The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Streetcar Line

Santorum’s All Right

By on 7.16.10 @ 6:08AM

Don’t Penn him in as an also-ran.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has ready answers, as explained in yesterday’s column, for how he can make a comeback from the shellacking he took when trying for re-election in 2006; but what does he offer conservatives in the way of substance — and will it sell (if he runs) in both primary and general elections for president in 2012?

As is usual with Sen. Santorum, his focus is unconventional. Because of establishment media absorption with all things abortion- or homosexual-related, the senator’s reputation is mainly as a social-issues conservative — but that’s not his main gig. Instead, he spent a great deal of time in the Senate on matters of foreign affairs and defense, and since leaving the Senate has maintained a perch at the Ethics and Public Policy Center focused mainly on what he has called (after Churchill) “The Gathering Storm” of challenges from multiple points abroad, especially related to radical Islam. (Space doesn’t permit a full airing of his views, but in short, Santorum advocates regime change by supporting democracy movements and stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear state.) In fact, immediately following my interview with him on June 29, he played host to an erudite forum on Shia eschatology, and how it affects the policies of Iran.

Political gurus usually say that pocketbook issues, not foreign policy (except a hot war), dominate elections. Santorum doesn’t agree. It’s important, he says, and he doesn’t see a single other potential candidate with serious knowledge about what he considers a civilizational life-or-death issue. “Can they [other possible GOP contenders] get out and talk about what I’m talking about today [in the June 29 forum on Iran]?” he asked. “National security and anti-terrorism are going to be a key issue in the campaign.”

Lest anybody think Santorum deluded about the issue’s political salience, consider his record of being ahead of the curve politically — and for conservative ends. When first elected to the House, he and now-Minority Leader John Boehner were the two most prominent members of the “Gang of Seven” GOP freshmen who helped push ethics issues front and center in a way that paid big dividends for Republicans in the early 1990s. They helped break, and doggedly pushed, the issues of scandals involving the House bank, the House post office, and abuse of office perks for members — and the efforts were wildly successful. Conservatives now might more fondly remember the more ideological parts of the 1994 Contract with America, but its first planks were on ethics — and people in Congress at the time will still tell you that ethics as much as ideology weakened and then toppled the Democratic hegemony. And the ethics push may have gotten absolutely nowhere without the Gang of Seven.

Once in the Senate, Santorum became his chamber’s lead sponsor (Florida’s Clay Shaw was the under-appreciated hero in the House) of what might rank as the single most successful major government reform of an existing program, ever: the 1996 welfare reform bill. Santorum delved into the bill’s nitty-gritty, and he was indefatigable. The resulting law was a triumph, cutting welfare rolls tremendously while encouraging job training, education and new employment.

Santorum is a fiscal conservative and a dedicated supply-sider; his lifetime American Conservative Union rating was 88 — about the best imaginable for somebody from purple-blue Pennsylvania. Also, almost unique among Republican senators not on the Judiciary Committee, Santorum fully grasped the importance of federal judgeships and fought hard on judicial nominations when others weaseled out. His staff usually provided more of an entrée to conservative judicial enthusiasts than did the staffs of the Judiciary Committee or the party’s Senate leader. And Santorum understood that judicial fights aren’t just important in principle, but good politics too, because the public agrees with conservatives on judges.

All of which does lead, inevitably, to the Pennsylvanian’s reputation as being hard-right on social issues. While he did author the bill outlawing partial birth abortions and also the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, and while his conservative Catholic principles are unyielding, he doesn’t go as out of his way to raise these issues as the establishment media would have folks believe. Still, he won’t run from them, either.

“I am a cultural conservative,” he told me with what sounded like an almost fierce pride. “I am not afraid of talking about those issues. Not a lot of people out there are comfortable in their skins on these issues. I am. With me, social conservatives will not be on the back of the bus.”

Look, he says: No matter what Republican gets the nomination, the establishment media is going to portray the nominee as a hard-line, near-radical, conservative. “If they can make John McCain into a conservative [as he said they did in 2008], they can turn anyone into a conservative. If we are going to be portrayed as conservatives anyway, we might as well have a candidate who really believes it and who can passionately and courageously articulate those beliefs.”

That’s what Santorum has been doing since he left the Senate, with regular appearances on Fox News, a weekly column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and a gig as the permanent, once-weekly “guest host” of Bill Bennett’s radio show. He sounds good, he makes sense, and he speaks forthrightly for conservative causes.

