Is Rick Santorum the logical conservative alternative?
posted at 1:25 pm on February 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Last night, a number of people on Twitter pointed out that Mitt Romney didn’t get a majority of the Florida primary vote and claimed that combining the percentages of all other competitors showed that he could still be stopped. I pointed out earlier that this assumes everyone wouldn’t vote for Romney as a second choice, which polling shows to be false (he was second among second choices in Florida), but let’s put that aside for a moment. To whom should conservatives look as the consolidation candidate? After watching Newt Gingrich lose two debates and suffer a steep reversal of fortunes in Florida, some look to Rick Santorum, such as Andrew Malcolm, who wonders if Gingrich has worn out his welcome:
In an amazingly graceless non-concession concession speech after not phoning the victor out of common competitive courtesy, Gingrich chose to talk not about minor matters such as how he proposes to win the Nov. 6 national general election against $1 billion.
No. Instead, Gingrich described in great detail what all he is already planning to do and sign during his first day in the Oval Office, in between taking the presidential oath and numerous inaugural parties.
Seriously.
After a humiliating defeat, Gingrich spoke of a two-man race, assuming his own GOP nomination and general election victories. Big ideas? Try loony ideas. The guy is living in a parallel universe.
Now, Gingrich takes his campaign to Nevada, the state with the most foreclosures in the nation, where he has three days to explain what he did for that $1.6 million that mortgage giant Freddie Mac paid him.
Jeffrey Anderson at The Weekly Standard looks at the numbers ahead:
In Missouri, where the next Republican primary will take place (next Tuesday), a new poll by PPP shows Rick Santorum leading Mitt Romney by 11 percentage points — 45 to 34 percent — while Ron Paul has 13 percent support. Newt Gingrich isn’t on the ballot in Missouri, so the Show Me State offers a prime opening for Santorum to build on his earlier victory in neighboring Iowa.
Perhaps even more encouraging for Santorum are the candidates’ respective favorability ratings among prospective primary voters in the state. Santorum’s net favorability rating is +42 percent (63 percent favorable to 21 percent unfavorable), compared to +10 percent for Romney (46 percent favorable to 36 percent unfavorable). (Paul’s net favorability rating is minus-29 percent — 28 percent favorable to 57 percent unfavorable.)
Those aren’t the only numbers that suggest that Santorum could stand up better to Romney than Gingrich. PPP polling in key upcoming states show that Santorum challenges Romney more strongly in Ohio as well as Missouri:
Rick Santorum is leading the way for next week’s ‘beauty contest’ primary in Missouri with 45% to 34% for Romney, and 13% for Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich is not on the ballot for that, but he will be in the picture for Missouri’s caucus and leads the way for that with 30% to 28% for Santorum, 24% for Romney, and 11% for Paul.
In Ohio Gingrich is at 26% to 25% for Romney, 22% for Santorum, and 11% for Paul.
What might be most interesting in both states is what happens in a head to head between Romney and either Gingrich or Santorum:
-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.
-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.
Two takeaways from those numbers: if this ever came down to Romney, Paul, and just one out of Gingrich and Santorum, Romney would be in a lot of trouble. And he’d be in more trouble if the single conservative alternative ended up being Santorum.
It’s not just the numbers, either. The debates in Florida last week showed that Gingrich’s claim to mastery of the format simply don’t hold up. He lost both of those debates, and spent the rest of the week attacking Romney on religious freedom and proposing a lunar base that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in an era where Republicans are arguing for reduced spending. If Gingrich was actually making the conservative case against Romney, I could see Sarah Palin’s point, but he’s not. He’s making a case for “big ideas” that involve a huge amount of spending, attacking Romney on any basis that happens to be handy, and he’s attacking the media.
The candidate actually making the conservative case on the campaign trail is Rick Santorum. Santorum scored points off of Romney in both Florida debates, especially the last one, because Santorum hasn’t ever backed an individual mandate as a health-care solution and doesn’t have to defend that position. He’s never backed TARP, either. That doesn’t make Santorum a perfect conservative candidate, but he seems to be the only one who’s focusing on the actual conservative agenda. Even if the motivation is to back a conservative alternative to Romney to “sharpen his steel” and force him to follow the conservative agenda, it’s Santorum who is most effective at making that the agenda.
