The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Santorum Right on Target vs. Schieffer

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Santorum Right on Target vs. Schieffer

By Quin Hillyer on 2.20.12 @ 4:52PM

Unless I missed something, I agree with EVERY.... SINGLE.... WORD uttered by Rick Santorum in his interview on Face the Nation yesterday. Bob Schieffer was remarkably hostile, but Santorum kept his equanimity, kept smiling, didn't back down, but never got peevish (although he did, rightly, insist on correcting a misstatement by Bob Schieffer about his child being "stillborn"). Santorum is right that mandated amnio tests are a horrible idea; right that federal intervention in education is a bad idea; and right that some environmental extremism amounts (in a CLEAR attempt at metaphor rather than direct meaning) to a kind of "theology." Indeed, he took time in his Ohio speech (at issue on Face the Nation) to explain that he was NOT talking about Obama's theology of "the Bible," in other words not talking about his actual religious faith, but instead saying that the belief system in extreme environmentalism was a sort of theology.

This is absolutely standard political discourse. John Pitney explains it here. Of course, the double standard here is the same as the one existing on so many other topics: The Left can use language against the right without any heads being turned, but if a conservative uses the exact same language, the establishment media goes bonkers in a paroxysm of utterly false, utterly cynical outrage.

Look, I have no problem questioning if the black liberation theology to which Barack Obama listened from Jeremiah Wright for 20 years (!!!!) has next to nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, it has nothing to do with love; all it is, is hatred, from a man Obama identified as his mentor. But Rick Santorum did not question Obama's Christianity. He compared Obama's environmental worldview to a "theology," in the sense of deep-seated belief without empirical proof (as the natural sciences consider empiricism).

All of that said, if I were Santorum, I would for now back off any voluntary social-issues discussions other than those currently in the news independently of his comments (i.e. the Obama Admin's assault on religious liberty). Every time he goes there, the establishment media will take his words out of context -- and, worse, since he talks without a prepared text, he often leaves a little room for misinterpretation, just enough to get himself in trouble. (Almost always, even a semi-careful parsing of his words makes absolutely clear what he really meant, even without his subsequent explanations, but the establishment media can't be bothered with being even semi-careful.) Also, while the substance of his social-issue commentary is eminently defensible even to those who don't agree 100%, the actual language he uses can lend itself to being characterized as extremist. It is NOTHING OF THE KIND, of course, but it is easy to mischaracterize.

Santorum's biggest task now: He needs to start working overtime to broaden his economic message to explain how his plans would help not just manufacturing, but help small businesses across the board, especially small retailers, and how it would help the whole economy. He needs to connect his economic message to the concerns of the suburban professional mom as well as the blue-collar dad. His proposals actually would be quite good for those other audiences, indeed for the whole economy, but he's not really closing the loop in his explanations thereof. Right now he just lists his economic-platform planks; he needs to explain how his policies would be beneficial.

Look, the man obviously is very good at most of this; he wouldn't be leading the field right now if he weren't doing a ton more right than wrong, in terms of communicating. But just a little polishing around the edges could really help increase his electoral upside and stop providing openings for the Left to attack him in ways that really do (unnecessary) damage among some independent voters. Just because Santorum keeps getting better and better as a candidate doesn't mean he can't get even better still. The man's a winner. A few improvements, and he could become a big winner, rather than an achiever of hair's-breadth victories that leave everybody breathless from the drama.

View all comments (74) | Leave a comment

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 5:37PM

Problem is Santorum lets the left define the narrative and is perfectly happy to go along with the narrative that he is out to ban contraception (which they can argue includes condoms)...

Newt wouldn't fall for this attack.

Anommynous| 2.20.12 @ 5:40PM

Nonsense. Romney and Nootbots are happy to go along with that narrative, though.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 6:23PM

ANON,

if Santorum wanted to, he could easily shift discussion by simply refusing for a few weeks to speak to those issues.

He could simply announce he's not going to take any questions for a few weeks on those subjects, because he wants to speak exclusively to rising gasoline prices or something.

So stop trying to pretend that Santorum doesn't have a thing for social issues, because he does.

Who else in the Republican field this year wrote some tiresome tome on the family?

Who else devoted time, energy and effort to sermonizing about the family?

Who else was pigeonholed as a social conservative way before he even thought of running for the nomination this election cycle?