Not only that, but Santorum is personable. He once had a reputation for abrasiveness, but if that were ever true, it doesn’t seem so now. For a year or so (2008) I worked in the same building as Santorum, and if anybody ran into him in the elevator or the lobby, he was unfailingly approachable and friendly.

As for the Republican nomination for president…. Well, I’m saying that Sarah Palin is far closer to being a prohibitive favorite for the nomination than most Washington hands yet understand. And Indianans Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence each offer serious bona fides and political skills to the conservative movement if one of them wants to run, as does South Carolina’s Jim DeMint in the unlikely event he takes the plunge. Louisiana’s political calendar doesn’t favor Bobby Jindal, but he could be a superb conservative presidential choice as well.

But even with all these possibilities, conservatives do themselves and their cause a huge disservice if they don’t take a Rick Santorum candidacy seriously. It would be crazy not to acknowledge that the odds seem long. But he has beaten the odds, repeatedly, before, and he knows how to leverage public opinion for conservative ends.

“I’m someone who moves the ball,” he told me. “I get a lot of stuff done.”

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (44) |

Tim*| 7.16.10 @ 8:39AM

" Perhaps DeMint's most daring and quiet move was his "no vote" on the small business-busting Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which was passed in 2008 in response to the China/lead toys story.

DeMint joined just two other Senators in opposing the measure, because he anticipated its reach would extend to any product intended for a child, no matter its country of origin.

Final vote? 89-3, with DeMint one of just 3 in opposition.

In the end, DeMint's stand was vindicated as Congress recently voted to delay implementation one year to further analyze the measure.

DeMint was also one of the driving forces behind the effort to kill the Fairness Doctrine, yet he had the sense to warn that the battle is far from over -- localism still presents a threat, but with DeMint on the watch, expect the pernicious act to meet heavy resistance.

DeMint is also on the march to fight "Card Check" and has introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act, which would ensure the right to privacy on unionization votes.

He was the point man in the GOP's efforts to block Tom Daschle's nomination, and voted against Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder.

And in a show of supreme defiance, he had the cajones to introduce an amendment overturning Obama's Mexico City reversal just five days after the President had signed the executive order.

For this and much more, we unequivocally attach two Walmart-sized nuts to Mr. DeMint."

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.16.10 @ 9:53AM

Quin,
Thanks for the heads up.
Tim*,
Thank you for your reminder. Well put.
Have you had a chance to read DeMint's new book yet? Wow!

Tim*| 7.16.10 @ 10:26AM

Thank You Ken !
DeMint's Saving Freedom , is a quick study blueprint .

Danny Boy| 7.16.10 @ 8:53AM

Quin,

My Governor (the best in the nation) and Congressman Pence are "Hoosiers," not "Indianans". Good article on Santorum though. He'll make a great VP candidate.

Amanda| 7.16.10 @ 10:02AM

I read tidbits about your governor, Mitch McDaniels?, and would like to know more about him. What can you share as a resident of Indiana?

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.16.10 @ 9:53AM

"And the ethics push may have gotten absolutely nowhere without the Gang of Seven."
Good Lord, you people are a parody of yourselves.

Tim*| 7.16.10 @ 10:36AM

I think only John Boehner is left of The Gang of Seven.

Amanda| 7.16.10 @ 10:04AM

Quin, you should put your previousa article about Palin and this one side by side. Contrast?

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.16.10 @ 10:05AM

Quin,
You know, I could be delighted with a Santorum/Palin ticket...either one on top.

As you know, I am deeply concerned with the Islamic threat to our civilization. They are like rats on a ship...totally parisitical upon the crew.

Islam happens to sit a-top of a world of oil and gas. Without it they would still be living in mud huts with no money to buy or inclination to learn how to build the components of a tech society.

We could literally put them out of business by building a zillion modular nuke plants, while developing our own proven reserves of oil and gas....but ooooh nooooo. (Stupid us)

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 11:31AM

Rick Santorum is a great conservative guy. He is strong on terror and a Hawk. The non-interventionists therefore despise him. Too bad!

For anyone who wants to hear for themselves what Rick Santorum is like, tune in to Bill Bennett's radio program, as he guest hosts there quite often.

Here's the link to find a station near you:

http://www.billbennett.com/stations.aspx

William R| 7.16.10 @ 11:45AM

Santorum is a big government Neocon hack. He trashes the Goldwater wing of the GOP and wants to launch a war against Iran. That's all the country needs. We are on the verge of economic collapse and Ricky Santorum wants another war.

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 12:26PM

The Goldwater wing of the GOP? Where do you hold your meetings, in phone booths? Oops they don't have phone booths anymore!

