Posted on 01/04/2012 4:12:59 AM PST by Kaslin
Even though he is a columnist for The Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer often makes shrewd observations about American politics.
On Fox News the night before the Iowa caucuses, however, Krauthammer indulged in a false appeal to common knowledge -- before casually dismissing Rick Santorum as a nonviable presidential candidate
Bill O'Reilly asked: Who is going to win Iowa?
"I'll tell you that it's win, place and show, everybody knows: Romney, Santorum and Ron Paul," Krauthammer responded. "And I'm not sure it will matter either way, because Santorum has a one-in-50 chance of winning the nomination. Paul has zero chance."
As I write this, the Iowa caucuses are still a few hours in the future. I do not know who is going to win, place or show.
But I know this: A month ago, someone looking for a frontrunner in Iowa might have picked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who hit 33 percent in a CNN poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers -- 13 points ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and 16 ahead of Paul.
Before that, former Godfathers Pizza CEO Herman Cain, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann all took turns at the top of the Iowa polls.
Before December, Santorum never topped 7 percent in the state. Why did he emerge?
First, Santorum passed the basic test all candidates face: He is up to the office.
Santorum's knowledge of public policy -- developed over two terms in the U.S. Senate -- is deeper and broader than any other candidate's except, perhaps, Gingrich's. He is clearly qualified to be president -- even if he has never been a community organizer like Barack Obama or a venture capitalist like Mitt Romney.
Secondly, Santorum has done something fairly radical in modern presidential politics: He not only has insisted on saying exactly what he believes, he has turned his heartfelt beliefs into the foundation of a visionary message for the country's future.
Responding to a question at a town hall meeting (broadcast by C-SPAN from Marshalltown, Iowa) on Friday, Santorum used one of his signature issues -- the right to life -- as a launching point to explain his broader vision.
"You have a lot of presidential candidates who will say the words: I believe life begins at conception," Santorum said. "Ladies and gentlemen, I don't believe life begins at conception. I know life begins at conception. It is a biological fact."
"We need someone who is going to go out and be unapologetic in laying out the truth to the American public -- not only on faith, family, life, but on all the issues that we are dealing with," said Santorum.
"This is the most critical time in our country's history, economically, morally, culturally, national security," he said. "And the reason President Obama has divided this country is because he has not told the truth to this country. He hides the ball. He plays games. He pits groups against another. It's all this political chess game, instead of trying to be honest with the American public."
"If you're a leader as a president, you have got to motivate the American public, and the best way to do that is to be truthful, to lay out the problems and say here is the problem that we have and what are we going to do to join together and solve that problem," said Santorum.
"I think one of those common things that we agree on, that we should agree on, are these basic foundational principles of our country, based on the Declaration of Independence," he said.
"If everyone is endowed by God -- not any god, but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God -- with the right to life, then there are certain things that we need to follow through and we need to have in our laws," he said.
"If you believe in the right to liberty, then there are certain things that come with liberty," he said.
"Freedom is not an open checkbook to write whatever check you want, to perform whatever actions you want," Santorum said.
"We cannot long last as a country with people going around living lives that are not responsible," he said. "Freedom comes with the responsibility to do not what you want to do but what you ought to do. That is the freedom our founders gave us.
"If you look at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, happiness in the vernacular today has a very different meaning than it had at the time of our founders," he said.
"Happiness today is enjoyment, pleasure, what makes you feel good. At the time of our founders, one of the principle definitions was to do the morally right thing," said Santorum. "So, think of what our founders envisioned: The freedom to do the morally right thing. Rights given to us by God to serve him and his will in our lives. That is the moral foundation that is America.
"Now, can we get Americans to agree with that or not?" he asked. "I believe the vast majority of Americans would agree with those foundational principles. Then we say: OK, how do we build upon that?"
"We build a culture of freedom," he said, "but a freedom to do what you should do, not what you want to do."
Santorum's great secret may be that after spending months visiting town after town in Iowa, he takes American voters more seriously than establishment pundits and political reporters.
Santorum’s honesty and unwillingness to budge on issues will be the way he is destroyed by Romney.
Romney (and Perry) have already started on Santorum’s unwilingness to disavow earmarks. Harp on that for a while to siphon off fiscal conservatives.
Romney will highlight Santorum’s 18 point loss in his last Senate battle as due to his lack of ability to attract crossover voters.
Plenty here on FR have already pointed out Santorum’s endorsement of Specter as a noose around his neck.
Etc, Etc, Etc.
