James Poulos · January 4, 2012 at 8:22pm

It's knives out along the center-right spectrum.

David Harsanyi: "It’s not the authority of government that irks him, but rather the content of the material Washington is peddling today."

Conor Friedersdorf: "the Tea Party must confront the fact that [...] Santorum [...] supported most of what they hated about the Bush years, and couldn't possibly beat Obama."

My take:

Rick Santorum is a firm, sometimes eloquent champion of moral discipline. But the Bush years proved beyond question how difficult it is to cabin off “good” interventions in the minute details of our moral lives from “bad” interventions in our finances, our health care, our education, and other similarly sweeping areas.

Ramming the point home, the Obama presidency has demonstrated how the advance and application of centralized federal power always takes on a moral character in the hearts and minds of its exponents. “When people hurt, government’s got to move” — who can draw lines around the scope and reach of that infamous Bushism? Not Barack Obama. Rick Santorum?

Comments:


George Rapp
Joined
May '10
George Rapp

The various analyses I've read of Santorum's stance seem to be drawing on dated material - his 2005 book, speeches from the Bush administration, etc.  They seem to assume that Rick wasn't paying attention to (a) the Obama administration and its profligacy; and (b) the Tea Party and their insistence on reducing government spending.  I'd pay more attention to critiques of what he's said recently - but I haven't seen any of those (yet).

Brian Watt
Joined
Jun '10
Brian Watt

Santorum's "otherwise victory" speech last night was inspiring and refreshing to hear. He displayed passion, compassion, conviction and a willingness to take the gloves off when confronting Obama even making the not-too subtle comparison with Obama's policies and Mussolini's when speaking of his grandfather's emigration to America. Romney refers to Obama as "a nice guy but a failure". Santorum may be the candidate that Democrats have trouble demonizing...and doubtful that Gloria Allred will appear with a jilted Santorum lover in a press event...unless the woman was kissed by him in elementary school and is now claiming recompense for being the woman left behind, lo these many years.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Santorum probably beats Huntsman for the keenest advocate of the Ryan Plan, with Santorum even condemning the Ryan-Wyden Plan as an undue compromise. It's true that he's supported spending more on poverty when times were good, but he's been good at acknowledging that we need to cut now. The arguments over earmarks are unfair to him; he believes in congressional control over spending, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. He was far more responsible for Newt's biggest achievement (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act) than Newt was.

I'm not on board with all of his fiscal plan, but he's way sounder than Newt on the subject; about the same as Perry. Not ideal, but pretty good, and way better than Obama.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England
George Rapp: The various analyses I've read of Santorum's stance seem to be drawing on dated material - his 2005 book, speeches from the Bush administration, etc.  They seem to assume that Rick wasn't paying attention to (a) the Obama administration and its profligacy; and (b) the Tea Party and their insistence on reducing government spending.  I'd pay more attention to critiques of what he's said recently - but I haven't seen any of those (yet). · Jan 4 at 11:37am

Yeah, I think this is true. They also ignore his sterling, important, and effective work during the 1990s, when he was a key figure in moving fusion Conservatism into the Republican consensus.

Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser
George Rapp: The various analyses I've read of Santorum's stance seem to be drawing on dated material - his 2005 book, speeches from the Bush administration, etc.  They seem to assume that Rick wasn't paying attention to (a) the Obama administration and its profligacy; and (b) the Tea Party and their insistence on reducing government spending.  I'd pay more attention to critiques of what he's said recently - but I haven't seen any of those (yet). · Jan 4 at 11:37am

True, but this same defense would blunt most all of the criticisms against Romney (and much of those against Gingrich).

The vetting of Santorum must begin in ernest, good and hard. Get it all out there, every utterance, every gaffe, every hyperbolic rant he now regrets. His bubble was late in the making. If it's doomed to burst, let's get it done, and fast. If he survives, then we know he's genuinely got legs.


