Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
We all know his defects. He can be abrasive, strident, and plaintive in tone. He lacks wit and grace in rhetoric. He brags. He turns off moderates. He made the disastrous decision to back Specter over Toomey.
All right. Now recall to your imagination all the defects of the other candidates. Note that those defects are in areas of substance and principle, not tone merely (though none of them has a faultless tone). Keep in mind that there is no Republican contender up there, not one, who we can be confident will beat Obama.
Now let's consider Santorum's strengths.
1) He is a full-spectrum conservative: committed to limited government, traditional moral values and a strong defense.
2) He can articulate his positions both on the level of first principles and on the level of policy.
3) He's been in Washington enough to get serious political seasoning, and he's been outside it enough to be wise to its ways and dangers.
Now watch his interview the other day with David Gregory. Note that he's calm, firm, clear, nuanced, won't be baited, doesn't get defensive, doesn't back down.
Now read this profile in American Spectator today.
Now ask yourself whether he might not be our best chance, not just of beating Obama, but of getting the nation seriously back on the right track if he wins.
I, for one, am starting to hope he may be.
- Comment (77)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
He seems like a very honorable man. He is tough and principled and fearless. However, in order to be persuasive on social issues and matters of moral leadership, you need to be able to come across as warm and gracious and inspirational, not stern, intolerant and scolding. Unfortunately Santorum comes across as the latter. If his main point of differentiation is his exemplary record and message on social issues that needs to be something he can translate into a net vote winner for him. Unfortunately it seems more like an achilles heel for him with independents, and the reason that is so is largely due to style and personality. It takes a truly gifted person to handle sensitive subjects effectively and make them a strength. I don't think Santorum has that gift.
May '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
Granted. But you are comparing him against the ideal, not against the concrete alternatives and their respective assets and deficits.
Apr '11
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
katievs, being a Keystone stater I would love to be behind Santorum but the defects you list are what makes that all the more difficult. I wish he would stop beating his chest about himself and start beating the drum for the American people.
He is a man of character that could be trusted but his message should be that I'm the leader who can create an environment in which Americans and America can flourish. I will protect our interests abroad, secure our borders at home, rejuvenate our economy, through proper governance, for every household.
I wish he would stop whining about the lack of attention he has received and earn the whole country's respect by telling us all, with confidence, not attitude, how he can work with the congress to restore this country to it's God given rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
People talk of needing the next Reagan to emerge but one of his strengths I feel is lacking in Santorum and all the rest is the use of the simple term "we". Reagan used that term often and having a president who only knows"I" how refreshing it would be.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
Here is the case against. Sorry to do a paste-job, but this is simply more concise than I could ever be. Excerpts:
"A 10th Amendment revolution in this country might give social conservatives more political victories than they’ve had in decades—but it would also mean the loss of a valuable election tool for Republican politicians who not-so-coincidentally seem to always favor impossible-to-pass federal legislation...
"In a 2005 piece...Jonathan Rauch [in Reason] explained how Santorum’s rejection of traditional conservatism tied in with the Senator’s essentially statist philosophy: “As Goldwater repudiated Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, so Santorum repudiates Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.” “Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of ‘Big Government’ conservatism” admitted Santorum in his 2005 book It Takes a Family. Notes Rauch: “Santorum shows no interest in defining principled limits on political power. His first priority is to make government pro-family, not to make it small… With It Takes a Family, Rick Santorum has served notice. The bold new challenge to the Goldwater-Reagan tradition in American politics comes not from the left but from the right.”"
Apr '11
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
I believe BT is spot on. It is not an unreachable ideal but a necessary and learned ability to be able to present the truth in a manner that leaves another with their dignity intact after they have been reproved.
After his defeat to Casey you would think he would have learned humility. I think of Perry's response in the early debates when he subtly lectured us on our "cruelty" in wishing to have the rule of law upheld regarding illegal immigration. It did him measurable harm as we currently are witnessing.
A true leader must be confident of where he is going, why he is going and how he must get there and most importantly be confident that those he wishes to lead have the ability recognize true leadership when they witness it.
I believe he can learn and can utilize his momentum to pivot towards those positive qualities BT listed.
Aug '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
He is from Pennsylvania, and that's not good. A liberal bastion of politics with one of America's most dysfunctional cities lying broken in the ruins.
What exactly is there to inspire hope of a nation-wide revival with no proof of it ever happening in his own state ? The laissez-faire attitude of Penn pols to the regional politics of Philly don't particularly inspire. One city to deal with they just keep throwing money down a black hole and then approach the problems of a country with Chicago, Detroit, and countless similar situations ? I doubt the country could take a close look at Penn and say to themselves: "that looks like a good idea, let's make him President !".
Sorry he is tarred with the same brush of failure as the cities of his state.
He is a fine man, but he and others have failed at home.
May '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
We're agreed about his faults. What I think we need to do at this point is consider his strengths, and to consider the balance of those against the respective balances of his opponents.
If in fact his positions line up most with ours and with the national emergency, and if he has both the moral and intellectual stuff to do the job, then I suggest it's time we get behind him.
Jan '11
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
Katie, why did it take you so long to give Santorum, the man who seemed your tailor made candidate, a good look? If he has to work so hard to win over even his natural constituency it says something about his ability to connect to voters. That goes especially for his ability to bring over independents in the way he needs to. There is a reason he lost his last election in his home state by 18 points.
