the local level. As a result, UPS has local teamsters unions whereas FedEx doesn't. UPS can't compete with a non-union company because of the costs associated with allowing unions as part of the day to day operations which makes it more expensive for customers to ship their packages with UPS than it does with FedEx.

That's why UPS made repeated attempts through lobbying and support of Democrats in Congress to get FedEx to operate under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) instead of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). 

The Legislative Battle To Unionize FedEx

UPS, Unions and the Democrats have been, and still are, determined to force FedEx to accept local teamsters unions. Let me review the history of that battle with you.

When Congress was considering passing the ICC Termination Act of 1995, a key term, "express company” was removed from the coverage provision of the RLA. UPS and its allies contend that this deletion was intentional while FedEx and its allies claim that the deletion of that term was unintentional. The reason why the term, "express company" is because the deletion of that key term may have required FedEx to operate under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) instead of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). However, the facts clearly indicate that "Congress did not knowingly and intentionally strike the phrase "express carrier" and, by doing so, intend to strip Federal Express of decades-old rights" of operating under the RLA.

 In 1995, Congress worked on passing the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1995 was bill that was to provide reauthorization of the FAA and to approve new airport security measures. To fix the accidental removal of the key term in the ICC Termination Act, Senator Ernest Hollings, (D. S.C.) offered a technical amendment to the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 3539, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1995. The Hollings amendment firmly establishes that FedEx Express was an “express company,” and would still be subject to the RLA.

The Conference Committee approved it and it went back to the House for a final vote. The late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, (D. Mass) tried to filibuster the entire Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1995 to prevent the Hollings Amendment from becoming law. However, the fillibuster failed and it was subsequently sent to the White House to be signed by the President. Despite angry approval from liberals and Democrats over the Hollings Amendment which was now part of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1995, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law. 

The Ongoing Battle Between UPS & FedEx 

Before I discuss Rick Santorum's votes on the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, its important to point out UPS and its allies are still working to force FedEx to unionize. 

A decade after Congress passed Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1995 and was signed by President Clinton, Rep. James Oberstar, (D. Minn.) introduced a rider to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 which he called the “Express Carrier Employee Protection” Amendment, would amend the RLA to remove FedEx Express ground transportation employees from the coverage of the RLA and make them subject to the NLRA. Representative Oberstar's amendment was approved by the House but was not included in the Senate version of the bill and efforts to reconcile the two bills were unsuccessful. As a result, The FAA Act 2007 was not reauthorized, and the agency has recieved temporary extensions since its expiration in 2007.

In 2009, Rep. James Oberstar, who became the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, made a second attempt to have his RLA amendment inserted as rider to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. The House approved the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 with the Oberstar's amendment attached to it. FedEx mobilized to ensure that the Olberstrar's amendment would not appear in the Senate version of the bill or in the final version of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. 

Section 806 of the House version of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 become a hotly contested issue for both UPS and FedEx in the Senate. Fortunately, FedEx prevailed and was victorious against UPS.  neither Section 806 or the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 became law.

Had this bill passed, it would have had major consequences for FedEx and for our nation if both companies were unionized:

Since the US small parcel market is currently structured as a duopoly, the fear exists that the union could easily affect price and service in the form of coordinated work interruptions. If FedEx and UPS employees instituted a work stoppage at the same time, shippers in the US would be left with USPS for all parcels, and they simply don’t have the breadth and depth of services UPS and Fedex have.

During the 2010 midterm election, Rep. James Oberstar, was defeated and Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) who is now the current chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. In this bill so far, there has been no attempt to force FedEx to unionize and Democrats will not prevail in any attempts to do so due the fact that the Democrats suffered heavy losses in the 2010 midterm election.

Rick Santorum Sides With Unions

Now that you understand the repeated attempts by UPS, Democrats and socialists to unionize FedEx, it becomes clear why Rick Santorum voted twice for the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 is a real betrayal to the conservative approach to labor issues and the free market. When it came time to supporting unions or non-union companies, he was clearly, unambiguously and undoubtedly on the side of the unions.

This fact is even more offensive when you consider that he received $14,000 in campaign donations from FedEx while working in Washington D.C.:

Even worse, he also received $11,199 in campaign donations from UPS: 

Its clear that while Rick Santorum was receiving money from both sides of the battle, he ultimately sided with the pro-union company rather than the non-union one. 

As a result, moderates, independents, tea partiers and conservatives cannot support Rick Santorum in the 2012 Republican Primaries and allow him to become the Republican nominee due to his support for private sector unions.

Mitt Romney Remains The Winner Of The Maine Caucus

Last Saturday, immediately after Maine announced the results of the caucus, Ron Paul came up with a conspiracy theory as to why he lost in Maine:

The Paul campaign had tried to lower expectations somewhat during the day, alleging that the Romney campaign had been involved in some tricky business, and predicting that the results would be very close.

In particular, a senior Paul aide had suggested that the Romney campaign was involved in the cancellation of Washington County’s caucuses, a small county where Paul’s campaign had expected to do well. “It’s not completely insidious, but they knew we were going to swamp it up there,” said Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton.

As a result, Ron Paul is refusing to refusing to accept the results that Romney won that state's caucus.

Maine conducted a recount of the votes and found that Mitt Romney remains the winner of the caucus: 

The party decided to recount the votes after determining that votes from caucuses in Waterville, Belfast and a number of other towns were left out of the final results, and that the tallies for Paul and Romney were reversed in Portland.

