Posted on 02/06/2012 6:59:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Missouri’s “beauty contest” primary on Tuesday could be Rick Santorum’s big chance. If he defeats Mitt Romney in that event, as at least one poll shows he is poised to do, the punditocracy and public alike might finally recognize the considerable upside he would offer Republicans as their presidential nominee.
Rick Santorum can win the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum can indeed beat Barack Obama in the fall. And Rick Santorum can and would govern at least as conservatively as Ronald Reagan did.
The evidence of his principled, mainstream conservatism is unambiguous, as is his record of winning long-shot races. What hasn’t been fully understood yet is why, and how, Santorum could win the Republican nomination and the presidency.
Let’s start with a few underappreciated realities about opinion polls held so far in advance of a general election. First, favorable/unfavorable ratings, along with the level of name identification, are far more important than direct “horse race” numbers. Second, poll “internals,” along with focus-group data if possible, should be interpreted to assess how much growth potential a candidate has, along with what his downside political risks are.
If a candidate has been widely known, and widely disliked, for a long, long time, that candidate has little room for growth. Very few public officials in American history, for instance, have as longstanding a record of horribly unfavorable poll numbers as Newt Gingrich has had for 17 years now. (His particularly dreadful polling problems among women, for instance, seem flat-out insurmountable.) Santorum, on the other hand, is far less well known, so he has a greater chance to move polls in either direction as voters get to know him better. The interesting thing to note here is that he continues to do better in polls the more he is known to the general public. That’s a serious sign of growth potential. Even better, even as the general public was first really looking at him, Santorum already was doing as well or better than Mitt Romney in head-to-head matchups against Obama in the key states of Florida and North Carolina.
Within the GOP, as Bill Kristol argues, Santorum probably has a better chance to defeat Mitt Romney head to head than Gingrich does. Polls bear that out. A number of polls also show that whereas a significant portion of Santorum voters would prefer Romney to Gingrich (this is Gingrich’s polarizing nature again coming into play), the vast majority of Gingrich voters would move to Santorum in a two-man race against Romney. That’s why, one on one, Santorum can beat Romney but Gingrich can’t.
When the “internals” are analyzed, Santorum rates particularly high on personal character, on sincerity, and on steadfastness of principle. Those are bedrock traits that, over a long campaign, help secure a voter’s comfort level with a candidate. A comparison with Reagan is in order here. While Santorum certainly hasn’t shown Reagan’s preternatural communication skills or sheer — almost magical — personal likeability, what matters in a race against a weak incumbent in a weak economy is that voters give themselves the psychological go-ahead for changing something as important as the president. Fear of the unknown runs strong. Even against an absurdly weak Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was only in the last week that voters swung sharply Reagan’s way: They needed reassurance, from watching his demeanor in debates, that he wasn’t the nuclear cowboy the Left tried to portray. Santorum’s palpable decency and sincerity can offer a similar reassurance against Obama. Someone as volatile as Gingrich cannot.
Santorum’s track record also indicates that he wears well over time. Witness his success in the Iowa caucuses, where voters had many months to size up the candidates. Witness his four upset (or at best even-money) victories in Pennsylvania. He doesn’t offer flash and sizzle, but in a long campaign, such as in the media-intensive slog that is a general-election presidential race, his personal and political virtues have time to become more apparent.
This is especially true when one considers that he has come so far already despite being the least well-funded of any candidate in the race. Santorum knows how to live off the land and still find ways to win. In the fall campaign, though, money will be no problem for him. The stakes are so high that no Republican-leaning donor will stay on the sidelines. If Santorum can compete as well as he has without a big war chest, imagine what he can do with serious financial resources behind him.
Meanwhile, he’s steady as a rock. For all of Gingrich’s and Romney’s vaunted debating skills, both of them have put forth at least two real clunkers of debate performances. Santorum hasn’t had a single bad debate or a single major stumble, and his reviews have become only more favorable with each contest. In a race where the economic lay of the land disfavors the incumbent, flash matters less than solidity in a challenger. It probably won’t require some sort of game-changing debate performance for a Republican to defeat Obama — but a game-changing gaffe or embarrassment could well lose it. Of all the Republican candidates, Santorum has shown himself the least prone to such gaffes.
