-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
Political Hay
Rick’s Missing Message
Oft-times he gives the impression he’s interested in creating only one job — his own.
(Page 2 of 2)
It is understandable that Santorum would not try to compete against Mitt Romney on a message of job creation, especially following Romney’s revamped jobs and tax plan which economic conservatives, including the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page praised (though acknowledging that it, like the other candidates’ plans, is not without flaws). Romney has the strongest business credentials of any candidate in this election, perhaps of any candidate in any modern American election. No Republican (or Democrat) running in 2012 will out-business Romney.
So Santorum’s message is by necessity a different one, some might say a more principled one. Santorum mentioned “liberty” three times; none for Romney, and “rights” five times to none for Romney. He reminded us that “we are a great country because we believe that rights don’t come from the government.”
A message of liberty and limited government, as important and welcome as it is during these days of many Americans believing government should force religious institutions to pay for abortion pills, is probably not enough to win election in 2012. But if that’s your strategy, Rick, whether due to playing to your own strengths or avoiding your opponents’, then stick with it.
Instead of a messaging rifle, Santorum has a rhetorical shotgun, which is not nearly as likely to take down the political big game he is stalking.
AFTER HEARING SANTORUM on Tuesday, and in many prior speeches, it’s hard not to be a bit confused about his focus. Is he about the economy, or about contraception? Is he about liberty, or is he about family (8 mentions)? Is he about being an underdog, being outspent, being proud of coming in second a lot? Is he concerned about an overly intrusive federal government, the costs of Obamacare, and assaults on religious freedom? Does he think about individual opportunity, “energy… manufacturing… and financial services,” Romneycare, standing with our allies, being a fighter, the “greatest generation,” or not “so badly want(ing) to be the most powerful man in this country” — all of which he mentioned in a 20-minute speech?
Newt Gingrich is the only man in the race who can get away with having lots of ideas, because that’s what is expected of him. From any other candidate — and even from Newt to some degree — it just comes across as being undisciplined, as the political equivalent of a “jack of all trades and master of none.”
Between Rick Santorum’s lack of focus and his too frequently whiny, self-pitying tone, including bemoaning Newt Gingrich’s refusal to get out of the race, the Santorum campaign’s raison d’être is a blur. He appeals on a topic, then moves on to something else with an attention span shorter than my four-year old son in a candy store, searching furiously among all the containers for the one he thinks will taste best today — and then asking for three different things.
As far as calling for Gingrich’s departure, does Santorum forget that he refused a similar request from the former Speaker of the House in mid-January, describing Gingrich’s calls for him to get out of the race as “not cogent thoughts”?
Later that month, with Newt Gingrich coming off a South Carolina victory and looking strong in Florida, Bill McCollum, the former Speaker’s Florida campaign co-chair, complained that Santorum’s presence was diluting the conservative vote: “If he weren’t in it, we would clearly be beating Romney right now… I think a vote for Rick is simply… a vote that’s wasted at this point.”
Santorum responded: “You know I think one opponent calling for the other opponent to get out just shows the weakness that opponent feels — obviously feels in their own campaign. I’m not calling for anybody to get out. We’ll beat them straight up.”
So what does Santorum expect to happen when he and a Super PAC supporting him call for Newt to drop out, a message they are pressing aggressively in the hours since Super Tuesday? In his own Tuesday night comments, Gingrich’s belief in “what’s good for the goose” is evident:
[R]emember when it was Tim Pawlenty who was going to crowd me out? And remember then when it was Michele Bachmann? And then it was our good friend, Herman Cain the first time? And then, for a brief moment, it was Donald Trump almost. And then it was our good friend, Rick Perry, then it was Herman Cain the second time, and now it’s Santorum…. There are lots of bunny rabbits that run through. I am the tortoise. I just take one step at a time.
Instead of drifting from economics to birth control to the size of government to being a fighter, instead of complaining about being outspent, his own “sacrifices,” or the unfairness of having opponents who won’t do him the courtesy of dropping out (when he selfishly wouldn’t do the same for them), Rick Santorum needs to get a message — any message — and stick with it.
Until then, keeping in mind that Republicans’ goal in 2012 is to defeat Barack Obama — usually a model of messaging discipline — Rick Santorum’s lack of focus is as much an argument against his candidacy as is his lack of a central message. His self-pity is just icing on his opponents’ cake.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (100) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/08/ricks-missing-message
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.8.12 @ 6:15AM
Gingrich and Santorum started of the campaign season peddling books and themselves. Not much has changed.
Alan Brooks| 3.8.12 @ 8:23PM
Maybe the Santorums don't have much in the bank, and what they do have they spend on cat food-- for themselves, not the cat.
"Try these Kibbles 'N' Bits, Rick..."
aware| 3.8.12 @ 6:23AM
I suggest that the best thing you can do to protect yourself is converting all savings to silver, stock up on ammo and food, and get out of metro areas.
Voting is now just whistling past the graveyard. A distraction as this ship of fools slips beneath the waves.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.8.12 @ 6:35AM
I though the Hale-Bobb comet thing was passe.
Alan Brooks| 3.8.12 @ 8:20PM
No, it's Y2K, Jack Ruby ...
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.8.12 @ 6:47AM
What a surprise. Another Hosanna from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Boy.
"He's only interested in one job. His."
And, here I thought that it was the Architect of the 1st Single Payer/Government Health Care System in the Country, who has spent $20 Million, or so, Digging up dirt, finding down on their luck Skanks who think they were felt up, and just, all around running a SCORCHED EARTH Campaign against fellow Republicans, so HE can get a JOB?
Silly me.
What was I thinking?
Ross Kaminsky | 3.8.12 @ 10:11AM
Tim, so much for "truce", eh?
Only one comment for you: The "He's only interested in one job." line is the only part of this article that I didn't write. Editors write the subtitles, and often the titles, of articles. (I wrote the title to this one, which you'll agree is less inflammatory than the sub-title.)
By the way, I have no predisposed sympathy toward Mormons. In fact, having seen them traveling through various primitive cultures, such as in Papua New Guinea, I am generally quite angry with their efforts to convert people.
weaverofdreams_2000| 3.8.12 @ 10:43AM
The creepy author is back again, so concerned with what others think of what he writes.
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.8.12 @ 11:01AM
What're ya talking about? It's still a Truce.
That doesn't mean I'm gonna stop breathing. By the way, why do you feel it necessary to explain yourself on "Mormons"? I never suggested that you you had any predisposed sympathy toward all Mormons. Just one of them.
I see nothing from you, on what I wrote, only ANOTHER instance of you taking an opportunity to, I guess "BRAG", about going someplace where the locals have Bones in their noses, walk around naked, and are known to EAT some of the Tourists.
Have you ever heard of Alaska, or Yosemite? Maui or Martha's Vineyard? How about The Badlands, and The Appalachian Trail? Why do you insist on visiting all of the MALARIA Countries?
I don't know if you're aware of this, but I don't think your Vacation Itineraries are impressing anyone. On the Contrary.
It's the same with all these Romney love Letters.
You're a smart guy. Just because you've got a bad Travel Agent, doesn't make you a bad person. But to keep EXCUSING all of Romney's WARTS, while jumping on everyone else'.
I don't know.
Maybe you're still feeling the effects of whatever they SMOKE down there, in them parts.
And, NO, I don't want to go with you, next time you visit New Guinea.
Alan Brooks| 3.8.12 @ 8:26PM
"Tim, so much for "truce", eh?"