Plus, there is one more thing to consider, and that is the quality of leadership. Both of the frontrunners and their allies have engaged in disappointing attacks on free market enterprise in an attempt to exploit each others’ weaknesses, but Santorum has refrained from doing so, even though he has specifically targeted blue-collar voters who might respond to those attacks. Santorum has maintained a high level of integrity in his campaigning, and that’s something to consider when choosing the man who will represent the party in the 2012 elections.
Santorum also has a new ad out today, “Deal,” which targets Gingrich. It’s running in Nevada and Colorado this week:
Breaking on Hot Air
Oh, good: Iranian hackers trying to break into the American energy grid
Reason: Will ObamaCare and patent attacks kill medical innovation?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
These kinda encompass my thoughts. They feared Reagan would do the same things with his support of the Moral Majority, and it didn’t. We’re in a different era now, and I would like to have someone (anyone!) who is guided by some principles, other than socialist ones.
They will demonize Rick (suprise!). But does anyone think they won’t do the same with Romney or Gingrich? This is going to be the bloodiest battle in 150 years, when they were making accusations about Andrew Jackson and his wife. They’re going to tear up the Republican candidate from fence to fencepost. We’re going to have to girder our loins and vote no matter who the candidate is, because the alternative is unthinkable. And if I’m going to have to vote, I’d rather vote for Rick.
itsspideyman on February 2, 2012 at 9:21 AM
A few weeks ago, I heard Rick Santorum speaking in prose to some supporters in a reasoned discussion about gay marriage and supporting individual rights which are helpful to gay people, because they are helpful to all people.
As soon as NH rolled around, the liberals rolled out the bigotry garbage against Santorum, it was a lot like the Soledad twisting of words yesterday. If you don’t want a candidate who will be a target of the left, the MSM has concocted an bizarre sterotype of conservative people, and worse, republicans. And people in our party are digging in and enjoying playing them out against Mitt Romney.
Just think of the stoopid social questions they would always ask Rick or Michelle. They are going to ask them if Rick is the candidate. They are going to ask about the rich and poor, no matter who the candidate is. They are going to ask Newt about his affair with Callista later, if he gets the nod, and put Callista on the spot about living secretly in the shadows for 5 years, and more than one so called journalist, will say to her, so how about that bedtime conversation with Mary ann when Newt was still married to her and he was sleeping with you. No one on Fox News will ask that question…what, gentleman’s agreement somewhere?
Fleuries on February 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM
This is the weirdest definition of social conservatism I’ve ever heard.
MadisonConservative on February 2, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Give it a rest. He could never in a million years beat Obama and he will sure as hell not win another primary.
He was voted out of the senate, so naturally he needs to up his profile for a future run at another public office like Governor, or maybe become a Fox contributor.
We’ve seen this a million times.
michaelthomas on February 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM
If you remove the “secular religious beliefs” I believe the definition is close to the spirit.
Our system of government could be considered a “winner-take-all” system, where either everyone has a right or no one does. I think social conservatives are on the run right now and just want to be able to protect what they feel is important. Liberals can smell the air and know they can push.
I look at the Bishops and their desire to protect their interpretation of care in their 80 hospitals and 2,000 clinics and fear they will be forced to accept a government interpretation (actually the Sisters run the hospitals). I think very much they wish to be left alone to provide care as they are guided, and leave the grisly options such as abortion to others. Personally, I think the reason the government can’t allow this is because I believe in the long run abortion will be looked at as an ephermal choice to a social problem. To allow hospitals who choose not to provide this is an embarrasment to the pro-abortion option.
