Taking one for the team: Santorum’s big debate stumble
Santorum’s biggest blunder on this front came in how he described his vote for Bush’s expansion of the federal role in education, saying “It was against the principles I believed in. But when you’re part of a team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader.” This gets at the heart of the problem with Santorum, which I wrote about the day he announced he was running for president — he was the quintessential Bush era Republican. As the number three Republican in the Senate, he was a loyal soldier and went along with Bush’s big government policies, from NCLB to the Medicare prescription drug law. The very problem with the Bush era was precisely that too many Republicans decided to be team players rather than push back against the president when he was violating conservative principles. It’s this very “team player” mentality that the Tea Party movement, in part, was created to combat. Santorum spent the early part of his debate touting his opposition to the Wall Street bailout, but his argument tonight about taking one for the team leaves little doubt that he would have voted for the bailout had he still been in the Senate in 2008. It was much easier for him to sit back and criticize the policy when he was out of office. Santorum’s comment about his unwillingness to stand up for his principles when they clashed with Bush on NCLB was especially ironic, because it came moments after he used the word “courage” when he was asked to describe himself with one word.
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 2
Would you rather he intransigently defend NCLB, the same way Romney intransigently defends WillardCare? At least Santorum admits he was wrong. That’s more than Mittens will ever do.
steebo77 on February 23, 2012 at 7:02 AM
LOL…ouch. True.
ddrintn on February 23, 2012 at 7:05 AM
Klein nails it. This is what I’ve been saying for a long time now, and last night Santorum’s mask slipped. He’s no conservative stalwart. He’s a go-along-to-get-along politician who voted for big government policies when he was in power. Now he wants to shamelessly play the part of conservative hero? No, thanks. There isn’t a true conservative in this race now that Perry dropped out.
Romney may not be much better, but at least RomneyCare was limited to Massachusetts. Santorum’s votes to expand entitlements affected the entire nation.
Caiwyn on February 23, 2012 at 7:16 AM
Everyone is missing the point. Santorum is not against big government. He is a full throated supporter of an all encompassing federal government. He just prefers it to be his brand of social conservative big government.
It was right there is his answer to why he voted for title 10 and how he tried to counterbalance that with title 20.
It is in his vote for NCLB. He is not against the federal government running education. He just thinks that NCLB didn’t get the job done properly.
But don’t worry let’s get control of the Senate and a President with an R next to his name and all will be fixed.
BS. We had that for 6 years under Bush. And what did that get us. Massive debt, an economic catastrophe, which led to Obama which as with insurmountable debt, and an even bigger economic catastrophe. And now we are broke.
Personally, I would prefer Obama to be re-elected so he can be the captain of the ship when it inevitably goes down, because if Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich are in charge when it happens the whole thing is going to be pinned on “conservatism”. Then all is lost.
Unless, you all want to come to your senses and vote for the one guy who actually stands or conservatism as it had been defined prior to GW.
Oh wait, you can’t, he’s unelectable, and wears a tin foil hat, and he dares to criticize Republican foreign policy, and he doesn’t believe the terrorists just hate us for who we are and that are acts of bombing their countries could have something to do with it, and he thinks sanctions lead to war, and he doesn’t think wiping Iran off the face of the map is the right approach, and he earmarked even though he voted against the bills he earmarked, and an employee of his criticized the black community during the Rodney King riots and he didn’t call him out on it, and his followers are robots, and racist, and antisemitic, etc, etc.
ReformedDeceptiCon on February 23, 2012 at 7:32 AM
So I missed the debate last night. Sounds like Santorum had a rough go of it, getting it from Paul and Romney.
But did Romney actually give any specifics of what he’d do as President last night? I watched 16 of these debates waiting for a reason to vote for him. I read his 57 point economic plan, which had no specifics and was essentially a diatribe against Obama.
The only reason to vote for Romney has been he’s rich and good-looking.
At least Santorum has his manufacturing plan. And Gingrich isn’t short of ideas, just ideas on how to pay for the ideas.
And Paul’s good on economics, but a disaster on foreign policy.
So I guess that still puts me in the Santorum camp.
Nethicus on February 23, 2012 at 8:04 AM
This is a disqualifying now? Com’on guys!!!
I loved Santorum last night!! I like the way he speaks and you get the feeling that if he has political capital from the conservatives, he could make a big in the right direction! And imagine him sitting next to the One and speak that way, with conviction (although not perfect as pointed here)….He will make Obama look like an empty suit that he is.
1) Paul 2012!!
2) Santorum 2012!!
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM
aCan.I.be.in.the.middle on February 23, 2012 at 8:18 AM
I wonder how many of those criticizing Santorum voted for Bush?
fight like a girl on February 23, 2012 at 8:28 AM
Romney did go into detail about his new tax plan. And he was very good on the topics of foreign policy and illegal immigration. Probably his best debate with regard to non-economic issues. He did well overall. The problem is yet again he’s stuck defending the indefensible with Romneycare and even the Olympics earmark(I don’t care about that, but he’s made earmarks an issue this past week).
Doughboy on February 23, 2012 at 8:31 AM
Hmmm… Ron or Rand?
Fallon on February 23, 2012 at 8:35 AM
More tinfoil layers for your hat dude.
csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 8:39 AM
This is very well observed. I myself had initial reservations about Perry (before deciding to support him) because of the “Texas governor” thing. Where he lost me, though, wasn’t “heartless” (I agree with you about a lot of the ‘offense’ people took to that being something of a pretext), but rather the series of awful debate performances.
Then I accepted the grim, bleak reality of being a committed Romney supporter for the simple reason that the only other plausible candidate (Perry) had disqualified himself. *sigh*
Esoteric on February 23, 2012 at 9:44 AM
And Senator ClosetCase had no problem loading up such bills with pork, and then voting FOR them.
Whose hands are cleaner?
JohnGalt23 on February 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM
That’s really uncalled for.
steebo77 on February 23, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Hahahahaha!!!!
Aren’t you precious!
csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2