I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Count me among the many who never gave Santorum’s candidacy more than a passing shrug. Even after wave after wave of non-Romney surges, I never thought that Santorum would take his turn in that role in any serious way. I rolled my eyes at the very thought. He had a capital “L” on his forehead after he was thrashed in his last statewide run and was a Johnny-one-note when it came to a platform.
But his showing last night, and more importantly, his articulate criticisms of Romneycare in one of the Florida debates, forced me to reconsider my dismissive attitude. Of the four remaining candidates, he alone is in the position of providing a clear, meaningful contrast with Obama – to give this election a focus that goes beyond personalities. While Ron Paul certainly seems to be on a mission to reduce the size and scope of government, it is one that is irreparably compromised by isolationism to be viable. Romney and Gingrich, in contrast, do not give the impression that this election is about anything other than Romney and Gingrich – less lethal to the Republic than Obama, but what else do they offer? A Romney win would be a mandate for … what? The watered down gruel of scaled down statist me-tooism that Republicans have been hawking since the New Deal? And his recent embrace of Tea Party rhetoric notwithstanding, a Gingrich win in November would be a mandate for, what, lunar colonies?
And a Santorum victory? What would that mean? If nothing else, it would be an endorsement of the view that social institutions other than the government are worth supporting. If there is one thing that pervades Obama’s thinking, it is that the role of the government should be paramount in virtually every sphere of human activity (from dietary habits, to energy usage, to health care, to housing, and even to religious matters, which he has politicized to justify his economic agenda). There is no discernible respect for tradition in his many self-aggrandizing speeches, no respect for liberty in anything other than the most superficial or libertine senses. Santorum’s history makes him ideally suited to make the scope role of government a defining issue in the election. It may be Pollyannaish to see this as making him more electable, but Richard Nixon’s Silent Majority still exists and may find Santorum’s clarity of thought refreshing. Those who protest the loudest about Santorum’s social conservatism would never vote for a Republican anyway and their over-the-top caricatures will not likely be persuasive to many.
Given all that, the potential benefits of a Santorum nomination seem to outweigh those of his rivals’, including even Romney’s marginally (fictionally?) higher electability. So, rather than dreading my state’s primary next month, I’m actually beginning to look forward to it. It’s nice to be wrong (once in a while).
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Amen, brother!
May '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Those who tend to dismiss Santorum as a one issue zealot tend to miss what's really going on: he's all about rolling back government by strengthening those "mediating institutions" that stand between it and us.
Dec '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
I'm starting to lean Rick's way. Posts like this help.
Aug '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
I'm pleased by the results of yesterday's voting. However, I have a very conservative friend -- socially conservative, but very libertarian as well -- who, though no big fan of Mitt Romney, said he would prefer Mitt Romney over Rick Santorum. When asked why, he offered up this little editorial.
Friends, is there anything to that list? My gut tells me that a lot of it is leftist distortion by someone who simply hates Rick Santorum (the opening paragraphs certainly communicate that). But I am surprised that my Very Conservative/Libertarian friend would jump on it.
Jul '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Thanks for the link - to be honest, I was expecting far more damning material - pretty weak tea in this, hardly the stuff that elections turn on. Yes, it comes across as a hit piece simply cobbled together by a variety of petty complaints leveled over the past few years. If the columnist's point was to prove that Santorum's not perfect, well fine, but who is arguing that? A similarly close inspection of Santorum's rivals, and especially Obama, would turn up far more hair-raising material. If anything, if this is the best hatchet job someone in Pennsylvania can concoct, he's sitting pretty!
Jul '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
This makes him unique in the remaining field, although Rick Perry had a strong theme along somewhat similar lines. Santorum's challenge will be to stay disciplined and not be goaded into making easily lampooned remarks and to focus on how economic issues are not easily separable from larger cultural ones. That won't be easy with a downright hostile media (they really loathe him, don't they?) and a skeptical public impatient for "action" on the economy.
Jul '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Thanks - my thinking on Rick changed as I was writing it; I became more convinced of the case for him as opposed to his being just another not Romney.
