-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In his exchange last night with Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum hit all the buttons that need to be pushed: he went after Gingrich’s penchant for “grandiose” schemes, his lack of organization and focus, his tendency to “pop” and create distracting headlines, the fact that there was a conservative coup against the former House speaker.
But I do wonder if he overreached when he brought up the House banking scandal. Santorum accused Gingrich of not doing more about congressional check-kiting because he didn’t want to rock the boat with both parties’ leaders. This set up Gingrich’s rebuttal. Gingrich’s history of being a thorn in the side of leadership, from taking on former House Speaker Jim Wright to fighting George Bush on the 1990 tax increase, is just too well known for that line of attack to be effective. Santorum would have more profitably gone after Gingrich for undermining Republicans to his right, i.e., slowing down the Class of ‘94, once he became speaker.
View all comments (36) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/20/the-only-santorum-slip
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The End of the Castros?
- Of Wizards and Weapons
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
Dan| 1.20.12 @ 11:02AM
Oh please...........
When Santorum pretended that only he of those on stage concerned himself with social issues, when he pretended that Gingrich turned a blind eye to corruption and wrongdoing in the House, ------- he was way, WAY out of line.
For him to overlook Gingrich's REAL accomplishments while patting himself on the back for his empty, and often counterproductive grandstanding, was just a joke.
Part of the reason he got blown out by Robert Casey was PRECISELY his penchant for moral preening and his often irritating sanctimoniousness. Why was Gingrich to push empty legislation that would never see the light of day during the Clinton tenure?
Why would Gingrich waste everybody's time when other issues were crying out for attention?
Empty gestures can be pushed too far.
Such was often the case with Rick Santorum's tenure in the House and the Senate. Even his own peers told him to knock it off, especially when he got in the Senate.
Bob Grant| 1.20.12 @ 11:07AM
You have to give him credit for calling out Romney on a bill he crafted that eventually included abortion on demand.
He rightfully pointed out the wording in the bill, although not specifically mentioning abortion, would lead to it per precedent set by similar bills around the country.
Romney had no response. Santorum was correct.
Dan| 1.20.12 @ 11:11AM
One thing that Santorum didn't mention, didn't push, and that was that Romney has a JD, went to Harvard Law, and knows enough about the ins and outs of legislation to have been fully aware of what was going on.
Romney often acts like his knowledge of the law and the judiciary is that of a typical guy off the street. But he's a lawyer, he has a JD. Romney wasn't just some business man, like Cain, whose knowledge of the law was necessarily limited.
Romney should be aggressively called out when he claims the judiciary forced him to do certain things. Any lawyer would know right off the bat that such dictation from any judiciary involves separation of power issues, and constitutional questions of the first order.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:41PM
Actually, Romney has the highest academic qualifications of the last two Presidents: a JD from HLS and an MBA from Harvard Business school.
W| 1.20.12 @ 9:05PM
And he graduated close to the top of the class, and there is no question he was an affirmative action admittee. He then translated his degrees to make money in the real world of business, and not write books to capitalize on his skin color and that his father abandoned him
Dan| 1.20.12 @ 11:08AM
Furthermore, Gingrich didn't "slow down" the class of 1994.
That's bogus.
Once Gingrich was removed, any check on spending was removed.
Which meant that the House Republicans could increasingly, and without any check from leadership, start acting more and more like the Democrats they replaced.
Those who suggest that there was a conservative revolt against Gingrich should be asked to present chapter and verse on what conservative measures the House passed once Gingrich was removed, and then compare that threadbare record with the list of real accomplishments maneuvered through the House under Gingrich's leadership.
It should be recalled that Gingrich, though strengthened by the majority in the House, still had to deal with his own Republican peers in the Senate, WHO FROM THE GET GO, desired to see him destroyed.
The guy that quipped that Bob Dole was the tax collector for the welfare state, WHICH HE WAS, and which he didn't aspire to cease being, was a guy who NEVER was going to get along with that establishment, and would ALWAYS be viewed by them as enemy one.
Dai Alanye | 1.20.12 @ 2:52PM
One of Gingrich's accomplishments, never mentioned, is the re-election of Bill Clinton.
Clinton looked like a loser and a losing candidate until Gingrich challenged him on the budget, then ultimately folded under threat of a government shutdown. This was part of the reason for the first conservative attempt to dump Gingrich as Speaker.
Clinton, helped by Leon Panetta bucking up his courage, gave in once, twice, but not a third time, because Gingrich surrendered.