Meanwhile, conservative leaders finally are beginning to rally around Santorum. Just in the last week they have begun to pour in. In Nevada, he secured the backing of tea party favorite Sharron Angle, while Gingrich is reportedly fading. In Colorado, Santorum achieved an absolutely remarkable troika of endorsements: anti-illegal-immigration hardliner Tom Tancredo and solid mainstream conservative Bob Schaffer, both former House members, along with the far more “establishment” (but still clearly conservative) former lieutenant governor Jane Norton. If he did that on a national scale, it would be like securing the backing of the Buchanan wing, the original Reagan wing, and the Bob Michel wing of the GOP.
Also stepping up for Santorum in the past week were conservative columnists extraordinaire Michelle Malkin and David Limbaugh. They join a growing list of dozens of key state legislators across the country and, quite significantly, nationally known conservative worthies such as Richard Viguerie, Gary Bauer, Michael Farris, James Dobson, Elaine Donnelly, Colin Hanna, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Boone, and Maggie Gallagher, along with the well-publicized votes of social conservative leaders who met in Texas a few weeks back, as announced by Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins.
It’s also hard to find a major national conservative leader who thinks poorly of Santorum. (Gingrich is just the opposite.) While they haven’t endorsed, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, William Bennett, and NR’s own Rich Lowry and Kathryn Lopez are among the many who have had plenty of kind things to say about him. He could unify the Right, whereas the viciously bitter fights between Romney and Gingrich make it very clear that large numbers of Republican activists feel too passionately against one of the other two to lend any real assistance if their disfavored candidate gets the nomination.
All of which is to say that Santorum’s potential for electoral strength is good, while his risk of disaster is rather low. Right now the only thing keeping him from being a clear winner is the failure of even more Reaganite leaders — all of whom know him to be a dependable, full-spectrum conservative — to stand up for him in the same way that he has stood up for conservative principles for so long. With Malkin, Angle, Limbaugh, and Bob Schaffer now coming on board, that odd reluctance might be coming to an end.
If it does, watch Rick Santorum surge again.
— Quin Hillyer is a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom and a senior editor for The American Spectator.
Another Romney paid article. NOT one negative word against Romney but giving him credit where it doesn’t belong and praising of Rick who is working for Mitt. Propaganda works on losers. Shows what the liar/deceiver mitt thinks of conservative.
Another Romney paid article. NOT one negative word against Romney but giving him credit where it doesn’t belong and praising of Rick who is working for Mitt. Propaganda works on losers. Shows what the liar/deceiver mitt thinks of conservative.
That can be a positive point if the goal is a brokered convention. Winner-take-all states and districts are the problem under any scenario.
Mega Dittos!
Quinn Hillyer so obsessively hates Newt Gingrich that he can write about hardly anyone or anything else at American Spectator.
C. Edmund Wright, who is a conservative and no fan of Mitt Romney, has a sobering look at Santorum posted at American Thinker. Here’s an excerpt:
Consider: the main reason Santorum and his supporters put forth to support Rick is because he is “the true conservative” in the race. Along these same lines, he defines his massive eighteen-point loss in his last Senate race as one where he at least went down swinging and fighting for the right things. He uses this to chide Mitt and Newt for their past transgressions based on political realities they faced at one time or another.
This is curious, since Santorum is target-rich on his shameless support for unions in the past — including unforgiveable minimum wage legislation — which he excuses by his “political realities” in Pennsylvania. Uh, excuse me, Senator? On this issue alone, Santorum’s sanctimonious purity is destroyed. But there’s more. Much more.
In the ‘06 campaign against maybe the least talented Democrat in Congress — Bob Casey — the notion that Rick went down swinging deserves scrutiny. Under said scrutiny, the impression one gets is that of an embarrassed faux conservative who is shuffling off to the left as fast as he can. This shuffle left was actually a pamphlet put out by the Santorum campaign called “50 Things You May Not Know About Rick Santorum.”
And they are right. You may not. You should.
Among those 50 things is the aforementioned strong support for legislation raising the minimum wage. In addition to being a shameless union measure, this hurts the free market. A sample of the other items include:
Sponsoring FAIR CAIR act to force companies to pay benefits to laid-off workers.
Working with John McCain on campaign finance reform.
Bragging about bringing home federal tax money for clean energy projects.
Working with Bono to spend tax money on poverty in the third world.
Working with Bono to spend tax money on AIDS.
Sponsoring legislation to regulate gas prices.