After Obama gets re-elected, THEN the truce;
until Nov. 7th, please continue to shred each other-- not that you can do otherwise.
rightasrain| 3.8.12 @ 7:06AM
Ross has nailed it with his referene to Santorum's "whiny, self-pitying tone" which is often accompanied by an equally annoying exasperated, scolding tone.
Richard Ryan| 3.8.12 @ 8:39AM
I happen to like Santorum, but I must admit he suffers in the "likable" category. Although he is getting better, I'm not sure he can overcome it. I do, though, enjoy his honesty and his ability to cover more than one issue. Maybe most voters will respond in Pavlovian fashion to repeating Biden's three letter word over and over. I get really tired of it though.
mjs_pa| 3.8.12 @ 7:08AM
No one has whined more and had less of a message than the romney campaign!
Imagine Barbara Bush whining how negative the campaign has been and her toy boy mittney has generated 99% of the negativity.
The only thing we've heard from the romney campaign is biography. mitt can't talk issues because he's been on both sides of every issue. He looks like a liar and a hypocrite every time his lips move.
mjs_pa| 3.8.12 @ 7:10AM
In case any one's missed it:
After outcry from right, Mitt Romney reverses stance on minimum wage
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ti.....57691.html
Tommy Frisco| 3.8.12 @ 9:19AM
I don't think Romney realized that, as a severely conservative Republicans, he's supposed to be AGAINST the minimum wage. He's very new at this conservative thing. Like Obama, he's going to mess up from time to time and expose his true self.
Big Tony| 3.8.12 @ 8:07AM
Santorum isn't in it to win it he's just in to keep Newt from winning by splitting the conservative and Catholic vote. Santorum's long range strategy is to either secure the VP job for himself or failing that to be the next in line for the It's His Turn Party Now Party in the 2016 or 2020. The It's His Turn Now republican party will soon be replaced by a third party, just like they replaced the Whig's and I say good riddance.
PattyMor| 3.8.12 @ 8:32AM
Well there has been a lot of whining going on by all, but Barara Bush's was just the epitome of elitist complaing that we plebs just won't roll over and annoint the liberal Romney as our candidate.
I agree its messaging, hammered over and over. But besides Mitt's claim to jobs, jobs, jobs, its more like money, money, money. He's has more and he's using it not to promote himself, but to pummel his opponents with negative advertising. So his support remains about a millimeter deep. Which just goes to prove the point: You Can't Buy Me Love.
Derek Leaberry| 3.8.12 @ 9:07AM
Essentially this is about the fourth or fifth time Mr. Kaminsky has made a declaration of hatred for Rick Santorum. So be it. There is a limited audience for scribblers at the American Spectator web site. I wouldn't expect Santorum will lose any sleep over Kaminsky's dislike of him.
An economic system addicted to whether growth is one or two or four percent is a sick and non-conservative system. Ironically, as someone who has followed politics vigorously for over three decades, the more economic growth a nation has, the more it travels down the road of socialism. Sadly, socialism is the natural response to successful capitalism as there are always politicians- Republican and Democratic- who will use tax receipts to reward favored constituencies. And their are always avaricious "citizens" who wish to vote for politicians who promise them things from government coffers. HL Menken realized this long before I was born.
Inevitably, the best conservative policy is low taxes so as not to feed the beast of government and the two-headed collection of political pimps who service it, and high-paying, male-oriented jobs so women can raise children at the home. It may not be what our libertarian brothers would wish but then again libertarians do not wish to conserve anything of value but live for Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction, an anti-conservative indeed.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.8.12 @ 9:15AM
Derek,
Intentionally misconstruing a critique for "hatred" is something I'd expect of a liberal, not of you.
Please show me any place in this article where I expressed anything like 'hatred' for Santorum.
For the record, I certainly don't hate Rick Santorum -- but I also don't like him, having not enjoyed my conversation with him a few years ago where he proved himself too interested in involving government in people's personal lives.
In any case, the point of my article is that Santorum's message is too scatter-shot to be effective...that's my opinion and you are of course free to disagree.
loulou| 3.8.12 @ 10:30AM
Actually, Santorum's message is very effective. He's still in the race on a shoestring budget. Imagine if he had Romney's megabucks plus the backing of the GOP establishment!
Jackson| 3.8.12 @ 11:56AM
If his message was 'Very Effective' he wouldn't be pleading for anyone else to jettison the race. And, if he had Romney's 'megabucks' he wouldn't be in the race looking for a job to help support his 7 children. Furthermore, if by 'GOP establishment' you mean the adults in the room, point well taken.
weaverofdreams_2000| 3.8.12 @ 10:46AM
Getting into arguments with, and denigrating, the few people who bother to read your pro-Romney pablum is a great way to encourage readership. Creepy!
skip| 3.8.12 @ 12:00PM
The back and forth between Ross and Timothy and loulou can be informative and assist in the refinement of one's social, political, economic, religious, and scientific positions over time constructively. I wouldn't be surprised to discover you are one of the millions of creeps in this nation who is about to vote for the liar in chief a second time.
Al Adab| 3.8.12 @ 2:46PM
From my perspective Santorum has been searching for his voice, his message for some time. He seems to have found it in his remarks Tuesday night as he made a couple of rather telling statements. One was about not seeking the power job but seeking to return power to the voters and the other essentially about increasing Liberty rather than prog4rams. If this message becomes coherent he may be on to something.
The message from Romney seems to be one of better management of the social welfare state rather than any attempt to downsize or move away from dependancy. Newt is perhaps the clearest to date as to his message but remains a government activist, idea man.
To me, these are likely the reasons that voters have yet to coalesce around one over the others. Romney gets his plurality and delegatees but the votes against (or for others) outnumber the votes for him. I am concerned that ( as seems likely) he becomes the nominee, the voters will vote for him but not work for him. Lack of a motivated base is the road to defeat.
Mimi| 3.8.12 @ 3:54PM
Al Adab Oh so right on both counts...You just answered the QUESTION ..How come this is taking so long? ....and when we are forced to go with ROMNEY are we gonna do the registration and church basememt stuff?
Timothy Dolan might help he's got a ARMY of 78 million and talking about doing PARISH wide registration !!!!!!!! In the Catholic church.
They would probably LIKE MORE !!!
Mimi| 3.8.12 @ 4:14PM
err= Like Santorum more!
loulou| 3.8.12 @ 5:09PM
Romney is a Dukakis. Competant but that's about it. No leadership there.
Mimi| 3.8.12 @ 3:47PM
I'll say this for you Ross...This piece isn't as bad as Quin's on Newt.
My beef is that remark on that beautiful Santorum Family...Which would by the way look remarkable in the Whitehouse. it won't take them long to capture the HEART of America.
If you were smart, you could see the days of Mitts negative media are over...for lack of being effective! A PLUS ++++ for Rick he literally took Romney Ammunition off the TABLE. At this stage it will only backfire and boomerang.
Big Tony| 3.8.12 @ 9:24AM
What's wrong with creative destruction? Or would you perfer your horse and buggy or slide ruler or abbacus or perhaps you'd prefer a manual typewriter to the PC you sent your comment on. The WWW help destroy the liberal news papers. Cable and Satellite helped destroy the monopoly of PBS, CBS, NBC and ABC news. You made a good point in your second paragraph and then ruined it with the absurd statements in the last paragraph.