I worked for Santorum’s campaigns here in PA. I like Santorum. However, I am clear-headed enough to see that he did well in Iowa because he was the only one not attacked yet by the others.
Between now and South Carolina (Jan 21), we will see the destruction of Rick Santorum.
LLS
"This is the most critical time in our country's history, economically, morally, culturally, national security," he said. "And the reason President Obama has divided this country is because he has not told the truth to this country. He hides the ball. He plays games. He pits groups against another. It's all this political chess game, instead of trying to be honest with the American public."
This is my favorite line in the whole piece. Of the Republican field of candidates at the moment, I have the most respect for Santorum.
So Romney's messeage will have to be 'I'm better because I'm a dishonest flip-flopper'?
“I will vote for whomever the Republican party runs.”
With Republican soldiers like you the party can bank on the fact that nothing will change and that a real challenge to them will never occur.
Why do you think they rejected term limits? Answer: They know people with a mindset like yours don’t give a rat’s ass whether they are in office a year or forever. The reason is that no matter who they run, you will blindly vote for them.
Look around. How many GOP lifers do you see in Congress? They bank on the fact that blind straight-line voters will never think beyond pulling the single party lever each voting cycle.
The sad fact is that with each election cycle the party becomes more timid in it’s go along to get along philosophy, pandering to political correctness, sense of diversity, sensitivity, and all other factors that have destroyed our way of life and freedoms.
The only reason that the majority of these lifers are still in office is to enrich themselves, puff up their perceived self-importance and to have their children or relatives follow suit by being in office too.
The Republican party has ALLOWED all of this to happen by not having the spine to actually do what they swore to do by oath of office...TO ABIDE BY AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION and I am sick of it.
The template quickly changed from no WMDs to "degraded" WMDs and no stockpiles. We have WWI era chemical munitions in storage at Redstone. There was a story back around '99 on 60 Minutes covering the potentially hazardous leaks at this facility.
Funny how they panicked over 100 year old American weapons, but 20 year old Iraqi ones are no big deal.
Erik, I hope you’re wrong because I’d much prefer Santorum over Newt, and Romney is a non-starter.
I think a lot of FReepers who supported Sarah and Cain would actually feel good about supporting Santorum. I know I do. As of today, he’s my pick and I hope he can go the distance.
Since he has outlasted both Sarah and Cain, and that in itself is surprising, I think he will at least keep fighting when the going gets rough.
Game on!
I did not like Santorum as my senator and suspect I will like him less as president. I do hope there is an alternative to him.
Mitt....you are on NOTICE!
Romney's message from day-one has been "don't look at my record, look at how crappy the other guy is"
No Romney -- No Way!
Stop......it’s Romney’s to lose right now.....I said I wouldnt mind if Rick was on the ticket. It’s NOT going to be Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul or Perry or Huntsman....who do you want??
What is the alternative? If we sit out tan election we get Obozo for 4 more years.
We ahve had several chances to make a difference and educate the public and we sat by complacently and let the DemocRATS bring the public to them. Right now the one that articulates the conservative message the best (Newt) is unlikeable and unelectable.
Iowa and New Hampshire have never picked our nominee. It was always South Carolina that crowned our candidate.
McCain was fourth in Iowa in 2008 and came back to win South Carolina and the nomination.
Free Republic is a non-Romney site (acording to JimRob) and I agree 1000% with him. Romney is a non-starter for conservatives.
I don’t like Romney, but I’m a realist.
Romney wins look for him to go leftward in the general election and lose
For me, my candidate dropped out or was forced out. I am not a sore loser but have looked at candidates other than Herman Cain and I can't get enthused about any of them.
Right now I will not watch any more debates. I have switched Fox off. They area already running radio ads here in Florida so I'll switch to easy listening rather than talk radio.
I'll tune back in AFTER the GOP convention and vote for Anybody But Obama.
Based on the declining posts on FR threads regarding the Presidential candidates, I feel most previous participants are also getting tired of the nominee process.
Ready to campaign against Obama here in the Sunshine State.
I will not vote for Romney under any circumstance.
If Romney is the nominee:
A) the Republican party needs to be replaced by a Conservative party
B) Republican primary voters are morons who do not understand that the Republican party has sat idly by and “moderately” “negotiated” our way INTO all our current problems
C) American needs 4 more years of disaster under Obama; specifically rights being taken away, an anti-Christian government, etc. Perhaps then Christians and conservatives will realize that we need a conservative President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.