Authoring the Pet Animal Welfare State Bill. (Huh.)
Voting for record tax funding of Pennsylvania public schools.
Authoring The Care Act: funding for Non Profits.
Working with Joe Lieberman on Working Families Act.
Supported increased tax funding for Chesapeake Bay.
You get the idea. In his 2006 race, Santorum was doing all he could to position himself as a moderate, and apparently he had the legislative history to support this position. Many of these moderate to liberal policies were not only supported by Santorum, but they were sponsored and at times even authored by Santorum. For someone who piously claims to be the pure conservative, the Pennsylvania senator was pretty darned good at writing liberal laws.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/santorum_the_good_son_not_so_much.html#ixzz1lcLFNKJf
No, he isn’t. Santorum is a social conservative, for the most part, but hardly a conservative across the board, is notorious for saying one thing while doing another, etc etc etc.
And the idea he could beat Obama is laughable, Santorum was routed, absolutely routed by an opponent for his senate seat that had all the Charisma of a lump of rock. Santorum is not an astute enough politician, nor an amicable enough person to remotely be able to beat Obama and his surrogates.
There are reasons Santorum was sent packing by the people of PA, and to this day there are reasons folks outside of PA like him better than the folks inside, and that’s because the folks inside PA know this guy a whole lot better, and a man who could not beat Bob Casey Jr... has absolutely ZERO chance of beating Obama and the machine.
People who think otherwise are utterly dillusional.
We need to get behind Newt before it’s too late.
Dramatic much. We have only had 5 states. I would support Newt is he would go after Romney like Santorum did the last debate. Plus, I would support Newt if he wouldn’t get flustered when he is attached by Romney and fight back. Both Iowa and Florida, Newt allowed Romney to change his message. Newt does not know how to fight UNLESS he is in the lead, but you change the dynamic and Newt falls apart.
For the exact opposite reasons from Newt, Santorum would lose the ‘women’s vote.’ Once Team Obama started to feature the thing Santorum is primarily known for, i.e., being ardently pro-life, he is finished with the ‘women’s vote.’
Women will trample each other to get to the polls to vote against anyone who would take away their sacred right to ‘choose.’
I don’t think God has a whole lot to do with the actual mechanics of our elections these days. (Whether the overall decline of this once great nation is deserved or not is another discussion.)
My basic premise is that if one wants that particular office (POTUS) and one bows out due to “impact on one’s family” (which BTW includes not just wives and offspring), then one has ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE IOTA OF BUSINESS running in the first place, because one is basically a COWARD.
Again, if one allows their campaign to be derailed by innuendo, name calling and rumors, then how can we expect such a person to stand up to the REAL THREATS like A-Q, HAAMAS, Muzzie B’hood, John Hinckley etc, etc etc, ALL of whom would be happy to inflict SERIOUS Bodily Harm on ANY POTUS and those close to him/her.
If there is worrisome crap in one’s background, and having seen the extermination process used against TRUE CONSERVATIVES/CHANGEMASTERS before, why raise false hopes in the population, unless of course the whole thing is very well planned and orchestrated (KGB/Alinsky & company)?
What is that old saying? Something like (expanded after further consideration):
>Once is a random event (Barry Goldwater)
>Twice is a coincidence (Ross Perot)
>Three times kinda implies a trend/plan (Sarah Palin)
>FOUR TIMES pretty much says (at least to me) “THE PLAN IS READY FOR PRIME TIME and will work as expected each time it is implemented” (Herman Cain)
Hence my belief that any CONSERVATIVE OUTSIDER making it to the General POTUS Election is forevermore a wet dream. Look at some recent offerings by the nation’s “CONSERVATIVE” party - BOB DOLE and JOHN McCAIN (again, we’re already at suspicious coincidence). Now look at the field we will have to choose from:
ROMNEY, GINGRICH, PAUL, SANTORUM
This cast now consists of people who are either a “lesser of two evils” candidate when compared to Obama or doomed to SERIOUS trouncing by Obama in the General Election.
I think what happens goes something like this:
“Pssst, Hey POTUS Candidate from the outside, you have a choice:
(a) get relentlessly, personally decimated by our media
(b) QUIT and either enjoy a VERY profitable career as a political pundit/author/well paid speaker (Palin & Cain) or just go back to your old pre-campaign existence and fade away into the dust of history (Goldwater & Perot)”
To paraphrase one of the greatest movie script lines of all time:
“TRUTH???? We don’t need no stinkin’ TRUTH!!!!”