Chairman Charlie Webster said the exact vote count of Maine's nonbinding straw poll would be released Friday afternoon, ahead of Saturday's caucuses in East Machias in Washington County.

Here are a breakdown of the final votes:

TOTAL - 5814
ROMNEY - 2269  (39% ROUNDED OFF)
PAUL - 2030   (35% ROUNDED OFF)
SANTORUM - 1052  (18% ROUNDED OFF)
GINGRICH - 391  (7% ROUNDED OFF)
UNDECIDED - 59 (1% ROUNDED OFF)

 

The Truth About Romney's Conservatism

Many conservative bloggers, commentators, speakers, journalists, politicians as well as television and talk radio show hosts claim that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. These claims are false. Let's review the truth about Mitt Romney's conservatism: 

1. Traditional Marriage: Mitt Romney has been a fierce supporter of traditional marriage. Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, has penned an excellent article defending Mitt Romney's record on gay marriage. A group of citizens of Massachusetts publicly released a letter defending Romney's record on traditional marriage. Furthermore, he signed the a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) supporting marriage between a woman and man. As a result, Mitt Romney has been the strongest and consistent supporter of traditional marriage. That is clear from the facts and from those who served with Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. Moreover, Mitt Romney's marriage is another example of his support for traditional marriage since he's been a strong family man since he's been married once to the same woman for 42 years. No sexual harassment charges against him. No accusations of adultery. Romney has been able to create the ideal family: stable marriage, stable family, stable job, great home and lots of grandchildren.

2. 2nd Amendment Rights: Romney has been accused of supporting gun control and expanding the Assault Weapons ban in Massachusetts. The reality is every year he was governor he worked with the NRA on legislation making small reforms to Massachusetts’ existing draconian gun control laws, considered a step forward for gunowners by the NRA. In 2005, he issued a proclamation declaring May 7 “Right to Bear Arms Day.” Gun Owners Action League, the Massachusetts gun organization, issued these statements about Romney’s record, “During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. Governor Romney did sign five pro-second amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.”

3. Defender of Religion: Mitt Romney has a very long history of defending religious liberty while working as governor of Massachusetts  a strong defender of religion. For example, in 2005, Romney actually vetoed a bill that would have forced Massachusetts hospitals to offer abortive contraception. He also defended Catholic Charities in Massachusetts who being forced to compromise their religions principles in matters of adoptions by filling a bill to protect religious liberty called the An Act Protecting Religious Freedom. As a result of his defense of religious liberty in Massachusetts,  the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty awarded him its prestigious Canterbury Medal in 2008. 

4. Capitalism: Mitt Romney's economic record as a conservative cannot be impeached. He has only spent four years as a politician by being the Govenor of Massachusetts. The rest of his life has been in the private sector.

5. Foreign policy: Mitt Romney has been strong on issues of national security, terrorism, and supports our military.  I strongly recommend everyone read Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech at The Citadel. 

6. Law: Mitt Romney's positions and record on matters that are important to legal conservatives is also unimpeachable. He has a strong record of defending the Constitution, state's rights and appointing judges that do not legislate from the bench.

7. Health Care: Mitt Romney's record on health care is clearly conservative. Before the 2012 election, RomneyCare wasn't a problem for conservatives. It wasn't a problem for conservatives when he proposed his health care plan.The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation liked it and published a report titled the "Massachusetts Health Reform: The Myth of Uncontrollable Costs."  There are several fan over at the Heritage Institute such as Robert Moffit, Ph.D., and Edmund Haislmaier. In fact, the Heritage Foundation advised Mitt Romney in the creation of RomneyCare before they flipped their support for RomneyCare when it became politically unpopular to support it.  Many conservatives endorsed RomneyCare. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have supported RomneyCare. For conservatives worried about the constitutionality of RomneyCare, his health care plan is constitutional whereas ObamaCare isn't.  

8. 2008 Election: During the 2008 Presidential primary, Mitt Romney was hailed as the "true conservative alternative" to John McCain. All the major conservative bloggers, politicians, talk show hots, columnists were strongly endorsing and encouraging conservative voters to support Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney won the conservative vote in many of the state primaries and caucuses. Yet, in one of the strangest reversals in conservative history, Mitt Romney is somehow painted as not a true conservative in this 2012 election.   

9. 2010 Election:  Mitt tirelessly campaigned on behalf of conservatives and Tea party candidates in 2008 and the 2010 elections. He demonstrated his character by working to help the McCain/Palin team defeat Obama. During the 2010 election, he went on a whirlwind tour supporting conservative candidates across the country and provided millions of dollars in donations to local, state and Congressional candidates win. Mitt Romney was an powerful force in helping the Conservative tsunami happen. 

10. 2012 Election: Many people say that Mitt Romney isn't getting the support of conservatives in the primary election. However, if you look at the facts, its clear that Mitt Romney has been receiving strong support from solid conservative voters in the primary elections so far.

People keep insisting that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. Yet, the record clearly shows that he's been consistently conservative ever since he entered into politics. What more evidence do conservatives need to prove his conservative credentials? The fact is that Mitt Romney has always been a conservative. If you want to get more details about Mitt Romeny's conservative record, check out Mitt Romney Central, WhyRomney.com, AboutMittRomney.com and Mitt Romney Encyclopedia.  

In conclusion, let me leave you with the words of a conservative candidate who strongly endorsed Mitt Romney: 

"In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party's nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built.Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear," Senator Rick Santorum (Feb 1, 2008)