GW| 3.8.12 @ 12:03PM
Yeah, "creative destruction" is not anti-conservative, and conservatism is about conserving the culture, traditions, customs, language, morals, and religious beliefs of a people. Conservatives don't want to conserve inefficient means of production or less than ideal modes of transportation.
Derek Leaberry| 3.8.12 @ 3:51PM
Some creative destruction is necessary for advancement, cultural and economic, and the points you make are true. Most of us approve indoor plumbing, the toilet, the automobile and, grudgingly, the television and cell phone. On the other hand, the destruction of scores of industrial towns- most of them parasitical economic basket cases that will drain the American economy for generations- is not a positive "creative destruction." The modern day Interstate Highway System has been a negative element of "creative destruction" for at least the last thirty years, acting as a giant subsidy to the road construction industry and a source of loot for our political class at the expense of the land.
I appreciate the criticism, Big Tony, as I did write with an overly broad brush.
Casey Abell| 3.8.12 @ 9:50AM
Gotta admit, this is a brave column at Santorum-For-President, er, the Spectator. Romney has run a disciplined, determined campaign, hitting hard on the economic issues that will decide the election. Few at the Spectator are willing to admit this.
Santorum is just not that interested in economic issues. He would much rather talk about the social issues which are far closer to his heart. That's why he tends to drift away from a jobs-and-pocketbook message, as Russ notes.
Which is Santorum's strength and his weakness. His social-issues message gets strong support from the religious right and has enabled him to stay in the race. But it blunts his appeal to just about everybody else. And in an election where economic issues are paramount, that's not good for Rick.
nibblesyble| 3.8.12 @ 10:37AM
I agree with this article. I am very glad that the author brought up Rick asking Newt to get out when Rick was so angry and opposed to it after SC. Indeed, Newt would probably be in a front-runner status right now or locked closely in this race to Prez with Romney. Which would present a real hope for a conservative in the WH. Instead we have a splintered base that will probably, reluctantly come to support Romney..at the end of the day and this horrid primary season..I blame Rick Santorum for that!
Controse| 3.8.12 @ 11:11AM
We cannot have liberty and ObamaCare. It is one or the other. It is tough enough not being able to find a job. But how are we going to like it when we have to check with the government before we take a piss? The only message Santorum needs is Liberty vs ObamaCare. Pound,pound,pound Rick. It is the truth and it is the whole ball game.
I do not think Mr. Kaminsky is boosting Mitt here. I think he is trying to help Santorum's
campaign because Rick's lack of focus and talking about the sacrifices he and his family have made is probably why he hasn't finished stronger than he has.
Simon Templar| 3.8.12 @ 11:15AM
You wanted and example of hate, well perhaps that is a strong word and a bit to much but I would say disdain might be more accurate.
Here is one......
"Note to Rick: It was your choice to have seven children. (We certainly cannot question your opposition to contraception.) Don't use them as an excuse for your financial woes; we don't want to hear it, especially while you drag them around the country like a traveling circus act."
Given you are a self described libertarian, the type apparently that fears religion, large families, and all conservative positions on social issues, this is not surprising that you would make this sarcastic and disdainful shot at him.
What really bothers me Ross is your laziness and your thinly covered agendas and biases.
The starnge thing is one could find many more real and substantive weaknesses in the man's campaign withour resorting to such lame cheap shots, exxagerations, and distortions. Please, he really has not talked about jobs other than his own? Dragging his familiy around like a circus? This is what I expect from disgruntled, small minded bloggers who are unable to think beyond cliches.
Just what does this really contribute to journalism, the truth, or educating and informing the public?
What you really have a big issue is with his religious values and nothing else which you are threatened by. This is echoed in this thread by those that instanly picked that up and related to your fear of it and the myth that most Americans are somehow not religiuos and turned off of it.
Now, we have to sit and hear about the religious right as if it's some small group in the US hiding in mountain camps in western Dakota plotting to take over an establish a theocracy.
The idea that these 'social issues" are somehow problematic is patently false and the idea that America is not a nation that believes in God, attends church, and has strong convictions is ven more ridiculous. The culture war is real, it's being waged by the Left, for a reason, and it has an agenda and specific objectives. You are are helping them when you make crass remarks and slams in this regard. You help them when you discourage people's faith, their religious expression, and their values.
Simon Templar| 3.8.12 @ 11:17AM
Apologies for some typos. Typing too fast and distracted...
Ross Kaminsky | 3.8.12 @ 3:15PM
I have no objection to his religious views. I have objections to his willingness to use government to impose, or even suggest, them to others.
I have frequently contributed to campaigns of "Christian conservative" candidates, so clearly being socially conservative is not a disqualifier in this libertarian's book.
I agree that the culture war is real, and I'm closer to the conservative's side in that war most of the time.
There was nothing I have written that discourages faith or religious expression. Quite the contrary. I have strongly stood up for such things as Christmas scenes in parks or in front of libraries, in local discussions of such issues. And I'm not Christian.
Again, I don't mind Santorum's values. I mind his moralizing to others and his willingness to tell others how to live...which he told me directly that he is perfectly happy to do.
Derek Leaberry| 3.8.12 @ 4:05PM
What should not be imposed by the government? Traffic lights? Stop signs? Zoning laws? Or bans of the following- Minimum age limits for marriage? Public nudity? Strip clubs in residential neighborhoods? Back yard saloons? The keeping of flocks of chickens in urban backyards? Polygamy? Health codes on restaurants? Euthanasia of retarded children at the consent of the parents? The ownership of fully operating tanks? Statutory rape? Drunk driving laws? All these are some sort of value judgment? Some are even the affliction of moral values of some people on others.
Too many laws are stupid and the USA has too many laws by about ten-fold. Yet civilized life requires some law. The libertarian fantasyland of Galt's Gulch can not exist.
Simon Templar| 3.8.12 @ 4:18PM
I mind you and the liberals imposing your moralizing and I object to your inability to respect others that have a different set of values and beliefs that feel that they have the same right to influence government policy, their nation, and their culture as you do.
His willingness to impose and EVEN suggest?
First, I do not hear any imposing. What I do hear is a concerted effort of the Left and certain libertarians like yourself imposing your views on the rest of us. Now, he is not allowed to even suggest? You need to be reintroduced to the first ammendment.
Yeah, I got the idea that you are not a christian.
There is nothing you do to discourage religious expression? Did you just hear, yourself. You just told the guy to shut the fuck up, you do not even want him to SUGGEST his views to others. I would suggest you keep your views to yourself and not suggest government be used support them. You value free markets, capitalism, money, the right to make it unhindered, and the freedom to not cling to your bible. Great, got to tell you those are values and within those inherent ideas of morality, and what you beleive is right and what is wrong.
So, since you are into stopping people from 'moralizing' then you can start with the homosexual marriage idea, then move onto the legalization of drugs, and keep going...
Maybe, you could help us and gives us a list, very specific, of what can be said, suggested, and discussed.
You did in fact make some pretty crass and offensive remarks that I copy and pasted in my comment. If you can not see that, you have a problem.
You have every right to think Santorum is not a good candidate for president and make a case for that..but you do not have to ridicule him about the size of his family, his catholic beliefs about contraception, the fact that he presents them like so many other candidates do to the public and call it a circus act.
Morals, values, ethics, and religious beliefs are the fabric of this nation and the right to express them in all venues is guaranteed by this constitution.