William R| 7.16.10 @ 1:20PM

The libertarian wing. You know Margie

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism-----Ronald Reagan

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 1:38PM

Yes I do know, thus my comment.

Reagan's comment about small 'l' libertarianism isn't the same as the rabid non-interventionist anti-Israel 'L' Libertarianism of today. I believe Mr. Reagan was not anti-Israel, and he certainly was no coward when it came to international affairs.

William R| 7.16.10 @ 3:39PM

Ronald Reagan writing in his memoirs

"In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."

Neutrality in the Middle East.

Red Phillips | 7.16.10 @ 3:49PM

Middle Eastern politics isn't just irrational in the Middle East either. It is irrational here as well. That is why suggesting neutrality gets interpreted as "YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A RAVING ANTI-SEMITE WHO WANTS ALL THE JEWS TO DIE!!!!"

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 4:19PM

Actually Red, what's irrational is you guys freaking out over Santorum and calling him paranoid because he's got a backbone concerning the war on terror, and won't compromise and kiss the rears of our enemies like Obama has been doing.

Yosemeti Sam| 7.19.10 @ 1:28AM

241 Marines died - for one reason only!

Had nothing to do with this abstract notion of neutrality in of all places the Middle East!

A Googled find, fact check my recall of a salient point of fact, as to WHY 241 marines ended up
as political cannon fodder:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/m.....acks_N.htm

Excerpt: " ... The yellow Mercedes truck had plowed through the Marine compound's barbed-wire perimeter and was speeding toward the building immediately behind his booth, where hundreds of men slept."

" The truck passed between two sentry posts... the sentries' rifles, as ordered, were unloaded.

UNLOADED!

There is your exhibit A of political diffidence in the name of - projecting niceness/neutrality.

Oldefarte| 7.16.10 @ 11:37AM

Again, I think Santorum, Pence, etc are all good conservatives, but November, 2012 plus are going to be street fights and I'm not sure whether they have the political in the belly to confront the radical thugs and debate them eyeball to eyeball over all issues. Moneywise and intellectually, Romney may be the best shot for Republicans. He has the economic/financial professional credentials to describe the excrement house that this country now finds itself in, and the managerial ability to effect solutions to same. Ginguich has also, from a legislative, intellectual standpoint. Ryan is a political unknown, but is obviously tremendously smart in debating the fine points/elements of political problems [ie welfarecare]. Palin has the goforthejugular street fighting ability, but she needs to seriously disappear into a library and educate herself on worldwide political issues so as not to be gotchaed by some CuricSmith newsmoron again. Overall, the most crutial issue facing this country now is its fiscal downhill path toward bankruptcy if substantial/serious government spending reductions are not effected in the near future. Dic Morris echoed my thoughts recently that the November elections are not important, but are rather CRUCIAL/CRITICAL to the survival of this nation. If Americans sit on their glutamous maximuses as usual, and do not follow the excellent citizen leadership of the tea partiers, this country will cease to be the greatest country in the world. The terrorists-hounds are not only barking at the front door, but are now inside the house devouring its interior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mimi| 7.17.10 @ 8:04AM

HeH...O.F. Did you get a call from Romney to be his campaign spokesmen ? I think you have the: Fire .. "in the belly to go after the " RADICAL THUGS " and debate them eyeball to eyeball. I will agree he is a brilliant manager and a great American. The true-test of any potential candidate is to.......Picture them as actually President NOW!! Compared to "O" Romney would look like heaven on earth!!......But so would a lot of the "Potentials ". It's EARLY!!!

Oldefarte| 7.17.10 @ 11:02AM

True, Mimi, we have a long way to go before 2012 and there are plenty of good conservatives to eventually choose from. Let's just sit back, read, observe, debate, and eventually settle on one candidate to go against THE CHOSEN ONE. I'm not promoting Romney [and especially concerning his healthcare bill], but am just saying he has the political smarts to take on the radicals. I'd really like to see Barbour go for it, but he would be a target as a citizen/governor of Mississippi. So again, plenty of time, wait and see!!!!

William R| 7.16.10 @ 11:49AM

Rick Santorum and Limited Government?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org.....overnment/

Tim*| 7.16.10 @ 12:11PM

Jim DeMint of South Carolina .

Why he can win:

" If Republicans want to nominate a southern conservative, there's no candidate more prepared to fill that role.

He's taken some truly heroic stands on pork-laden bills, questionable nominees, and controversial legislation.

He'll be immune from any conservative attacks, since you can't out-conservative Jim DeMint. And that's important in a Republican primary.

