How can anyone be for Ron Paul and have Santorum as their second choice? The two are only similar on a few issues.
I look at the candidates along five different gray scales of behavior and ideology.
1. Belief in the Federal government adhering to its constitutional limits.
I think the federal government has gone way past the scope of its Constitutional responsibilities and it is trampling on individual civil rights via its use of the presumption of guilt with warrantless searches of US citizens and vehicles. We have allowed the government to simply give an excuse and then it can violate every constitutional right we have from habeus corpus to the right to a trial by our peers. Hell,the feds can even assassinate you if it deems you to be a terrorist with never a chance to defend yourself in a trial.
I rate Paul very strong in this category and Santorum strong too but less than Paul.
2. Preference for subsidiarity in government policies and activity.
We need to let lower levels of government handle problems as much as possible, and preferably at the individual level by providing incentives to each person to act in ways that benefit themsleves and the greater society.
Paul is strong on prefering less government, but I think he goes too far a tad and sees little justifiable role for the government in areas where I think the government is properly the primary responsible institution; things like setting standards, enforcing safety standards, protecting the environment, etc. Santorum is more my preference here in that he does see this role and wants the government to have a light touch where it does step in.
3. Their personal character.
I admire Paul for his consistency and depth of thought. I admire Santorum for his comitment to his family, church and community.
4. Their economic beliefs and how the government should interact in the economy.
Basically Paul is deeply concerned about the Federal Reserve and the Keynesian use of governemnt spending to spur the economy and I agree with him on these issues. Santorum is less concerned by the Federal Reserve, apparently, but seems to be a dissident on Keynesianism and he does still see a positive role for the government to play in society but within the bounds of the principle of subsidiarity. So both are strong here but in different ways, IMO, Santorum being more traditonal and predictable. I do not have a strong preference of one over the other in this regard.
I think Keynesianism good in theory but a vital part of that set of theories is that we pay down our national debt in times of prosperity and we really havent done anything like that since the 1950s, so in effect I dont think it is something our political system can pursue constructively.
The Federal Reserve I think is by its very concept hostile to the spirit and intent of our Constitution. The US Congress is supposed to have the Treasury MINT our currency, not outsource it to a conglomeration of banks to substitute coinage with bank notes. This is about to bite us all in the ass really hard.
5. Their preferences for use of military force in pursuit of American interests.
Santorum falls in the category of reluctant interventionism, IMO, while Paul sees the deeper problem to be our over-reach remaining to committed to so many places where we once had valid reason to be involved but whose time of need has long expired. We have too many irons in too many other peoples fires, so to speak.
While Santorum doesnt seem to appreciate this over-reach, he is at least loyal to our allies and willnot simply walk away from them and leave to the mercies of their enemies like
Obama isnow doing to Karzai and Isreal, IMO.
So while they are different in much of their approaches, they still hold to the essentials and advance us in the right direction for the most part.
Santorum is the more comfortable preference for me, and Paul more risky in that I dont know what limits Paul would go to to reign in the government, withdraw from global security commitments and roll back the Federal Reserve, among other things.
So, overall I have a significant preference for Paul since the problem is more of government over-reach and excess and where he would err, IMO, he is so far from doing damage given the political realities in DC that I dont consider it a factor.