There are places, especially in the interpretation of life, where “social” issues span boundaries drawn by Democrats and Republicans. The whipsawwing back and forth to me is healthy; as long as we’re talking about these issues there’s a chance we can find common ground. However for many social conservatives it requires them to agree with things that are equal to murder. And many of them who I know feel like if they can’t fight this, they simply wish to be left alone.
itsspideyman on February 2, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Here’s the thing: I’m totally with social conservatives on this very issue, but at the same time, I think we may be in it for different reasons. Some social conservatives oppose this government interference because they oppose being forced to hand out contraception when the hospital was founded and is run by a religion that specifically opposes it. In this case, I guess I understand what is meant by “secular religious beliefs”, but I think it’s a misnomer. I don’t think there’s any religion behind the government doing this. I think it’s just the same old story of an oversized government continuing on its quest to push people further and further to do their bidding. I oppose that simply from a limited government perspective, regardless of my views on Catholicism and their beliefs. There lies our common ground, yet once we start discussing principles, we clash.
MadisonConservative on February 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM
Well spoken.
itsspideyman on February 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Yes, they shouldn’t do this anyway because of small government principles, but it is blatantly unconstitutional to force a religious organization opposed to contraceptives to hand them out, regardless of whether it violates some other principle (even another Constitution-based one). If you can’t even agree with us there, how can we trust your method of interpretting the Constitution at all? It doesn’t look like original meaning, it isn’t well-informed of the history of the nation or the views of the Founders… and if it’s not those things, it’s not conservative.
CanofSand on February 3, 2012 at 9:39 PM
“Is Rick Santorum the logical conservative alternative?”
Yes. It’s elementary, my dear, Watson. Observe how raaaaacist it clearly is to choose a thin-skinned Obama or one of the three fair-skinned opponents over an Italian.
FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 4:52 AM
“Newt Gingrich, I perceive. Here is a gentleman of grandiose type, but with the air of an elite professor who attacks success. Clearly an entrenched congressman then whose post-speaker career was largely public-policy profiteering. He has just come from the tropics, for his face is as dark as his mood, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardships and scandals as his forced grinning face says clearly. His girth has been expanding. Where in the tropics could a ham Ameritopian mastermind afraid of his own product catalog have seen much nostalgia hardship in the sun and got his ego wounded? Clearly in Florida.” -Sherlock Holmes
FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:03 AM
“Ron Paul, I perceive. Here is a gentleman of diminishing stature, but with the air of a rebel without a cause. Clearly an entrenched congressman then who repudiates American Exceptionalism. He has just come from the desert, for his face is dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardships and aging as his haggard face says clearly. His dowager’s hump bends him as injured. Where in the desert could a self-applauding lone wolf congressman have seen much sunlight upon his revisionist history and bigoted newsletters and got his weasel earmarks record wounded? Clearly in Nevada.” -Sherlock Holmes
FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:08 AM
“Mitt Romney, I perceive. Here is a gentleman born of generational presidential single purpose, but with the air of a tribal businessman. Clearly a leapfrogging politician then who sees voters as the product, not the consumer. He has just come from the tanning bed, for his face is evenly dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone no hardships or sickness as his rehearsed face says clearly. His financial security or social status has never been injured. Where in the poseur, rock star tour bus could a shorter shape-shifter have seen much record rationalizing in the spray tan booth of managed decline and got his conservative pose wounded? Clearly outside of Massachusetts.” -Sherlock Holmes
FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:11 AM
“Rick Santorum, I perceive. Here is a gentleman of wonkish type, but with the air of a clarion call, constitutional conservative. Clearly a whistle-blower congressman then who attained higher office and party leadership. He has just come from the heartland, for his face is bright, beyond the natural tint of his olive skin, for our Founders’ God Given Rights vision is reawakening. He has undergone hardships and held fast with our military in the field as his Lincoln face says clearly. His principled leadership, unafraid to take political risks, remains intact. Where from tilled soil to Made in USA shop floors could a grandson of an Italian immigrant coal miner hold aloft the Reagan-model beacon of melding social, fiscal and national defense conservatives into a winning coalition from articulating the conservative cause; the interrelation of limited government and the economy, morality and liberty — have seen much hardship to ensure America’s cultural inheritance with Justices Alito and Roberts win in the political marketplace? Clearly with patriots demanding no truce to decline but a bold vision for more principled conservative, enduring public policy.” -Sherlock Holmes
FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:15 AM
The depth of the hatred toward Santorum is not over social positions Obama himself holds but knowing this monstrous centralization of power in Obamacare will not stand. The “inevitability” the opposition craves is not in Mitt Romney as the nominee but enshrining health care as a “right.” Can the Romney enacted Mass. Cap & Trade be far behind? “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” no sooner spoken than forgotten by another moderate leader assuming office, Julia Gillard. “Iron clad” election promise on an EU referendum from Tory David Cameron and no less promised by the LiberalDems and Labour parties too only to meet casual disregard once in office. Mr Romneycare will repeal Obamacare? More fool us.