What you heard him say is he was unwilling to shut up at your request and reiterated his right to have opinions on these matters as you do as a citizen as well as a politician or candidate. You are free to take it or leave it, but not to tell him to shut up.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.8.12 @ 4:27PM
Here's the short version:
I was talking with Santorum, just me and him. I told him that I thought Republicans were spending a lot of time telling people how to live (this was about 10 years ago.) He looked at me and said "If we don't tell them how to live, who will?"
I understand that "real conservatives" don't object to that sort of thinking, but I do, and I don't apologize for it.
I have never claimed that he shouldn't hold any particular view. I have stated and stand by my view that his moralizing is unappealing. Furthermore, his repeated statements that he "respects the 10th Amendment, but..." should trouble even "real" conservatives.
Al Adab| 3.8.12 @ 4:47PM
Mr. K:
You put your finger on the danger of faling into this democrat campaign created storm of "social issues". In a Conservative administration many of those would follow of their own accord. The public at large fears that Conservatives will seek to impose (as the Left does) a social agenda through law, intimidation and courts. Conservatism is not activist in that sense.
What the GOP must do is avoid falling for this red herring ploy and focus on the economic and fiscal disaster this administration has created. When we allow The Left to frame the debate we become more likely to lose.
Simon Templar| 3.8.12 @ 6:18PM
Al,
Please do not take this personal as we agree on almost everything and we are on the same team.
There was something in what you wrote to which I just could not stop myself from replying.
The Left creates all the storms, not just the social issues storms, as we allow them to set the narratives, define them, and control the message that the public at large receives. There is no evidence that the public at large fears conservatives are going to impose a conservative social sharia or that they do not identify with traditional values, relgious expression, or faith.
In fact, they do. As there is no actual evidence and history of conservatives imposing anything except prohibition and that came from both sides, that is the red herring. You said it, conservativism has traditionally not been activist. So, this is just another fabrication and lie that is imposed by the Left.
They do the same thing with the "foreign relation issues", "national security issues," and "economic issues." It is exactly the same game. If you think you can run for cover by running away from these social issues then you are in for a big surprise.
What is the number one national security lie that was repeated so often it is commonly accepted as truth and fact?
Bush rushed to War.
The number one economic lie?
That this economic crisis was driven and caused by greedy banks that forced poor innocent people to accept mortgage loans. The second, the republican party is the party of the rich and big business.
The GOP, conservatives, must stop running for cover and deal with the real issue here. MSM control of the complete, absolute, start to finish narrative about conservatives. Hell, they can not figure out that they should stop allowing MSNBC from hosting and moderating their damn debates, asking the questions, and providing the afterward "analysis."
Yes, we will go ahead and focus on the fiscal and economic issues as we should. Do not expect, however, any different response or treatment from the Left and their Media machine.
Do not let them frame any debate on any area or issues. That is the rub, my friend.
This is something Ross will never grasp. Loose the culture war and you lose it all. If you can not fight effectively there then why suppose anywhere else, because we have not won there either, and it is the hard truth. Do I have to remind you of Paul Ryan? Of budget talks, cuts, and government shutdowns?
Stop fucking retreating and running for cover.
Don't fall in any traps and do not allow them to play us on anything anymore. We need to start being activist.
Sorry about the language, not directed at you.
Al Adab| 3.8.12 @ 6:42PM
Yes my sainted friend we do agree much more than not. In fact after reading your dissertation I think our difference is simply one of tactics not of strategy. My feeling is that the public at large fears that Conservatives will be just as ideological and forceful in promoting their social agenda as is the left. Dictats from the courts, imposition of newspeak by law and so on. The fear is not well grounded as Conservatism is not activist in that sense.
As you say we allow the opposition to control the debate at our peril. Instead of reacting to all these red herrings they throw to distract and raise fear, we must focus on what matters the economic and fiscal health of the nation. Without that the rest is moot. I would nonetheless stress the national security facets of the energy policy. Our military cannot be hostage to our ability to import. Domestic production should fill domestic needs before any is exported.
The overall strategy is to take the battle to them. I simply feel that tacticly we are better off not emphasizing the social issue debate as that fractures voters into too many opposing camps. That is not to suggest even a strategic withdrawl but perhaps to resurrect and old phrase, some benign neglect as most of these issues will fall of their own weight under a Conservative Administration, one without national health care.
Understood your final comment to be directed at the candidates and the RNC. Have a good evening.
David Messick | 3.8.12 @ 11:16AM
Romney has no core principle. He has been on every side of every issue. He is doomed to utter failure. It is a sad day for the Party of Lincoln that we have elitist snobs still trying to push this weak lame RINO down our mouths. ROMENY = FAILURE! 2008 repeat of the RINOs DEFEAT
David Messick | 3.8.12 @ 11:18AM
Yes Simon Templar the attack on Rick family did sound like a hidden bigoted comment against Catholics.
Tommy Frisco| 3.8.12 @ 11:33AM
It sounded like Ann Coulter to me. I think that's where he gets his talking points.
Simon Templar| 3.8.12 @ 3:43PM
I do not get talking points from anyone, never have, never will. I do not need to formulate an opinion or a thought by going to anyone's pie hole for it, Ross's, Coulter, or anyone.
That's the problem with you and many others.
You have the idea that the talking heads are somehow smarter, more informed, more educated, and more qualified to have an opinion or develop a point. Just saying something like you did substantiates this...
If you have specific objections or a counter argument and can formulate something else besides a smarmy, stupid retort and dismissal, then lets hear it. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.
Tommy Frisco| 3.8.12 @ 5:56PM
Simon, I was replying to David Messick who was agreeing with you about Ross's attack on Rick's family.
To clarify, I think Ross gets his talking points from Ann Coulter. You are one of the best commenters on this site.
Please feel free to apologize for not reading our comments a little closer before making your vicious attack.
Simon Templar| 3.8.12 @ 6:23PM
Then, I sincerely apologize. Please forgive me.
I did read it and I guess misunderstood what you were saying and who you refered to as "he" when you followed my comment.
TommyFrisco| 3.8.12 @ 10:08PM
Simon,
Apology accepted and I admit that I'm partially to blame for the confusion. I should have been more clear as to whom I was replying to and to whom my comment was directed towards.
I must add, however, that I am concerned, at times, when commenters I respect are too quick to react with vicious attacks against someone that disagrees with them. I've probably been guilty of that myself, but I know that nothing good comes from it.
Thank-you for sharing your comments with us here at AS.
Ted| 3.8.12 @ 11:24AM
A Ronmey nomination = 4 more years of Obama, regardless of whether Romney or Obama wins in November. Why? Because they are essentially the same. Neither are conservative in any way.
What people fail to realize is that, while Romney was successful as a businessman, you don't have to have solid conservative core principals to make money. Just look at George Soros.
And it is the core conservative principals across the board that we need. Look at Romney as he ran for the Senate or Massachusetts Governor (and how he governed): he supported abortion, he opposed 2nd Amendment Rights, he supported homosexual "marriage," he proposed Romneycare. All of these things are inter-related, regardless of what economic "conservatives" or "libertarians" want to say.
And Romeny's going to beat Obama?
Nick099| 3.8.12 @ 11:26AM
The article makes sense. Santorum while a good candidate and a steady fellow, has not demonstrated great communication capabilities, discipline, nor big vision. Mitt has decent communication skills ( about high school level in his debate response...it´s formulaic so do not get offended Romneybots). So Romney is scripted...highly scripted and does little real thinking on the stump beyond the superficial....hence his huge gaffes from time to time and seeming inability to relate to an off-script comment.
Gingrich is the master of communication. Understands the power of language. Has the big-vision to see the issues down the road along with solution....as an example no one is talking about energy like he is.