Joined
Dec '11
Nobody's Perfect

Last night's caucus results prove little more than that if you run around Iowa shaking hands with evangelicals, you can turn in a decent showing.  Pat Robertson won the same percentage of the caucus in 1988 as Rick Santorum did this time around.  But that brand of politics has short legs when it comes to the rest of the country.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

According to Rush Limbaugh, Romney is exactly the candidate the White House wants to run against. Obama can disingenuously criticize Romney for being a "Wall Street fat cat" while at the same time "praising" him for inventing the prototype of his health care plan. "He (Romney) is a greedy millionaire crook, like most Republicans, but he's done some good things too." That's how you know you're getting a "fair assessment" from Democrats--criticism for things Democrats hate, and praise for things Republicans hate. Limbaugh would say, you can tell that they want to run against Romney by how eagerly they say they're just ecstatic to run against Gingrich, or Perry, or the "big government conservative," Rick Santorum.

Brian Watt
Joined
Jun '10
Brian Watt
Nobody's Perfect: Last night's caucus results prove little more than that if you run around Iowa shaking hands with evangelicals, you can turn in a decent showing.  Pat Robertson won the same percentage of the caucus in 1988 as Rick Santorum did this time around.  But that brand of politics has short legs when it comes to the rest of the country.

You may be right. No doubt the pressure is on Santorum to prove that he can capitalize on the momentum coming out of Iowa. What Iowa does show is that Santorum had a ground game that the other candidates did not. He's also spent a good deal of time in New Hampshire and my guess is that some in the Granite State who weren't...well...solid as granite...behind Newt or Mitt may give Santorum at least the courtesy of another look. I don't think dismissing Santorum's showing in Iowa out of hand is probably sound political calculation at this point. No small feat for a Catholic politician to win the hearts and minds of evangelicals historically suspicious of Catholics...if one grants you the characterization of those who voted for Santorum.

Edited on January 4, 2012 at 9:08pm

Joined
Dec '11
Nobody's Perfect

One wonders what portion of Santorum's caucus voters were inspired by his decision to move his family to Iowa while he campaigned?  Shrewd bit of pandering, that.

What next?  The Santorum brood moves to South Carolina?

Michael Tee
Joined
Jul '10
Michael Tee

Oh my. You want Managerial Progressive?

Take a look at this: The PAWS 2005 Pet Animal Welfare Statute. Federal Government micromanaging at its finest. Santorum's signature piece of legislation.

(Cross posted from here.)

I'm no Rick "Compassionate Conservative" Santorum supporter either. There is nothing in his record to suggest he will do anything about the economy if he is elected President. He voted for the two biggest entitlements before ObamaCare.

To lift from Jonah Goldberg about "Compassionate Conservatism":

Here is an idea, quite serious when it was in the hands of Marvin Olasky and others, which was a religiously informed, socially conservative, rejection of conventional free-market economics and limited state conservatism... “Compassionate conservatism”...buys into the exact same insulting assumption that adjective-free conservatism is somehow inhumane or uncompassionate. George W. Bush invested both financial and political capital in compassionate conservatism... He talks about how “When somebody hurts, the government has to move.” He wants to help religious charities. He spends money on marriage counseling...Meanwhile, libertarians and small-government types are so mad they might spontaneously combust...


Joined
Apr '11
Jonathan Cast

Scott Reusser

George Rapp: The various analyses I've read of Santorum's stance seem to be drawing on dated material - his 2005 book, speeches from the Bush administration, etc.  They seem to assume that Rick wasn't paying attention to (a) the Obama administration and its profligacy; and (b) the Tea Party and their insistence on reducing government spending.  I'd pay more attention to critiques of what he's said recently - but I haven't seen any of those (yet). · Jan 4 at 11:37am

True, but this same defense would blunt most all of the criticisms against Romney (and much of those against Gingrich).

The vetting of Santorum must begin in ernest, good and hard. Get it all out there, every utterance, every gaffe, every hyperbolic rant he now regrets. His bubble was late in the making. If it's doomed to burst, let's get it done, and fast. If he survives, then we know he's genuinely got legs. · Jan 4 at 11:53am

The fact that this is what 'vetting' means in the modern Republican party is of course why none of the good candidates are in the race.