You think Newt, in his Wilsonian authority born of long banquets and long Beltway summits, will repeal Obamacare? As with nearly all of his Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) influence (Obamacare as late as spring 2009, Freddie Mac, Medicare Part-D, ethanol, Cap and Trade), Newt is for the concept of government doing something — often finding a problem where conservative principles dictate none — and in the end, he is firmly in his Ameritopia position of free market interference, shielded by opposition to the bill in its final form. “Consider” “his support for Government-Sponsored Enterprises. Gingrich’s post-speaker career was largely about finding ways for his clients to profit from an increased government role in the economy. ObamaCare was a golden opportunity for such public-policy profiteering.”
Santorum is right, Newt and Mitt wont exhaust all administrative remedies, let alone lead congress, to repeal Obamacare.
The TEA Party is told we must submit to working within the Republican party to gain influence. By the same reasoning, if we can’t have influence, surely we must stop submitting to their rules. “Don’t look at the polls. . . Don’t pay attention to what the national media are saying, what the pundits are saying. Listen to your heart. Lead. Don’t follow.” –Rick Santorum
FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:58 AM
There’s been a healthy focus on political legacies, the big picture while we too look forward in need of a statesman to lead the nation safely from enemies foreign and domestic. I happen to believe that no one person holds the Reagan torch; it is in all of us throughout the world. Sorry, Newt. All men are fallen but I don’t want your Redemption Tour and constant pleas for pity are beneath the Office of the President. I respect Newt’s legacy for the conservative cause but what are its Remains of the Day? I know he claims welfare reform regardless of the fact Rick Santorum co-authored and worked it in the House and then the Senate floor but allowances must be made for Uncle Newtie, right? Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One, but as Jack Benny once quipped, “When you take a joke away from Milton Berle, it’s not stealing, it’s repossessing.” Sure, Newt’s Mr. Contract With America, and if we had a Conservatives Hall of Fame, he would no doubt be one of the first people inducted, but repeated aping of Santorum’s “clear contrast” and Bachmann’s Frank-Dodd lines among others are not inspiring confidence in your vision or statesmanship. Does America really need a kinescope Uncle Newtie in Groundhog Day?
As Mark Levin said 16 years ago, how does trickle-down-government help the poor? Let Ann Coulter count the ways in her “Three Cheers for Romneycare” column. How prescient of her to point out the “Democrats 2009 Stimulus bill dismantled the welfare reform passed in the 1990s.” (The Welfare Reform Act of 1996.) Who didn’t see that old scab getting picked off with a Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House? (The entrenched political class is for more than dieing in office, they define “status quo.”) Ms. Coulter may continue to sneer at Rick Santorum’s “boasted” entitlement reform but as the only one to date, no matter how short-lived, it stands as the standard bearer. For all Newt’s influence, paid and otherwise, in D.C., did he see it coming or have a hand in these dependence induced changes?
I’m not talking about Newt’s product catalog. We all know he could turn around and pull from the shelves any number of books, videos, DVDs, white papers, glossy brochures, coloring books, etc. and find either side of a position past to parse. Therefore, the question remains, what specific conservative (so Endangered Species Act doesn’t count) legislation may Newt claim as his very own “big idea” still going strong?
And what has Mitt Romney ever done to advance the conservative cause? He quit his reelection campaign as governor to splash his personal cash about to the tune of $35 million to run for president in the 2008 cycle as if Romneycare was a big enough down-payment to the Liberal Lion of the Senate Teddy Kennedy to leapfrog over the conservative cause and into the Oval Office. Of course, now Romney is the next in line heir splashing Wall Street, financial status quo cash about — “At that speed, they could run right over my daughter’s stereo and not hear it.” — and appearing in two shows a night with the new Liberal Lion of the Senate 2.0 John McCain. Dear voter, the Romney campaign has had six years to paryroll-up every political consultant and donate to every political operative or politician of note nationwide — “They’re pinging away with their active sonar like they’re looking for something but nobody’s listening” to you; voters are the product, not the consumer — the Facebook-model just like the Democrats 2008 playbook. Also, aping Donald Trump on China does not a foreign policy legacy make. Next.