The whining about having to leave Air Force One by the rear door didn't help either. The result was a win by a resurgent Clinton in '96. Regrettably for we conservatives, Newt lacks judgment and stability. This does not seem to have changed over the years since 1995-96.
Dan| 1.20.12 @ 11:15AM
BOB,
Santorum can be effective, the guy was a trained prosecutor, and is not unfamiliar with advocating for a certain cause.
The problem is Santorum's choice of causes. THE issue that gets him worked up, and has always gotten him worked up for decades now, has been and will continue to be abortion.
But in America of rampant un and underemployment, Santorum has never made the imaginative leap to understanding that JOBLESSNESS IS a life issue too.
Too often he's allowed himself to be portrayed as a one trick pony.
That's why despite winning Iowa, his candidacy hasn't really gained traction.
Bob Grant| 1.20.12 @ 11:25AM
His zero corporate taxes on manufacturers who hire in this country is a good start.
I'm not supporting the guy but not discounting him either.
ayrnieu| 1.20.12 @ 11:39AM
And, not to diminish anyone's horror for mothers who drown/abandon/microwave/dismember/poison their precious and innocent children somewhat before rather than somewhat after an almost medically arbitrary event,
1. Conservative voters are shielded from abortion by virtue of their virtues, and
2. Liberal voters embrace abortion, to put it mildly.
So... when is it ever going to be the central issue of a campaign? It's a cousin to a "convince the French to stop killing their children" plank; it doesn't feel like a domestic issue.
ayrnieu| 1.20.12 @ 11:23AM
And although it's now old news, Santorum wants there to be a 'felon vote'. This is his personal position (as opposed Mitt's "prevailing law of the state that wasn't actively fought", which Santorum sees as the same thing as a personal position that one might bring up in a debate, present a moral justification for, and perhaps sincerely expect another candidate to agree with.)
Yep, that's what I want in 2016, a Rasmussen report determining that the felon voter is some 99.9+% for the Democratic Party, "contrary to the White House's belief that their role in extending franchise to this group would be rewarded."
Dan| 1.20.12 @ 11:59AM
YES!
For Santorum to preen on MLK's day that we should all extend the franchise to dirtballs duly convicted was outrageous.
For quite some time, Americans have denied the franchise to convicted dirtballs.
Santorum is advancing one of THE CHIEF GOALS of the Democrats, which is getting felons and present prisoners the franchise. If that's goes through, that represents a gain for the Democrats of over 2,000,000 voters.
So Santorum is pushing for the Democrats to receive OVER 2.000,000 additional voters!
I almost bounced out of my chair on that one!
It was an utter outrage, and for that guy to smugly moralize about it compounded the outrage!
Nick| 1.20.12 @ 11:59PM
Trying being somewhat accurate in your posts, Dan.
Mr. Santorum has never advocated giving voting rights back to felons currently serving their sentences. He was only for allowing people who have served all of their time, prison and parole, to be able to vote again.
And, that was on the federal level. Some states already allow felons who are on parole to vote. The President can't command states to repeal their laws. Read the U.S. Constitution sometime.
I forget, are you shill for Romney, Paul, or Gingrich? You sure do seem to have a bug in your britches about Mr. Santorum.
RJ| 1.20.12 @ 11:59AM
I agree and I didn't know where Santorum was going on that comment.
A lesson for anyone debating Gingrich. Don't give him an additional opportunity to speak by mentioning him in your answer. Make your point, but don't specifically challenge him. Its like giving Barry Bonds an extra at-bat. Its not worth it.
Casey Abell| 1.20.12 @ 1:27PM
Whay does W. James Antle III (love that name) even bother posting his debate evaluations? I can predict them...
1) Gingrich ranted but got the highlights.
2) Santroum was so wonderful I could cry.
3) Romney stunk.
4) Paul, my secret hero, was brutally, horribly, unfairly ignored.
Look for the same next Monday, no matter what happens.
Michael| 1.20.12 @ 2:19PM
Did I hear correctly that Brother Santorum bases his opposition to a woman's choice to end a pregnancy on words within the Declaration of Independence? And the Supreme Court used that language how?
PattyMor| 1.20.12 @ 3:10PM
Sorry, but Gingrich did not get Clinton reelected. That honor goes to Ross Perot who ran and creamed off enough repub. votes to get Bill back into the White House.
Sorry, Santorum voters but I do not want felons to regain their voting rights. They should have thought about losing their rights before they committed the felony.