Brian Watt
Joined
Jun '10
Brian Watt

Nobody's Perfect: One wonders what portion of Santorum's caucus voters were inspired by his decision to move his family to Iowa while he campaigned?  Shrewd bit of pandering, that.

What next?  The Santorum brood moves to South Carolina? · Jan 4 at 12:22pm

Somehow I don't think your comment was emphatic enough. I think "festering brood" would have been more impressive. But how do you really feel about his family? Would it be better if they were a Catholic singing troupe like the Von Trapp Family Singers? At least they'd be a brood apart.

Freeven
Joined
Dec '10
Freeven

Scott Reusser

The vetting of Santorum must begin in ernest, good and hard. Get it all out there, every utterance, every gaffe, every hyperbolic rant he now regrets. His bubble was late in the making. If it's doomed to burst, let's get it done, and fast. If he survives, then we know he's genuinely got legs. · Jan 4 at 11:53am

Yep, exactly.

K T Cat
Joined
Sep '10
K T Cat

Joined
Dec '11
Nobody's Perfect

Somehow I don't think your comment was emphatic enough. I think "festering brood" would have been more impressive. But how do you really feel about his family? Would it be better if they were a Catholic singing troupe like the Von Trapp Family Singers? At least they'd be a brood apart.

There's nothing pejorative about the word "brood".  I simply used it in order to avoid repeating the word "family".  Care to provide a more acceptable alternative?

Brian Watt
Joined
Jun '10
Brian Watt

Nobody's Perfect: Somehow I don't think your comment was emphatic enough. I think "festering brood" would have been more impressive. But how do you really feel about his family? Would it be better if they were a Catholic singing troupe like the Von Trapp Family Singers? At least they'd be a brood apart.

There's nothing pejorative about the word "brood".  I simply used it in order to avoid repeating the word "family".  Care to provide a more acceptable alternative? · Jan 4 at 1:02pm

Oh, my mistake. I think the word "pandering" in the preceding sentence must have thrown me off. I don't hear the word "brood" too often in a complimentary or plainly descriptive way. But then I'm not a terribly erudite fellow and don't get out much.

Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser

Jonathan Cast

Scott Reusser

 

The vetting of Santorum must begin in ernest, good and hard. Get it all out there, every utterance, every gaffe, every hyperbolic rant he now regrets. His bubble was late in the making. If it's doomed to burst, let's get it done, and fast. If he survives, then we know he's genuinely got legs. · Jan 4 at 11:53am

The fact that this is what 'vetting' means in the modern Republican party is of course why none of the good candidates are in the race. · Jan 4 at 12:29pm

True, but the alternative would be worse -- that is, pretending the Dems won't conduct an even deeper anal exam in the general election.

Such vetting is an example of the party, in its wisdom, thinking ahead.

KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville

Some quick notes:

  • Santorum's defeat was a high priority for Chuck Schumer, who was in charge of getting the Dem majority that year. Santorum was targeted by a lot of outside money ... which leads one to wonder, if Santorum gets under Chuck Schumer's skin, isn't that a good thing?
  • Santorum's opponent was Bob Casey, Jr., who was sold to Pennsylvanians as mostly conservative (his father was a well-liked pro-life Democrat). Casey turned out to be, as we all know, more feckless and more liberal than advertised.
  • Santorum lost his job because he went along with the Republican establishment in promoting Specter to pad the GOP caucus numbers. I. hope. he. learned. something. from. that.

The main argument against Santorum is that he lost a Senate seat, so how could he beat Obama? I don't think that calculus applies to what really happened, but reality doesn't much matter anyway - - perception is more important than ever this year.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

KC Mulville: Some quick notes:

The main argument against Santorum is that he lost a Senate seat, so how could he beat Obama? I don't think that calculus applies to what really happened, but reality doesn't much matter anyway - - perception is more important than ever this year.

If he can pull off a decent performance in... I'm guessing, three of SC, FL, CO, ME, or MO, he'll be in the race. If he can manage that, he has some skills, given how late his funding is coming in, and the media distaste for him.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In