Ron Paul has no legislative accomplishments save “one” I heard mention but it must be of such diminished stature, not unlike himself, that no one bothers to tout what it was. Paul did say (Fox News Center Seat segment) if elected president he would not shut down the Fed for it wouldn’t be prudent, and his choice for Fed chairman was Jim Grant. Great. Thanks for that most gracious concession on your campaign sloganeering, but it seems none of your supporters know it as you build a better volunteer mouse trap with your “legalize drugs” college campus money bombs (leading to wasted human capital). Covet your hipster son as Kentucky’s senator to lend seriousness of purpose to your legacy, Paul, for now.
As far as legacies go, Rick Santorum’s got several Aces. There’s the standard bearer of entitlement reform mentioned above, HSAs and he’s a Risk alumni, to name but a few.
I’ve learned a lot from watching 19 debates, and most illuminating was how the sausage that is legislation gets made. One example, watch Rick’s
Oct. 1994 C-Span video of his senate seat debate where he kills HillaryCare and mandates in the first 5 minutes. Further along, he stresses “You can’t force every American to do something they don’t want to do,” without fundamentally changing America. Talk about being consistent. Rick’s push for “Medisave” is what became today’s Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and the vouchers are today’s Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare competing private sector “premium support” health plan subsidies in the Ryan/Wyden Plan.
A bottom-up free market approach to health care still going strong. HSA accounts surpass $12.4 billion in 2011:
Outside of any market use or benefit, for families with chronically ill or disabled members HSAs are a blessing. While it has become fashionable to denounce the very notion of a “compassionate conservative,” some steps were taken in the right direction for future limited government reform while focusing on individual relief or protection from deadpan corporatists or unions within the Great Society behemoth we all currently navigate. Something that gets lost in the shallow, ideology purity test for government reform today, it is no mistake that the millions who have availed themselves of any “big” government legislation like HSAs, NCLB, IDEA, etc., are best informed on the centralized power drag on our economy. In between swapping prescription drug nightmares with Mark Steyn, don’t you find, Ed? You’re primed and ready to kill this 4th estate behemoth of regulation. A positive built-in, conservative building block for future limited government social cohesion. Now we need to elect Rick Santorum to lead the congress on reform. However, on behalf of the most vulnerable in our society, I thank you for HSAs.
On the USS Yorktown in Charleston harbor, South Carolina native, war hero and CAIR antagonizer, three-star General Jerry Boykin endorsed Rick Santorum for president. A natural fit for both men are outspoken against radical jihad as Santorum has called for a change to the Rules of Engagement and Gen. Boykin, as a Christian evangelist, was pressured by the Obama administration led U.S. Military Academy at West Point to withdraw recently from their prayer breakfast after opposition surfaced from Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR). With eight years on the Senate Armed Services committee, Rick Santorum’s historical foreign policy experience overlaps well with Gen. Boykin’s in battle as part of America’s most elite fighting force; then rising to command those troops as a general, and also served in the CIA and Pentagon on the strategic planning and management side of counter-insurgency. If, a Delta Force hero who has served as the tip of the spear at the highest ranks (commander memorialized in the movie “Black Hawk Down”), who is also a man of profoundly deep faith, sees his patriotism mirrored by endorsing Rick Santorum for Commander In Chief, then who are we to disagree? The phone would go dead and there would be no survivors.
Rick Santorum’s servant’s heart legacy is as the proven consistent conservative holding fast against political winds for individual sovereignty when the loyal opposition calls — no individual mandate, no carbon dioxide tax, no Wall Street bailouts socializing losses and privatizing profits — unlike Mitt and Newton. “Judgment matters. When the winds are blowing what we’ve seen is Romney and Gingrich, they put their sails up and go.” -Rick Santorum
FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5