His home state (South Carolina) plays a crucial role in the primaries; however, if DeMint does run, others might abandon the state; thereby, diminishing the significance of a SC win.

DeMint has the rhetoric of Genghis Khan, but the demeanor of your Mother. It's hard to imagine how that might play in a national election, but if Obama moves too far to the left in the coming years, DeMint's brand of right-wing philosophy might catch on."

David| 7.16.10 @ 1:30PM

Tim, maybe we should take a closer look at DeMint. Do you think he can hang with the charasmatic Bam Bam? I personally don't pay attention to such things, but from all the tingling, fainting, and swooning the last election cycle, apparently a good many people do.

I have to keep beating this drum: Please do Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee and Palin favors and save them time and money so they can put their resources into the folks who can actually be nominated and then win the general election against Bam Bam.

Obamacare is closely modeled on Romneycare. Look what that has done to MA. The only thing we can thank Romney for is to point to his plan and tell the voters this is what will happen nationally if we don't repeal Obamcare. Remember his countless flip-flops. He is opportunistic. Spend your millions helping real conservative candidates. I also think he would be excellent in some important appointed position in the administration.

Gingrich, you mean the one who sat on the park bench with Nancy Pelosi and tried to warn us about global warming - even AFTER it was made known the data were cooked? That Gingrich? He too is opportunistic. Newt, spend your money and time on real conservative candidates. I think he also would be excellent in some important appointed position in the administration.

Huckabee in his 10+ years as governor of Arkansas pardoned or paroled more felons than the governors of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi, and Louisiana did during the same time period. It is said by repubs that he ruined the repub party in Arkansas. Recall his devious shenanigans against other candidates during the last primary, especially against Romney. Please, you're an effective campaigner, so get out there and do it for a real conservative. Administration - maybe.

Palin simply does not come across as serious and thoughtful enough. Maybe if she could slow down her speeches a little. But that wouldn't be her. I love her. Great campaigner and fundraiser. She could probably talk the last dime out of a beggar. So Sarah, don't waste your time or money, but support someone who can actually win the primary and then the general election. Administration - maybe.

Joe D| 7.16.10 @ 1:42PM

Sorry William I disagree. I read the article nowhere do I take it that he is for big Government. I agree with Quinn and American Conservative Union. Just because he is not for complete automomy does not mean he is for big Government. Get on the bandwagon.

William R| 7.16.10 @ 3:44PM

Santorum is Big Government all the way. We spend a trillion + on foreign policy every year and I think it is safe to say he supports virtually all of that spending.

http://www.politifact.com/trut.....gn-policy/

Tim*| 7.16.10 @ 1:52PM

Indeed , let's start looking into people like Jim DeMint

Jim DeMint is an interesting guy . He's self-admittedly not a pretty boy . He has guts , intelligence , doesn't head for the tall grass and takes the point on missions.
He's a modest kingmaker ,who has people attempting to define his intentions.

I want to roll your question around some more , in my head , for a bit .

Red Phillips | 7.16.10 @ 3:13PM

Quin, did you even read the replies to your column yesterday? Santorum's transition from social conservative to alarmist uber hawk hurts him. It doesn't help him.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/jul/30/00021/

You don't have to be a non-interventionist like me to realize that. The masses are worried about the country going broke. They are not worried about the Venezuelan menace. Santorum lost in ’06 because the country had soured on Iraq. Instead of learning from that that maybe we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place, he instead decided that the GOP just hadn’t sold the need for the war well enough. And the way he figured to sell the war was to amp up the alarmist rhetoric to cartoonish levels. He comes off as some combination of delusional and pathetic.

The alarmist uber hawk wing of the party is shrinking down to a bunch of bitter enders. Santorum may be their candidate, but he will be no one else’s.

truthseeker| 7.16.10 @ 6:32PM

Santorum is a nut job!

Ex-Pennsylvanian| 7.16.10 @ 8:38PM

When Santorum lost his bid for re-election, I called an old friend and asked what went wrong. He said, "I've never seen such arrogance in my life. "

Keeping this in mind, I watched Santorum on Hannity recently, when RS was paired with Pat Caddell for a mini roundtable with Hannity. RS was obnoxious. He kept interrupting Caddellm wouldn't let him finish a sentence and wouldn't even acknowledge him. He's too cocky for my liking. Jim DeMint? Now we're talking.

somnolence| 7.17.10 @ 4:26PM

Palin remains the only dynamo in the flock. The others appear to be too aristocratic or pastoral. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm going to do all I can to contribute to a campaign for her. I'm tired of all the inner party bickering and the inflated egos and the black tie, cigar smoking charades. The GOP needs a street fighter to win against street-fighting machines. Otherwise, forget it!

antidote| 7.17.10 @ 9:59PM

It does my soul good to hear all of you talk about a Palin/Santorum/demint/ republican ticket. As long as these right wing nuts are controlling the republican party, it will be dems running the show for a long time. Keep up the support gang!!!!