Dec '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Cobalt Blue
Thanks - my thinking on Rick changed as I was writing it; I became more convinced of the case for him as opposed to his being just another not Romney.
I really liked the idea of Santorum when he was first considering the run. He guest hosted for Bill Bennett on Fridays, so I got a decent dose of both him and Bill's take on him before he announced. By the time he got in there were other more plausible candidates in the running. Then the other Rick happened. Then everything fell apart for everyone. I leaned very heavily to Newt when Perry bowed out, but his performance post SC took the thrill away. Santorum's slow climb out from under the pack and on to the top of it has been pretty near inspirational. His personal story is compelling, his policy positions are sane (80-85% match with me probably), and he comes across as very genuine. He doesn't seem to compare himself too much to Reagan, but that's because he doesn't have to.
con't.
May '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Cobalt Blue
Santorum's challenge will be to stay disciplined and not be goaded into making easily lampooned remarks and to focus on how economic issues are not easily separable from larger cultural ones. That won't be easy with a downright hostile media (they really loathe him, don't they?) and a skeptical public impatient for "action" on the economy.
I agree. The good news is, he's had a lot of practice over the years and he seems to be getting better. Look at his post-Iowa and last night's speeches. In both cases, he hit all the right notes and none of the wrong ones.
The other thing in his favor, I think, is that he has been very widely "mis-underestimated" as a "social issues" zealot, even among conservatives. The more people stop and listen to the real man, the more they realize there's a lot more solid goodness and a lot less fanaticism to him than they'd thought.
Watch his interview on Morning Joe today, for example. The media leftists who want to make him look stupid or extreme end up looking partisan and ill informed.
Edited on February 8, 2012 at 8:38pmDec '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
I get to caucus in just under a month (it counts this time!), and I'm still very undecided. I know I won't caucus for Romney, but it is nice to have a choice to make among the other candidates. As of now, I still want to support Newt, but his viability is playing its part in the Greek tragedy that is his political life. Santorum's principled positions on social issues impress and motivate me. He's figuring out how to thread the needle on the issues, which gives me some relief. I stand fully with him on social issues, and I firmly believe any candidate I support has to be right on social issues, but the environment we live in now precludes them as the hallmark of a campaign. Basically, you gotta wear the right shoes for the surface you're playing on, and making social issues the primary concern of a campaign can be a killer in today's socially depraved world. However, he's working his way to a reasonable position where they are very important but not the only defining plank of his platform. When he gets there, he'll have my full support.
Jul '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Agreed - if he can project seriousness on all fronts he becomes a much more persuasive candidate. His emphasis on social issues (or at least what I perceived his emphasis to be) prevented me from giving him a close look until very recently. I admit, however, that my tendency to write him off may have been prejudice fueled by a caricature portrayed by the media.
With respect to Newt, I can't help but see him as a skilled opportunist. If it was politically advantageous to trash the Tea Party (or Paul Ryan's budget proposals), I'm convinced he would do so with gusto.
Dec '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Cobalt Blue
Agreed - if he can project seriousness on all fronts he becomes a much more persuasive candidate. His emphasis on social issues (or at least what I perceived his emphasis to be) prevented me from giving him a close look until very recently. I admit, however, that my tendency to write him off may have been prejudice fueled by a caricature portrayed by the media.
As Peter noted the other day, everything is different now. Santorum can easily become the beneficiary of such circumstances. The lever Romney has on economic issues is shortening daily, but the lever Santorum has on social issues is lengthening. The trick will be to keep sufficient pressure on that front while strengthening on all the other issues. He has time between now and the next primaries/caucuses to get this done. I hope he will.
Jul '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
katievs
Watch his interview on Morning Joe today, for example. The media leftists who want to make him look stupid or extreme end up looking partisan and ill informed.
Thanks for the link. I haven't seen too many interviews with Santorum, but he comes across as more likable than others have indicated (and he's a patient man to respond to Carl Bernstein's inane questions so respectfully). I liked his willingness to take on the sacred cow of HeadStart so forthrightly as well as his understated "The First Amendement is kind of important in this country". Good stuff.