On policy the only meaningful difference I see between Santorum and Romney is that Santorum will push social issues harder and put them more front and center in the debate. I think that will just shine a spotlight on his less attractive personality traits. The general election needs to be about Obama's record, not how the GOP candidate is a heartless, self-righteous finger wagger that hates single mothers and gays.
Edited on Jan 3 at 8:09amApr '11
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
Do we really need to go down this route? Santorum I think is incapable of compromise on social issues. Nay he essentially stakes his whole career on not bending, on abortion, gay rights, etc...In a deliberative body such as the Senate I think there is a lot of value to people who are articulate and uncompromising. They force us all to listen to their views and they provided a voice to represent a certain section of our society. As an executive charged to carry out the law I think this kind of attitude is bad. There is a lot to be said about adopting a very neutral stance about such issues, for an executive.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
My problem, katievs, is he appears to NOT be on board with what is the most important part of being a full-spectrum conservative at this point: Shrinking the cost and scope of government. We saw this last week when someone posted his economic plan for consideration. It's lots of tinkering and editing. Not reform.
And, as we know, we are not likely to shrink the size and scope of government in the international arena under a Santorum Presidency, either.
Santorum was my senator for a time as well. His tenure did not leave me with the impression that I wanted to see more of him. All available evidence seems to indicate my neighbors feel similarly.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
I mentioned in another thread that I'm looking for someone with (conservative) principles and conviction. I see in Santorum a man with both in abundance. The rest of the field seems to lack one or the other. I think Santorum's delivery can be improved with a bit of coaching. And I'm confident given the polling data that he will emerge from the pack as a front-runner.
Let's put aside for a moment his minor deficiencies and examine whether or not Mr. Santorum can defeat Obama in the general. Much will depend on the talent and money he can attract to his campaign. As a front-runner that task should be easy. Republicans have finally learned to use advertising effectively. And Obama's record is a fat target (so to speak).
I think Santorum can do the job. It's time we ditch the negatives and concentrate on the positives. I'm willing to do more than take a second look at this point. Count me in.
Nov '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." -- Rick Santorum
Notify me when Santorum develops an interest in saving the U.S. from impending fiscal collapse rather than improper private conduct.
May '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
If you listen to the Gregory interview, I think you'll see that's not true. He supported the partial birth abortion ban; he supported the Hyde amendment; he supports laws that make exceptions for rape and incest. He has supported pro-choice Republicans in some cases. I know a lot of pro-life purists who wouldn't support any of those things. The only thing they'd support is laws that ban abortion absolutely.
Rick Santorum is not one of those. He believes, absolutely, in the dignity and value of each and every human life, and in the responsibility of government to protect life.
That doesn't mean he's unwilling to compromise. Nor does it mean (alas!) abortion would be abolished under a Santorum presidency.
Reagan was just as ardently pro-life. Bush too. But, being conservatives, they respect the democratic process and the limits of their office.
Jan '11
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
At the risk of being a broken record, Katievs leaves off Santorum's biggest short-coming -- not fault! -- as a presidential candidate: that he has no experience as an executive leader for whom the buck stops. To quote myself from yesterday:
If Santorum had a modestly successful gubernatorial record to compliment his time in Congress, he'd earn my consideration. As it is, he's an ex-legislator with a terrible defeat in his record and an advocate for social policies far, far to the right of most Americans (including me). He has little-to-no chance of winning the presidency, and we've precious little to go on to predict how he would actually govern.
As such, I'm not interested.
Edited on Jan 3 at 9:05amMay '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
Aodhan: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." -- Rick Santorum
Notify me when Santorum develops an interest in saving the U.S. from impending fiscal collapse rather than improper private conduct. · Jan 3 at 8:26am
On the logic of thing, he's absolutely right, isn't he?
And he was speaking at a moment when the question was timely and germane. The Texas law against sodomy was before the Supreme Court.
If you're willing to dismiss all his conservative strengths on the basis of his opposition to same sex marriage and abortion, then who's got the litmus test on social issues? Him or you?
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
Were I to vote in Iowa, I would vote for Santorum -- not because I think (right now) that he is preferable to Romney. I don't think that. But I do believe that Romney needs to be tested. If Romney wins in Iowa, he will win in New Hampshire, and the game will be over. If Ron Paul wins in Iowa, it is a statement that there is no "Not-Romney" out there even worth considering, and then the game will be over.
May '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
You too are comparing him against an ideal rather than the real alternatives. Are you saying you prefer Romney with his very mixed record and his managerial progressivism and his apparent inability to close the deal with the Republican electorate?
May '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
For all the reasons stated above, first among which was his seeming inability to get any traction in the polls. Now he's got that. At the same time, the terrible weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the alternatives are becoming clearer and more pronounced.
BThompson:
On policy the only meaningful difference I see between Santorum and Romney is that Santorum will push social issues harder and put them more front and center in the debate.
There is no question that Santorum's conservativism is real and deep-seated in him. Romney's is highly mixed and uncertain.
Santorum is much better on economic issues and much better on national defense, IMO.
Romney's advantage over him is in executive experience and his being non-threatening to moderates.
On the other hand, Santorum has the stuff to rally the base. Romney doesn't.
Oct '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
The interview with Gregory was impressive.
May '10
Re: Let's Take A Second Look At Santorum
I think it would serve the party very well for there to be a serious, viable, articulate conservative alternative to Romney. Santorum's the only possibility on that front.