He does not fall into the language traps of the Left like the other two.....and he is not scripted. When he is speaking he is actually thinking and responding in real time. That is why he is unbeatable in any debate. If he loses it is only because he had an of day...as everyone does.
Simon Templar| 3.8.12 @ 11:33AM
Nick, maybe you should have written this article, but I am not sure his article makes as much sense as your comment.
Tommy Frisco| 3.8.12 @ 11:45AM
Excellent, Nick099.
BTW, If Texas had held its primary on Tuesday, as originally scheduled, I'm certain that Newt would have more delegates today than Santorum. The delay is blamed on the Dems, but I wonder about that. The end result is that it hurt only one candidate...Newt Gingrich.
Casey Abell| 3.8.12 @ 12:46PM
"BTW, If Texas had held its primary on Tuesday, as originally scheduled, I'm certain that Newt would have more delegates today than Santorum. "
Uh, what? Texas is Santorum country. He's got a huge lead in the polls. http://www.utexas.edu/news/201.....orum_poll/
The sooner Texas holds its primary, the better for Rick. It will probably be his single biggest delegate haul.
Tommy Frisco| 3.8.12 @ 3:41PM
Casey,
You put more faith in the polls than I do. The folks I talk to around here like Newt Gingrich....and Newt will finally have the advantage of an incumbent Governor endorsing and campaigning for him.
Simon Templar| 3.8.12 @ 11:29AM
You wanted and example of hate, well perhaps that is a strong word and a bit too much but I would say 'disdain' might be more accurate.
Here is one......
"Note to Rick: It was your choice to have seven children. (We certainly cannot question your opposition to contraception.) Don't use them as an excuse for your financial woes; we don't want to hear it, especially while you drag them around the country like a traveling circus act."
Given you are a self described libertarian, the type apparently that fears religion, large families, and conservative positions on social issues, this is not surprising that you would make this sarcastic and disdainful shot at him.
What really bothers me Ross is your laziness and your thinly covered agendas and biases.
The strange thing is one could find many more real and substantive weaknesses in the man's campaign withour resorting to such lame cheap shots, exxagerations, and distortions. Please, he really has not talked about jobs other than his own? Dragging his familiy around like a circus? This is what I expect from disgruntled, small minded bloggers who are unable to think beyond cliches.
Just what does this really contribute to journalism, the truth, or educating and informing the public?
What you really have is a big issue with his religious values and nothing else, of which you are threatened by. This is echoed in this thread by those that instanly picked that up and related to your fear of it and the myth that most Americans are somehow not religious and turned off of it.
Now, we have to sit and hear about the religious right as if it's some small group in the US hiding in mountain camps in western Dakota plotting to take over an establish a theocracy.
The idea that these 'social issues" are somehow problematic is patently false and the idea that America is not a nation that believes in God, attends church, and has strong convictions is even more ridiculous. The culture war is real, it's being waged by the Left, for a reason, and it has an agenda and specific objectives. You are are helping them when you make crass remarks and slams in this regard. You help them when you discourage people's faith, their religious expression, and their values.
Pelligrino| 3.8.12 @ 2:16PM
Thank you, Simon. I appreciate more often your comments here than those of the article authors who must get some monetary compensation.
Almost every time I read RK, I get the impression that his sole focus is to undermine and remove faith.
RK seems to have no idea that Judeo-Christian tenets and values are what allow him to make a living in the soft and very easy world of writing. He is not alone in this, sadly. But, here today, we've learned of another world locale RK has traveled. Travel educates, it really does. Surely RK's age and travels tell him that America is different because of people of Biblical faith that have come before us and laid this magnificent foundation.
skip| 3.8.12 @ 3:04PM
Liberty is the freedom to enjoy social, political, and economic rights.
Social rights relate to the interaction between the individual and the collective.
Political rights relate to the government and the conduct of government.
Economic rights relate to the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
The founding fathers knew that social and political and economic rights were each critical to liberty.
There cannot be the freedom to truly enjoy liberty when social rights are not properly addressed even when political and economic rights are properly addressed.
When social rights are oppressed to such a degree abortion is 'legal', homosexuality is 'sanctioned', murderers and rapists are not 'capitally punished', religious morality is removed from public discourse by 'constitutional separation', and the specific welfare of some of the people is promoted and formed and established and ensured and provided and secured at the expense of the general welfare of all of 'we the people', then the conduct of government and the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services cannot possibly be made right much less be consistent with the fredom to enjoy liberty.
RCV| 3.8.12 @ 4:24PM
The last paragraph of your analysis is a complete non-sequiter from the incontestable prior premises.
skip| 3.8.12 @ 6:44PM
Liberty is the freedom to enjoy social, political, and economic rights.
Social rights relate to the interaction between the individual and the collective.
The justification for individual rights are documented in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The justification for collective rights are documented in the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
When abortion is 'legal' it is not held as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal.
When abortion is 'legal' it is not held as a self-evident truth that all men are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life much less liberty.
When abortion is 'legal' the blessing of liberty to ourselves is not secured as ourselves are no longer self-evidently truthfully endowed with life having been created equal.
When abortion is 'legal' the blessing of liberty to our posterity is not secured as all future generations are no longer self-evidently truthfully endowed with life having been created equal.
When abortion is 'legal' the general welfare of all future generations and ourselves is not promoted.
When abortion is 'legal' the common defense of all future generations and ourselves is not provided.
When abortion is 'legal' the domestic peace for all future generations and ourselves is not insured.
When abortion is 'legal' justice for all future generations and ourselves is not established.
When abortion is 'legal' a more perfect nation for all future generations and ourselves is not formed.
When homosexuality is 'sanctioned' it is falsely held as a self-evident truth endowed by the Creator when it is endowed by arbitrary men and not by the Creator.
When homosexuality is 'sanctioned' the specific welfare of homosexuals is formed, established, insured, provided, and secured at the expense of the general welfare of all of 'we the people', as homosexuality defies the Creator, defies natural law, defies basic human nature, defies the basic family unit, defies the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, social and financial health of homosexuals specifically and society of all men generally.
When homosexuality is 'sanctioned' the blessing of liberty is not secured, the common defense is not provided, the domestic peace is not insured, justice is not established, and a more perfect nation is not formed, as the specific welfare of some men is arbitrarily endowed by men at the expense of the general welfare of the society of all men.
When murderers and rapists are not 'capitally punished' it is falsely held as a self-evident truth that all men are endowed by the Creator when it is endowed by arbitrary men and not by the Creator.
When murderers and rapists are not 'capitally punished' justice is not established, as murderers and rapists by the act of murder and rape forfeit their endowed rights by taking these endowed rights from their victims.
When murderers and rapists are not 'capitally punished' the blessing of liberty is not secured, the general welfare is not promoted, the common defense is not provided, the domestic peace is not insured, and a more perfect nation is not formed, as justice is not established.
When religious morality is 'constitutionally separated' it is falsely held as a self-evident truth that all men are endowed by the Creator when it is endowed by arbitrary men and not by the Creator.
When religious morality is 'constitutionally separated' the very justification documented by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is violated by arbitrary men.
When religious morality is 'constitutionally separated' the blessing of liberty is not secured, the general welfare is not promoted, the common defense is not provided, the domestic peace is not insured, justice is not established, and a more perfect nation is not formed, as the justification documented in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is oppressed.
