Well. I can see flaws in Rick Santorum. But I see far more flaws in Newt Gingrich. (However, as a whole I deeply admire and respect Newt Gingrich.) What I think you have are doing incorrectly with your logic is confusing the “significance” of certain facts that you may have right with the “signification” or meaning of those facts.
How do you distinguish Santorum’s efforts to appeal to a wider margin of voters from Gingrich’s effort’s regarding individual health care mandates, global warming and lobbying (or whatever you call it) for Freddie Mac?
These are flaws and they are serious flaws.
Then switch from analyzing the candidates and analyze the voters.
(I have already said I admire the man, Gingrich, as a whole.) Now, do you really think that a majority or even a plurality of voters is going to stop seeing Gingrich with the “ick” factor regarding his past marital history? I do not think they will. I have been reading about this and praying for the person for years. It still bugs me. Nonetheless, I realized a long time ago that heroes are a construct of the people who follow them or adulate them. The people behind them are always flawed. So for me, Newt is a hero. For America? He never ever will be. It is an impossibility. I think you know this.
For me, back to Rick, I think on the whole, despite his flaws, he IS the most consistent conservative in the race. Add up the dollar value of his failing compared to the dollar value of any of the others. Or add up the instances of specific failures. Or add up what people who have served with them in the past say. Rick Santorum is the man who is most conservative and most electable at this time.
I personally admire all the men running in different ways and disdain certain things only about Romney and Ron Paul.
I worry Romney has too few deep internal convictions and is “sincerely” swayed to the argument which he thinks will win the day. That is why, more than the fact that he was one way and is now another, that I just can’t stand the idea of him winning the primary. If he did win and then went on to the White House, there is no telling where his opinions might swing to in the future. He would be just as sincere about the new opinions and feel like any decision that he makes would be OK because his heart is in the right place. (I actually think this was Bill Clinton’s problem from the other side.)
I worry about Ron Paul because he confuses so much of what the constitution actually says with the way he thinks things ought to work and vise-versa. He is very willing to make exceptions when it benefits his particular segment of Americana (shrimp subsidies anyone). Finally he fails to understand the need for America to defend American Interests ANYWHERE in the world. Our interests do not stop at our borders. Our first overseas actions were to defend our right to trade in the Arabia’s if they were willing buyers and sellers there. He fails to understand that “due process” is a right that the unborn have just as much as anyone else and would totally abrogate the government’s responsibility to protect their lives.
Finally Newt, I laid out a few problems above and I don’t care to layout more. I think of the four left in the race, he and Santorum are the only ones who are “internally” conservative in their formation of positions and opinions. I just feel like the warnings of people who served with him like Dick Army, Tom DeLay and so forth let you know that he is a mixed bag and easily swayed and bowled over at times. I think his leadership with the Contract with America and later promotion of American renewal ideas and particular “Drill her, Drill Now!” have been brilliant and wonderful. He is a mixed bag and I think his failures to conservatism and overconfidence in his ability to manage liberals (the couch commercial with Pelosi, the Healthcare collusion with Hillary Clinton) are dangerous and detrimental far beyond a list Rick Santorum may have published to blunt an opponent’s reach for the middle voters.
You make some good points, but my calculus was this.
Newt has a lot more talent than Santorum and has the ability off the cuff to actually decisively win arguments and change minds. Santorum simply does not.
Newt’s actual legislative accomplishments are slightly more conservative but WAY MORE significant than Santorum’s.
Santorum’s whole strategy was to niche politic in Iowa and fly under the radar and gain momentum among a tiny swath of voters and then hope it gets magnified in the press. It’s worked, but it’s cynical and there is no way in hell he can mobilize large numbers of people. HIs “four states” were all tiny populations. He “niched” it. That’s all he can do.
He’d be a decent President with the right congress. He’d be a wimpy Mr. Rogers disaster as a nominee though.
Another flaw I see in your calculus - but I respect your opinion nonetheless - is that you are measuring “negatives” and not balancing them with positives.
Sure, Newt has more negatives than Santorum. He’s been in the public eye much longer and he’s written and spoken way more. He has more good, more bad, more in between. I just don’t think a total negative count is valid unless you measure it against a total positive count. Newt has way more of both, and IMO a better plus to minus ratio.
Then there’s one other thing: Newt, nor his campaign nor any Newt supporter that I’ve met has deigned to claim a mantle as pious and pure as Rick has himself claimed in the debates. It’s just phony. Thus, Rick’s capitulation to political realities is a mark against him because HE CLAIMS HE HAS NEVER DONE SO. It’s just not true.
Newt’s whole approach is more real - warts and all. Rick’s is a facade, a fake, with a good dose of sanctimony to boot. Goody two shoes are nauseating to me, especially when they ain’t that goody when you dig down.
And they rarely are.
I think his leadership with the Contract with America and later promotion of American renewal ideas and particular “Drill her, Drill Now!” have been brilliant and wonderful.Your "quote" brilliantly summarizes the platform of the Kennedy/Clinton wing of the Democratic party. Alas your summary won't be useful, to our side, this fall. Obama's surrogates might try to use it against one of our options. It's been weakly alleged that Obama's wing might be summarized with a... h'm... slightly different typo, but recent history suggests we'll have to wait 50 years before the MSM will allow it.
I think his leadership with the Contract with America and later promotion of American renewal ideas and particular “Drill her, Drill Now!” have been brilliant and wonderful.Your "quote" brilliantly summarizes the platform of the Kennedy/Clinton wing of the Democratic party. Alas your summary won't be useful, to our side, this fall. Obama's surrogates might try to use it against one of our options. It's been weakly alleged that Obama's wing might be summarized with a... h'm... slightly different typo, but recent history suggests we'll have to wait 50 years before the MSM will allow it.