-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Earlier this week, I explained why we couldn’t dismiss Haley Barbour’s chances in 2012, despite the big obstacles he faces as a potential candidate. Steven Ertelt of LifeNews noted that should he run, Barbour will have to explain statements he made last year that echoed the social issues “truce” comments from Mitch Daniels.
Now, Rick Santorum, who by all indications is going to run for the presidency himself, is taking aim at both of them. In an interview with S.E. Cupp on her new show on Glenn Beck’s website, Santorum was asked about his upcoming appearance at CPAC.
“It’s trying to make sure that this race for the presidency is one that is inclusive of everybody in our party,” Santorum said. “And I’ve got some real concerns as to what’s been happening, what I’ve been hearing, what’s going on at CPAC. Guys like Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels say we sort of have to sort of throw off the social issues and leave them behind. And I think that is a very serious mistake.”
The comments reinforce the idea that Santorum is likely to argue that it’s necessary for him to make a longshot bid to force a conversation about social issues. But it also reveals that as Barbour moves toward a run, rivals will likely try to put him in the corner with Daniels as two candidates at odds with social conservatives.
View all comments (9) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/09/santorum-lumps-barbour-togethe
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
Gold BC| 2.9.11 @ 2:03PM
Santorum is a decent man but his Roman Catholicism puts him into deep trouble in Southern primaries. Also his crushing defeat in '06 makes him a liability in his home state if he is part of the general election.
Seek| 2.9.11 @ 2:36PM
Rick Santorum lost 59%-41% in his 2006 Senate re-election bid. Having been demolished in his own Pennsylvania, he actually thinks he will win on "social issues" nationally. I think not.
Rick, you're a nice fellow. A radio program host slot awaits you.
ml| 2.9.11 @ 3:16PM
Santorum, Barbour, and Daniels won't get the nominee in 2012.
JP| 2.9.11 @ 3:26PM
On the one hand, Reagan didn't seperate social or fiscal issues. He had no problem melding them together into one coherrent narrative.
On the other hand, there isn't one politician out there today that either has the skill or the courage to do campaign as Reagan did. Truth be known, today's national GOP would reject Ronald Reagan.
But Santorum isn't the man. His moment of truth came in 2004 when he backed Specter over Toomey. Santorum was a decent enough Senator. But like almost all national GOP politicians, there is something lacking.
Quartermaster| 2.9.11 @ 4:18PM
The eastern Establishment hated Ronald Reagan in 1980 and '84. The hatred you see today is no where near new. Daddy Bush was the Eastern Establishment's man in 1980. They got him in '88 and we saw what a mess he made when he reverted to type. Dubya was in the mainstream reprsented by his daddy.
Conservative Bob| 2.9.11 @ 3:46PM
Truth be kown the Republican Party of his day rejected him.
They loved him when he won and hand long coat tails but they were uncomfortable with him and the unwashed he brought into the party.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 3:58PM
Santorium has about as much chance of be relevant as A KENNEDY HAS OB BEING ELECTED AS A DOG CATCHER IN GEORGIA! Combined with his now dustup over supposed comments he made regarding Palin, he simply doesn't know when [or how] to keep his mouth shut!!!!!
Quartermaster| 2.9.11 @ 4:23PM
I agree that Santorum has a snow ball's chance in a steel mill of being elected to anything. As far as being able to force a conversation, that he can do and it would be useful to do so. The Eastern Establishment has spoken through Daniels and they mean what they say. They have always wanted leave behind the social issues that determine whether or not someone is conservative. The Rockefeller wing, which is the Eastern Establishment, has never been conservative and never will be. Daniels, all the Bushes, Barbour, Brown, and other like them, are part of the Rockefeller wing.
If you think Barbour is not part of them, you need to look at what he actually is. It's very hard to see him fully in terms of being Governor of MS.
PattyMor| 2.9.11 @ 4:24PM
Santorum sealed his fate when he back Arlen Spector. Sorry, Rick but you should have at least kept your mouth shut.