When the specific welfare of some men is promoted, formed, established, insured, provided and secured at the expense of the general welfare of all of 'we the people', then social rights are oppressed, oppressed social rights oppress political and economic rights, oppressed social, political and economic rights oppress the justification documented in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and the oppressed Declaration of Independence and Constitution oppress liberty.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.8.12 @ 3:21PM
I speak and write frequently about the value of our Judeo-Christian heritage and credit it with being perhaps the primary factor that has made America great.
I have spent time on my radio show defending Catholic and other religious organizations against Obama's latest assault.
I am not aiming to "remove faith"...though I personally am not a person of faith. I understand its value to our society. I just want it kept far away from government.
Simon Templar| 3.8.12 @ 4:47PM
Just want to keep faith far away from the goverment?
I suggest you move to a communist nation, that is one of their first edicts and tenets.
Yes, you do want to remove faith.
You and many others just do not get this first ammendment thing. See, this is how it simply works....you are entitled to have whatever beliefs, thoughts, and faith you wish to have or none at all.
You and I and everyone else look for similarity and common ground in the public market of ideas and discourse respecting each others points of view. We hash it out, discuss, debate, look for compromise if possible and refer back to our constitution if necessary for clarification of what we hold dear. Then people think about what they want and how their values translate to the kind of laws, policy, and government that the majority of us agree we should have via voting and our legislative process. Those having minority opinions we attempt to consider and accomodate and often incorporate into that policy if possible with the idea of maximizing everyones freedom. We certainly do not pretend that people do not come with a set of morality, beliefs, ethics and world view to the table of democracy or discourage anyone from participating. Everyone gets a chance to air those ideas, values, and beliefs, and even suggest, promote them, pursuade for them. As a nation our founding fathers taught us a critical lesson that at the base of all law is morality. The foundation of a successful Republic and honest citizenry is religion, faith, and morality. So, we welcome it, we do not demand it stay far away nor have any role in man's life when he steps into office. We only expect that he respect the process of law making, consider all points of view on subjects, and act according to his concience.
It is those that have no faith and are unwilling to tolerate those that have it, that you should fear. They are the ones, as history has shown, that will not blink an eye when they push you into an oven or in front of a firing squad.
TommyFrisco| 3.8.12 @ 10:18PM
Beautifully written, Simon. I couldn't agree more.
Farmer| 3.8.12 @ 11:47AM
Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. Wonderful. Stay on message and grind out the sound bites. That is the stuff of a disciplined politician. Market yourself to the masses with endless redundancy. Do not be distracted because the voters are. They like Orwellian sheep need a slogan to bleat. We are now all twits limited to tweet length discussion. Mr. Kaminsky, perhaps one of the biggest problems with politics is it spends too much time focused on sound bites and too little time on engaging in more than chanting jobs, jobs, and jobs. How many times a politician repeats himself may impress you, but it does not impress me. I thought conservatism was about was about ideas and not about sound bites repeated Ad Nauseam.
BackToBasics| 3.8.12 @ 12:16PM
Agree, the mantra of "jobs, jobs, jobs" begins to sound similar to "yes we can" and "hope and change." It goes little beyond the worn out "I've been a businessman" or "I've fought for the little guy," etc. These platitudes come not just form ROmney but all candidates. I think the right is focused and intelligent enough to more often hear specifics on economic, domestic and foreign affairs even during the primaries.
Cain did repeat himself but at least he tried to venture into new ground with his RADICAL 9-9-9 proposal. Now that he's out, I do not hear any strong proposals from anyone, only trimming around the edges of bloated government.
BackToBasics| 3.8.12 @ 12:34PM
I speak about the top 3 Republican candidates regarding the repetitive platitudes. Ron Paul offers some specifics, some of the economic ones I like, but I do not like most of his social and foreign policy proposals.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.8.12 @ 3:18PM
Farmer,
I agree with you that ideas are of utmost importance. But again, in order to win the war and not just pat ourselves on the back for being right, we have to win elections.
Message discipline wins elections.
Farmer| 3.8.12 @ 10:52PM
Mr. Kaminsky,
Conservatives need to win the war of ideas and not merely the battles of individual elections. While I concede that this election is a particularly important battle, this primary has left me depressed concerning the degree of focus on sound bite tactics. Living in Ohio I have just survived being swamped by endless campaign drivel. I threw my TV away more than a decade ago but the epistemology of ‘sound bite age’ media produces fragmented and shallow arguments, and wizened comprehension of policy distinctions. Twitter, text messaging, and TV provide precious little forwarding of a progression of thought from premises toward conclusion.
I started this primary season relatively indifferent to which candidate won the nomination. I care much more about how well the candidates articulate core conservatism. I was and am accepting of the idea of supporting Romney in the fall. However, having just experienced the Romney campaign, I suggest his campaign seems too sound bite oriented to win converts to conservative ideas going into the future. I suggest to you that a campaign by conservatives based on sound bites may win in a single election cycle, but it is ultimately self defeating; the Democrats are just better at sound bites, more gifted at emotional manipulation, and smoother narrators of ‘just so stories’ for narcissistic voters.
You opened your column with the premise that counting the number of times the word ‘jobs’ was repeated in a speech is informative. I disagree that counting sound bites is very useful in the long term.
Bob K.| 3.8.12 @ 7:22PM
It is a problem caused by the Medium used. In this case Television. One must learn to think in slogans and talk in sound bytes. Or is it just the opposite: Thinking in sound bytes and talking in slogans?
Maybe we are better off? So far none of the candidates have the strong beliefs that Orwell described when he wrote of those "men who think in slogans and talk in bullets."
GW| 3.8.12 @ 12:11PM
As I've said before, Rick Santorum is by all accounts a good father and husband, and a religious conservative with whom I have little disagreement in policy issues. However, the president's job is to uphold the constitution and execute the laws. Santorum comes across as too paternal at times, making him a good choice to lead a church group or pro-family organization. This is not to be disparaging, as these types of people are important in building and maintaining a society worth conserving. But they often aren't experienced enough to lead a divided country.
David Messick | 3.8.12 @ 12:38PM
Too Catholic in other words. Too faithful. Faithful Christians need not apply for public office 'their place' is in Church not public office.
David Messick | 3.8.12 @ 12:46PM
What you present GW is soft bigotry.
rightasrain| 3.8.12 @ 3:24PM
Not too Catholic--too demagogic.
Kevin| 3.8.12 @ 1:14PM
Awe, is the author upset because Mittens can't close the deal? Poor baby....
Michael DePietro MD| 3.8.12 @ 1:26PM
I think Santorum's focus is about Obamacare and the issue of Freedom in general Mr Kaminsky. This seems to be pretty easily recongized by people like Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal as well as Jeff Anderson at the Weekly Standard. The fact that you do not recognize this suggests that you are not listening. Its pretty obvious if you are objective.
wodiej| 3.8.12 @ 2:10PM
Since when is having alot of ideas undisciplined especially if a person was successful at it? There are other problems to solve besides jobs. And just because Romney raided companies and made himself and others millions while laying off workers, does not mean he is the best person to lead the country. He may have mentioned jobs alot in 90 seconds but Gingrich mentions jobs every single time he speaks. He not only mentions that but other important issues relevant to leading the country such as energy, foreign affairs, the national debt and entitlement spending. Business is all Romney has. He needs to put his suit back on and learn to be a more ethical businessman. He's certainly no conservative leader. And Santorum needs to go back home (wherever that is) and do his preaching to a more suitable audience.