The conservative vote is split between Santorum and Gingrich.
Maybe so but neither of them would have won Florida, NH, Nevada regardless of one of them dropping out. Santorum won Iowa and Newt won SC and that is it. Had Newt not been in NH, Santorum STILL would not have won. Had Santorum not been on the ballot in FL or Nevada, Newt STILL would not have won. They are going for the same votes but together they are not even getting a majority. Something is seriously wrong with Americans.
When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became an adult, I did away with childish things...and santorum was one of them.
Yesterday I was talking to my older sister in Idaho. We spoke about the GOP candidates and she told me, “I can’t stand Newt Gingrich.”
Now, I was startled by this as she and her husband are staunch Republicans and conservative fiscally as well as socially. I did not argue with her as it’s difficult over the phone. I did tell her that all of the GOP candidates are better than Obama, and she agreed with me.
That being revealed, I still have serious reservations about Newt as the actual candidate. His negatives are really high and they elicit strong reactions, not simply a tepid, “I don’t care for him, but “I can’t stand him.” For that reason I have decided to vote for Santorum on Tuesday’s Minnesota caususes.
The state of the election is really in turmoil as far as I am concerned. Our country cannot endure another 4 years of Obama as POTUS.
You’re right - Santorum could NOT stand against BHO and his machine. Newt can. Santorum won’t shake up Washington and make radical changes. Newt will. Santorum’s just not mature enough or strong enough for the big stage (at least not yet). Newt is.
Mitt and Newt are probably going to lose the economy as an issue before the general. Obama and his wealthy buddies will prop the economy up through November, and the media will assist by highlighting the good news and downplaying the bad. The economy will still be bad, but it will be too complex to explain to voters who form impressions based on 20 second sound bites. Of the remaining issues (e.g. Obamacare), both Mitt and Newt can be made to appear in agreement with Obama. There won’t be enough of a contrast. Santorum is the break out threat. He can argue all the issues, he appeals to the blue collar worker, and he has high positives (relatively) with women. If the myth of Romney’s electability in the general ever takes hold, he’s done because he is otherwise an average candidate with major weaknesses. People are voting for him by default; he doesn’t excite anyone.
Santorum could NOT stand against BHO and his machine. Newt can
Well if he can’t stand against Romney what makes you think he can do that to Obama who will be stronger and have much more money than Romney. I can’t see how you can’t see how Newt crawls into a corner when Romney blasts him. Sure Romney is lying about Newt and his record but Obama will to and worse.
The answer to that is, the GOP elite didn't want her, so they strafed her mercilessly and encouraged others to do the same. The GOP didn't defend her in 2008 and nothing's changed since then.
Santorum has his moments. He really does. I don't know why he doesn't click with the base, except that he just doesn't have the something that makes people stand up and get going. Doesn't make him bad, wrong, or hopeless. Like Thad McCotter, who I personally like, I realistically note that he's not everyone's cup of tea. And he has few other personality resources to overcome that deficit with a sense of excitement or purpose.
What is going on with all this "Charisma"-worship on FR?
and a man who could not beat Bob Casey Jr... has absolutely ZERO chance of beating Obama and the machine
Bob Casey Jr, the (supposedly) pro-life, pro-gun son and namesake of ex-Gov. Bob Casey?
No Republican could beat Bob Casey Jr. in a normal election year - none. In a Democrat landslide year, it was never going to be close.
Criticisms of Santorum on that score are way off base by people who have no clue about Pennsylvania politics, including some people from Pennsylvania.
Now that Casey Jr. has a record of his own in the Senate, he could be beaten in the right year by the right candidate. But in 2006, no way.
You may wish to review polling on abortion views by gender, because you're repeating the liberal line on that score.
Lots of pro-life, strongly, vocally pro-life politicians win elections in competitive districts; Santorum himself won many times in a Democrat-leaning House district and state.
“Something is seriously wrong with Americans.”
On that point there can be no disagreement.
“he’s more reliably conservative than the intellectually elastic Newt is and he has the added bonus of NOT having Newt’s sordid past attached to him.”
“That describes 20 million people including myself...should I run?”
Not if you didn’t major in political science, then get an MBA, then get a law degree, then immediately jump into federal electoral politics.
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.