Tim*| 7.18.10 @ 9:58AM

You're Whistlin' past the graveyard, Sport .

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16.
The president earns an Approval Index rating of -28 among men and -6 among women.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of African-American voters Strongly Approve of Obama’s performance while 52% of White voters Strongly Disapprove

somnolence| 7.18.10 @ 11:24AM

To give you a foreboding example of where the GOP is now and may continue to be in the near future, just look to the U.S. Senate race in Arizona. McCain has a substantial lead over Hayworth at this point; even though J.D. fired away in debate last night. It appears that the same old mistakes or stubborness in holding to pragmatic tradition continue to prevail in many spots. In the wake of Obama's glaring weaknesses all around this does not reassure me. The reality of inter-political gratitude surfaces all too clearly such as in the case of Palin endorsing McCain. Unless we can find away to break away from pragmatism and patronage , the conservative embodiment within the GOP will always be vulnerable and really nothing will change.

jstwndring| 7.18.10 @ 4:55PM

I agree totally. The Tea Party can be effective toward that end--electing Constitutional small government Republicans. They have gotten their way a few times pushing candidates that the GOP didn't want to nominate for state elections. If we can get real Republicans in that way, then, through the Tea Party, continue to apply pressure on those elected, we may be able to force the GOP to submit to our demands for small government. But we cannot just ignore our representatives once they get elected and assume they'll get the job done. That's why we are where we are now.

Hershl| 7.19.10 @ 12:35AM

The whole mosque thing in NYC is really polarizing voters especially Christian Evangelicals and older Jews.

The Senate race in Pennsylvania may hinge on the turn out of pro-Israel voters. A new PAC with lots of money is betting on this and the stats seem to make sense.

http://jewishdailyreport.wordp.....ania-vote/

S Ruger| 7.19.10 @ 8:40AM

Why does being aggressive about the war on "terror," i.e., violent Islamic extremism, have to translate into invasions and nation building? That seems to be the assumption of some here.

Why does being against endless war in hopeless places translate into letting Israel disappear?

If Santorum wants to colonize the Middle East to beat "terror" then he's an idiot. If a candidate wants to let Israel sink amidst a Middle East tsunami then he's an idiot too.

Let's not paint promising conservative candidates as moronic extremists or over-simplified "small l" or "large L" libertarians. Such a division is the "Great Right Hope" of the Left.

David| 7.19.10 @ 5:13PM

I think we have had this conversation: It is true that only 27% "strongly" approve of Bam Bam at this point, but it is also true that another 20% "somewhat" approve of him. That is 47% who somewhat approve of what he is doing.

He can do a couple of things just before the 2012 election that even you and I may like. Although that won't cause US to vote for him, it will sway many people, and I will venture to predict that he will easily be able to sway, con, manipulate, dazzle, and lie in order to get another 3 or 4% to vote for him again.

REB| 7.19.10 @ 11:01PM

Ive met Rick before he was a senator,voted for him,dealt with him for the time he was in there,then worked with a coalition of people to defeat him last time around. Why? Because he got in there then he forgot like so many others do, that he works for us and not the govicorp,he forgot that the founders wanted small govt,fairly weak govt and he supported a bunch of govt controlfreak bills and such,he also got so many little ole ladys mad at him over his ill advised PAWS program(related to the National Animal ID System plan to take over ownership and control of all animals and pets,BAD MOVE) we tried to warn him but he laughed and he lost the election! Has he learned from his mistakes? hopefully! Is he better for America than Obama? BY FAR!! But if he tries again he better remember that we the people under the authority of LIBERTY own him and this govt and that anyone who thinks times change and the ways of freedom should too, then he shouldnt bother...we got one of those in DC now.

jakcy | 1.20.11 @ 2:10AM

Santorum is a nut job!

More Articles by Quin Hillyer

More Articles From Streetcar Line

Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good

April 30, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Perez Abomination Grows

April 23, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Tea Partiers for Freedom

April 16, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Make Room for a New Master

April 9, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Closed to the Public

March 26, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/santorums-all-right

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.