Oldefarte| 3.8.12 @ 2:14PM
Ross: OUTSTANDING, EXCELLENT, BRAVO! You nailed it! What I've been thinking/saying for months now. Please please please communicate your accurate thoughts to our friend Quin here at TAS on this subject. IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS in November [or it should be]!!!!!
Bill| 3.8.12 @ 3:08PM
Santorum lost in Super Tuesday cause:
Voted for :
1. raising the debt ceiling 5 times
2. Medicare Part D
3. NCLB
4. Bridge to nowhere
Voted against:
1. "Right-to-Work" law
~supported Arlene Specter, who cast the 60th "deciding" vote passing Obamacare in the Senate.
~"Keystone pro-union" Rick Santorum
Nick| 3.8.12 @ 11:16PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!
George Collins| 3.8.12 @ 3:53PM
Romney will close the deal. And since when is having a lot of money behind a campaign a bad thing?
Santorum with more money would just be Santorum with more money. He's not a very compelling candidate, and an unpleasant person. I worked with him on a couple of things in Pennsylvania and he is a self-righteous know-it-all, and a disaster in the "private" sector as a lobbyist and lawyer after he was trounced by Bob Casey in 2006. Not exactly a rainmaker.
David| 3.8.12 @ 4:13PM
To the folks who are getting on Rick's ass for suggesting that Gingrich get out, and who are blaming him for a splintered conservative vote, please acknowledge the following points.
Newt suggested that Rick get out of the race after he won SC. Both Newt and Rick had won one state each at that point. Pretty bold of Newt, don't you think? Newt was way down the pack in Iowa and Rick was down the pack in SC.
Newt suggested that Rick get out about 6 weeks earlier before Rick ever suggested the same to Gingrich.
When Rick made his suggestion, Mitt had won 10 states, Santorum had won 7, and Gingrich has won 2 states.
When not winning a state, Rick has been a consistent second place while Gingrich has been third and even fourth place behind Paul.
Isn't Rick's call now, at this point, more reasonable and appropriate than Newt's was a 6 weeks ago? I think any fair person would have to say, yes.
As much as I like Gingrich, he was never going to be the nominee. He simply has too much political and personal baggage. And I think Newt has always realized that fact. I think he is just hoping for some high level position in a repub admin. And he certainly deserves it and should be tasked with helping the next prez tackle at least one very big issue.
But it IS time for Newt to go and allow the other conservative to beat Romney. Otherwise we get Romney who cannot beat Bam Bam because of, first and foremost, Romneycare, among many other reasons.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.8.12 @ 4:32PM
I think you're right, at least from the point of view of someone who doesn't want Romney to be the nominee.
What I wonder is whether Gingrich prefers Romney or Santorum. You'd have to think the latter.
If that's the case, he might look for a graceful way to get out...that doesn't look like he got out because people were clamoring for it.
If he does badly in the south this week, that might do the trick. Still, with as much money as has been committed to his Super-PAC, just not wanting to let down Adelson might keep him in for a while. I would love to know what Adelson is thinking right now.
Oldefarte| 3.8.12 @ 4:49PM
I beg you to ask yourselves just one question, and that is WHO IS MOST QUALIFIED TO ASSUME THE ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENCY IN 2013? My answer to that is certainly not Rick Santorum [who has to my knowledge never held an administrative position in his entire political life]. That is what is at stake in November!!!!!!!!!!!
Brooklyn| 3.8.12 @ 6:56PM
Good points. Santorum should take them as constructive criticism and learn from them, and readjust his message.
albert constantine jr.| 3.8.12 @ 7:23PM
As someone who decided after reviewing the positions of the much wider field of candidates last summer after the Iowa Straw poll that I would likely vote for Santorum if he is still in the race when my primary comes around in April, I’d like to offer my thoughts on this article and the accompanying remarks on the thread.
I picked Santorum as my first choice after viewing debates, examining his record and positions, and comparing him to the others in the race, and how what I think he would do as President squares with my vision of what I want a President to do. I didn’t think he was perfect; there were things about him that I didn’t like the first time I became aware of him in 1994, and continue to bother me.
Once I made my choice, I did not set it in concrete, but I also did not race from candidate to candidate as the frontrunner in the polls shifted. It did not mean, though, that while he occupied my choice for first place, that I had to dislike the others seeking the nomination, or those supporting them. It was more like the finalists in a beauty contest; if he was unable to fulfill his duties, the runner up would step in.
In the months that have followed, Santorum has remained my first choice. I have consumed much of what is written here for and against him and the other candidates with interest, and remained open to persuasion towards another (though it has not yet happened). I also have a sense of which writers and which posters support which candidate, so there are not many surprises.
As I read Mr. Kaminsky’s piece, though I wouldn’t categorize his feelings as hate, the lack of affinity he feels for Mr. Santorum is apparent. I think much of the criticism of the choice of words or even the sentiment expressed by others posting here regarding the author’s apparent disdain is valid, and some mirrored my thoughts as I was perusing the article. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t something that Candidate Santorum couldn’t learn from what Mr. Kaminsky writes if he seeks to broaden his appeal.
That being said, it is not the first time Mr. Kaminsky has expressed these thoughts. I try not to read only those with whom I think I will agree. When I go to places like the Daily Kos and I see the inability to have original ideas, communicate articulately or tolerate those who are not in complete sync with the talking points, I tend not to return. Still, I get plenty of the message of the left daily from mainstream media outlets, and regurgitated here by the squad of trolls who regularly patrol here.
I am a Phillies fan, but that doesn’t mean I have to hate the Marlins, the Braves, the Nationals or the Mets (though in the latter example, this at times is challenging). I recognize as someone who has been back to following the game for a while that the stars on this year’s rival team can join your team at the trade deadline, or next season. As a result I try to enjoy the game without disliking the other guys, and if I do identify someone that I can’t stand (such as Carlos Delgado a couple of years ago), I have what I think is a good reason for it (he didn’t want to stand for God Bless America).
I realize the Presidential campaign is bigger than baseball and more than a game, but I try to apply a lot of the same principles to big and small things. If baseball starts to annoy me, I can stop watching. If a particular author here wastes my time without contributing anything to my knowledge or amusement, I can choose to skip the article. The big priority is to defeat Obama, and try to re-establish some of the Founder’s conservative principles to our government.
I still enjoy the AMSPEC site, and even where I don’t agree with what Mr. Kaminsky or any other writer has to say, I haven’t hit a point where I spend more of my leisure reading time elsewhere. While that decision is made easier by enjoying a lot of what those who post here have to say, I’m not ready to switch back to NRO, the Weekly Standard or any of the many places I would lurk before I decided to spend more time here a few years ago.
W| 3.8.12 @ 9:10PM
Albert,
Change of topic: Tonight I watched the Rockford where Jim is in Newark getting beat up, and involved with the Marteeens. Funny they wanted to use Italian names but were trying to be PC and disguise it. I saw your namesake "Albert Constantine" in the car where he pulls out his gun and says "Albert Constantine Jr." the Coniglio hit him with a bottle. Great episode.
On the primaries, I like Romney and Santorum, and when I am more alert will write something longer. All four of our candidates are 1000% better than Obama. There are personality differences, but aside from Ron Paul, the other three are running the same ideas. Paul would do much better if he had a more sensible foreign policy and stop blaming the USA and Israel for the world's problems. OH wait, that's Obama blaming the USA and Israel.
albert constantine jr.| 3.8.12 @ 10:15PM
Cliff Carnell played Albert "Sr.", and as I mentioned before, I took the name of his revolver from that episode. If I lived in Pa., I might try to get the tag number Conigliaro ran down as a vanity tag (if I lived in CA, I'd have to have 853OKG and buy a Firebird).