SpiralArchitect| 1.20.12 @ 4:39PM
+1
Pete| 1.21.12 @ 1:50PM
Actually it was George H W Bush who got Clinton elected. He was so bad he even lost a ton of votes to Perot. But Clinton's election was not such a bad thing. He may have been far better than Bush Sr. He had a budget surplus, eliminated much of welfare and lead to a Republican House.
aware| 1.20.12 @ 5:27PM
You are confused, Perot was '92. Perot got Clinton elected not re elected. Newt's stupidity greatly contributed to his re election, just like he is doing now for the current Corruption in Chief.
Perot ran in '96 but didn't even get the votes he did in '92. Republicans as a whole deserve the real credit for Sitting Duck Clinton getting a 2nd term by running that glue factory nag Dole(as an "outsider" to boot! Still hilarious!). Just like they are trying to do with Romney(this time as a "conservative"! Also hilarious!). Then they denigrated and marginalized Buchanan, now its Paul.
But it isn't the Stupid Party for nothing.
Pete| 1.21.12 @ 1:51PM
Frankly I preferred to Dole.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:43PM
Felons voting would support Democrats. That's obvious. I don't get Santorum's reasoning on this---fortunately, it will NOT become a Federal issue.
Michael| 1.20.12 @ 8:03PM
What is the customary response within the typical American State regarding men or women who have served the time meted out to them for whatever violation of law put them in prison? Say, they have completed their probation, have regained their driver's license, their concealed weapon permit. Why on earth could they be denied a voter's card?
Pete| 1.21.12 @ 1:47PM
Because most would vote Democrat.
Michael| 1.21.12 @ 1:55PM
What, Pete, is the law on the subject in your State? Strict constructionists, if any, should be turning over in their lounge chairs.
Mike| 1.21.12 @ 9:41AM
You are correct in your analysis, PattyMor. This is why the GOP treats Ron Paul with as much respect as it does. They know him and they know his supporters.
Clint| 1.20.12 @ 6:31PM
" CBS Poll: Independents Prefer Ron Paul Vs Obama
In a head to head match up with incumbent President Barack Obama, the indie voter chooses Ron Paul, a CBS News poll suggested on Monday.
A total of 47% of independent voters said they would choose Ron Paul compared to 45% of independent voters choosing Mitt Romney against Obama, and 41% of independents saying they would choose Rick Santorum. If a Paul-Obama showdown were ever to take place, 47% of independent voters would vote for Paul, 81% republicans and 10% Democrats for a total of 45% of the vote. Obama would get just 40% of the independent vote in that contest, with 85% of the Democrats choosing Obama and 9% of Republicans choosing the President on election day in November. Obama would win the general election by a narrow one point margin if the election was held today between the two."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:45PM
Where Paul's campaign goes to die, Clinty Poo. Oh, he will continue beyond it, but he's gonna do no better than turd, I mean third, and I predict 4th.
Southerners, other than those genetic deficients from Galveston, don't like people who support WikiLeaks. Your boy's gonna go down faster than you an a jihadist.
Clint| 1.21.12 @ 12:16AM
Tool Job Is The RINO-CINO Israel Firster Smear Bund Bibi Butt Boy,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
We Are Being Set Up By The Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
aware| 1.21.12 @ 8:22AM
I thought of you, psychotic Occam Tool(of the State) when I read this : http://www.theamericanconserva.....e-hands-2/
I'm sure it will burn you up. By the way, I'm a southerner, carpetbagger, and you don't speak for me.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:45PM
Sorry: "You on a jihadist." Just to get the insult straight, terrorist catamite.
aware| 1.21.12 @ 8:24AM
Your constant obsession with homosexual sex acts is very revealing, Doctor.
Clint| 1.21.12 @ 12:19AM
You're A Mittenite Israel Firster Smear Bund Bibi Butt Boy, Tool Job.
The tea Party Steps On The Mittenite Bibi Butt Boy, Tool Job.
Mike| 1.21.12 @ 10:37AM
I love the brilliant analysis and sparkling repartee on AmSpec.
Pete| 1.21.12 @ 1:45PM
All the things that Santorum attacked Gingrich on are things many of us consider positives. Just as we need Patton to defeat the Nazi's we need a fighter to attack Obama and his Socialism. So maybe he like Patton is a bit conceited and harsh. So what. We need a strategist willing to take on the most vicious campaign in 2012 this country will have seen since Andrew Jackson. Newt will stand up to the assault while the GOP establishment will not.
Michael| 1.21.12 @ 1:59PM
Serial adulterers are not likely to earn the votes of sufficient men and women to enable such a one to take a high office. What can the Tea Party, in its several iterations, claim honorable if such a person represents them? Is it enough if he represents Richard Armey or David Koch?