May '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Santorum has to understand the media wants him to spend all his time debating sodomy and contraception. He has to avoid this trap and politely reprimand any reporter that brings it up. He can't take the bait.
That's really his only major weakness. He will play well in rust belt areas Obama can't afford to lose.
Dec '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
My current thinking about Newt is colored by his failure in Florida. He dialled in on the right political frequency in the South Carolina debates and got tremendous momentum going into Florida, where the polls right after the SC primary indicated that Florida voters were eager for a big helping of what Newt gave SC. But he squandered that momentum and failed to hit the same notes in the Florida debates.
By contrast, Santorum was able in the South Carolina debates to get under Romney's skin and force him into "admissions against self-interest" on the issue of felons voting (which had been the topic of a crude Romney attack on Santorum). And in Florida, Santorum did the same thing to Romney on RomneyCare, even provoking the telling "It's not worth getting angry about" retort.
It seems to me that Gingrich is not learning consistently how to be a better candidate, whereas Santorum is. And Santorum seems to understand how to parry Romney's attacks and turn them back on Romney.
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Romney defines this election as about jobs, and the admittedly faulty government statistics are improving just in time to boost Obama's reelection prospects. Romney is unable to take it to the president on Obamacare because Barack will turn any attack right back on Mitt. Romney's "fixer" appeal is being cleverly countered by Team Obama's "occupy" strategy, which for some strange reason seems tailor made for a general election run against a retired private equity executive. Worse, Mitt is preemptively surrendering on the economic front by crafting his 59-point recovery platform in a way that validates leftist class warfare nostrums--be careful to keep your big post-Romney capital gains under $200K, for example.
In contrast, Santorum frames the election as being about liberty. Smaller government is valuable in its own right, and will also lead to the growing economy we all desire. His economic program is frankly tilted toward revitalizing America's manufacturing base, which will improve both the stock market and the prospects for blue-collar employees. And now Team Obama and its allies on the federal bench have just reminded mainstream voters why social issues matter.
I think Rick has a real shot.
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Oh, and let's not forget character. Both Santorum and Romney strike me as first-rate in the family values department; score this a tie. But what about political character? Romney checked out after one term as Massachusetts governor because he looked like a loser. Santorum fought it out in a tough state during a tougher year, and lost big. Mitt's been all over the map ideologically while Rick has been a consistent conservative with a few problematic votes; Rick wins here.
Obama is ideologically committed to fundamentally transforming the United States of America. I'd like to nominate a candidate who seems at least as committed to the Constitution.
Oct '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
George Savage:
In contrast, Santorum frames the election as being about liberty. Smaller government is valuable in its own right, and will also lead to the growing economy we all desire. His economic program is frankly tilted toward revitalizing America's manufacturing base, which will improve both the stock market and the prospects for blue-collar employees.
· 9 minutes ago
So he's for smaller government AND using the tax code to pick winners and losers on a grand scale.
It's the best of both worlds.
Dec '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
George Savage: Oh, and let's not forget character. Both Santorum and Romney strike me as first-rate in the family values department; score this a tie. But what about political character? Romney checked out after one term as Massachusetts governor because he looked like a loser. Santorum fought it out in a tough state during a tougher year, and lost big. Mitt's been all over the map ideologically while Rick has been a consistent conservative with a few problematic votes; Rick wins here.
Obama is ideologically committed to fundamentally transforming the United States of America. I'd like to nominate a candidate who seems at least as committed to the Constitution. · 1 minute ago
Also on the political character score: Romney is perfectly happy to have his surrogates go nuclear-negative on his opponents and then say (with as close to a straight face as he can approximate) that he has NOTHING to do with those attacks... which he can quote, chapter and verse.
He also is happy to chide opponents about whining and the need for broad shoulders, and then turn around and whine about being attacked.
He is a low and shady politician in my book.
Feb '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
I love the title of this post. "I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness." I admit I feel that way too. This hopeful sense that possibly there is a candidate who can forcefully and clearly and unashamedly articulate the principles I believe in... I was taken in by Newt's strong words and onstage performances, but he always was not quite... Toads for Rick? I'll keep trying it out...