It was politically incorrect to suggest an organized crime figure was Italian, so their gangsters were named "Manett", "Vinett", "Lorenz", "Lombard" and "Martine". David Chase's family name at Ellis Island was "Cesare", so I guess he figured if they could do it to his ancestors, he could anglicize his gangsters. The shooting death of Carmine Galante and the refusal of the Church to allow him to be buried in a Catholic cemetery helped inspire that episode.
That is also the episode where the old Karl Malden American Express Travelers Check Commercial ("What will you do?") was spoofed somewhat.
If your local affiliate is playing episodes in order, tomorrow night should be the last one, where Jim (while out fishing) gets drafted to cast a proxy vote in a casino gambling initiative in a small California town.
W| 3.8.12 @ 10:38PM
The meeting in the parking garage between Lombard and the Cardinal, each in a chauffered Caddy, was funny.
I did not know Chase was Italian but I should have suspected it. His characters have the natural mannerisms and phrases. The actor who played Furio on the Sopranos played a hitman named Frank Cesare on Criminal Intent. Furio was my favorite character on Sopranos.
albert constantine jr.| 3.9.12 @ 11:27AM
One of the small ironies of the last season of the Sopranos was the appearance of Greg Antonacci (Eugene Conigliaro) as Frank Vincent’s (Phil Leotardo’s) lieutenant. After all those years, he was finally a made guy.
Mike 3/505| 3.8.12 @ 8:04PM
"As much as I like Gingrich, he was never going to be the nominee. He simply has too much political and personal baggage. "
I'm not buying that one. Yes, he has baggage...but that is easily to overcome with a well-run campaign based on a good, solid message. It's not enough to just badmouth Obama...the other side of that is, what is the proposed alternative? Gingrich is the only one who has made both sides of that argument and can do it well. That will overcome his negatives, which are not emotional hot buttons.
Both Romney and Santorum have "hot button" negatives that are difficult to overcome...Romney is "too rich" and Santorum wants to establish a theocracy. Neither of those are factually true, but the meme has been established...just like Palin being an "idiot."
Aside from multiple wives, what can the left really go after Gingrich on? Not much. If Romney is the nominee, the Leftists will emote all day, every day about Romney being "out of touch with the common folk." With Santorum, it will be "Santorum wants to control your womb!" Neither is true, but both will generate enough visceral response to do severe damage.
Regards,
Mike
Niniane| 3.8.12 @ 9:17PM
Santorum is only interested in Santorum. This guy who spouts about his upbringing in a steel town currently lives in a $2 million mansion in Great Falls, VA. The real estate deal that got him into the place was done under a mysterious trust called Creamcup , and he got a sweetheart deal from another supporter for the mortgage. Then Santorum ripped off the Pennsy by keeping his homeschooled children on line for their lessons, while he and the family were residents of Virginia. Apparently he owes around $90,000 for that scam, but has refused to pay.
Truth to Power| 3.8.12 @ 9:59PM
Kaminsky illustrates the social liberal and the ridiculous proposition that he will be conservative in some other way. He may pay lip service to the global warming fraud or to the absurdity of state run health care but when it comes down to it the only thing that is important is gay marriage and abortion. He supports the guy whose government resume is support of cap and trade, government run health care because that guys resume also includes support of gay marriage and abortion. I hate frauds and Ross Kaminsky is a fraud. I wish the American Spectator would hire decent help instead of guys competing to be this year's David Brock.
POST American| 3.8.12 @ 11:00PM
--On board Globalist 'SUB-Mitt ROME--knee'
meets Goldman Sacks linked and backed
--'TTT--Rick Sanitarium'.
One or the other slated to face
'BAR--Rockefeller Obama' ---as Trojan
Horse TREASON now sits before our very
Congress.
This MAY very well be our LAST election.
Globalist 'managed' RED China receivership
is surely coming. 'Zealous' EUGENICS are
ALREADY in the works.
There's no more time for games.
Clearly, THE REPUBLIC HAS FALLEN.
TREASON is the very highest crime
---bar none!
RETRO-active IMPEACHMENT of our
past 4 CFR front op administrations.
Immediate EXIT, defunding, and EXPULSION
of the private, unelected, elite banking and
EUGENICS borg 'UN'.
Immediate revocation of the TAX FREE status
for ALLLLL the 'benny violent' and deeply,
deeply seditious foundations and NGOs.
---The 'warmest' possible capital crimes
prosecution.
Immediate AUDIT and PROSECUTION of
the illegal, ANTI-Constitutional 'FED'
followed by abolishment.
"Remember, neither NAZI Germany, nor
ANY of the genocidal 'calm--you--nist'
regimes were overthrown by their own
people. Remember, in 1939 there were
still sovereign nations to resist and fight
against tyranny. Once this NWO and it's
age-enda for --FINAL-- EUGENICS is
in place and fully operative ---there will
be NOTHING to stand in its way. NOTHING."
NOTHING!
"Let's ALLLL DIE ---or LET'S DO IT."
-Thomas Carlysle
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg asap---------------
A week after the 'uncanny' natural death
of Andrew Breitbart time to move.
The adventure of your very life awaits!
----------------------TIME TO BE MEN!
David| 3.9.12 @ 8:59AM
Niniane, you are a pig for spouting that baseless drivel about Santorum.
David| 3.9.12 @ 9:02AM
Mike, you were trying to make an intelligent argument UNTIL you made the moronic statement that Santorum wants to establish a theocracy.
Fact is, Newt has always supported an individual mandate (you know, the reason Obamacare is now before the Sup Ct) and bought into global warming baloney. Newt is as erratic as the weather in Texas.
David| 3.9.12 @ 9:04AM
Mike, I did go back and finish reading. Newt can be made much more of a joke by bam bam than Santorum, unfairly so, but it is true.
Jim Hlavac | 3.9.12 @ 7:23PM
Oh, Rick's got a "jobs" program, alright -- he's called often for the recriminalization of gay folks -- and we'll demand to be arrested. He's not for Liberty for All, and E Pluribus Unum, he's for a theocracy based on his personal lifestyle. And in making criminals of millions of decent Americans, he'll have to build millions of new prison beds, create a police state to round us all up, destroy our jobs and businesses and lose all our tax dollars, and have you heteros pay for it all as he hauls us off to the pokey. Egad, the man is mad. Here it is I'm trying to get my gay friends to see the Republicans as our friends in the pocketbook, and Rick wants to rip our heads off. It's hard enough being a conservative gay guy, (I don't have 30 years of reading this rag for nothing, you know,) but Rick ain't helping it. God help this nation if either Obama or Santorum gets into office.
POST American| 3.9.12 @ 10:44PM
-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-----------------------
---The RON PAUL vote fraud from Iowa
through Maine
---The starkly ANTI-Costitutional NDAA 1021
----The shut down of alternative, or even tokenly
conservative, or even NON-capstone, NON-rectum
worshipping opinion
-----The GMO Halocaust
------The Weaponized Injections Halocaust
-----The 'uncanny' and 'timely' --uh-- 'natural'
death of Andrew Breitbart
-------The non-release of the Obama videos
----------Leon 'PAN--NET'-a's declaration of
de facto Globalist TREASON before Congress
-------------THE REPUBLIC HAS FALLEN------------