Your guy IS seen as a socially conservative, morbidly fixated kind of guy; and he is seen that way because more often than not, THAT'S EXACTLY how he comes off.

And why too do I have a sneaking suspicion that ANONYMOUS here is RSM?

Dai Alanye| 2.21.12 @ 2:12AM

Santorum's opponents are eager to exaggerate his stances on specific issues, but it shouldn't hurt him too much in the long run. Although many people strive to overlook their favorite's peccadilloes, not many vote FOR a candidate because he's been unfaithful or loves abortion, nor against a man because he's been honest and loyal to his vows. Morality is hardly a negative with the majority of voters.

Garfield| 2.22.12 @ 3:33PM

Santorum seems obsessed with it though, I don't mind if he talks about it once in a while. I do mind when he just keeps letting himself be dragged onto the topic.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 6:15PM

Exactly!

Not just does he seem unable to avoid questions and move discussions towards issues favourable to his candidacy, favourable to Republicans, favourable to all those desirous of destroying obama, not just does he seem unable to do anything like that, ---------------- he seems somehow happy to speak to issues that only serve to pigeonhole him as an abortion/same-sex marriage fixated guy.

The guy's political skills are so bad I'm stunned he ever landed a seat in the Senate!

And he delivers a speech like a stiff!

WL| 2.20.12 @ 5:45PM

Why don't you run his campaign Hillyer?!!

I think it would be a great idea...you could berate everybody that didn't support him...especially us Newt supporters...

It would be a real hoot. I bet even Jennifer Rubin would join up for the party...since she is Mr. Santorum's biggest fan and all!!!

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 5:49PM

I think Rubin just did a pre-emptive smear piece directed towards Newt Gingrich using the same bull that the Romney camp used.

Rush thinks Newt has a chance to still win this, and I guess the establishment is scared silly.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 6:18PM

Yup Garfield.

Drudge is STILL fixated on Gingrich......... They just won't let Gingrich go, like a dog with a bone.

Windy City Commentary| 2.20.12 @ 5:52PM

Rubin's article today is titled, "Is Santorum the Next Sharon Angle?" I hardly think Rubin is a fan. Old Dinosaur radio guy Billy Cunningham kept saying on his show last night that Santorum has no hope of beating Obama, because White Suburban housewives won't vote for Santorum because of Santorum's stance on birth control. This is going to be one heck of a week of handwringing by the dim bulbs in the conservative media, as soon as they wake up from their President's Day vacation.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 6:32PM

Yea, I think she let the cat out of the bag with that one........

Kinda' like when Hillyer wrote of Newt Gingrich in the very same breath as David Duke, --------------- .

Now I happen to agree, somewhat, only somewhat agree with the notion that Santorum is going to drive voters away. Not because a genuinely conservative message won't gain traction, but because of personal quirks exclusive to Santorum himself

Dan Riehl has taken to the woodshed those conservatives who suggest that Santorum can't win, and taken them to task for implicitly suggesting that a real conservative message can't win.

I've no doubt that a full-throated conservative roar can get this nation to its feet, eager and hungry to vote this jerk obama right on out.

But saying that doesn't mean that I'm on board for the notion that ANY self-styled conservative politico can prevail.

I believe that Gingrich can prevail for his skill at framing narratives, his skill at painting in broad brush, his skill at placing conservative themes in their proper place in the wider tapestry of America. And I don't have any confidence whatsoever, AFTER LONG EXPERIENCE WITH SANTORUM, that Santorum has any skill at all in doing that.

javau| 2.20.12 @ 8:06PM

The disagreeable woman from WaPo is like NRO. Each was a Santorum fan when he was not a threat to their main squeeze. Now that he is a threat, their true opinions come out. Santorum was just a device to show they were "objective."

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 6:16PM

That last paragraph was cold-blooded WL.

Now you know that Rubin hasn't been a shill for Romney, and you know that because Hillyer went APE at the very suggestion.

LOL.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 7:34PM

In Texas, Paul is polling at 14%, Santorum at 45%.

I like Rick. I've donated, I voted for him at the MN Caucus, and next week I'm going to make sure that Santorum delegates outnumber Paul delegates 3:1, just like the vote in our precinct allowed for. (56:18)

Then I will be the precinct Captain for the re-election of Cravaack and, hopefully, the election of Santorum, or, failing that, Romney. I will donate an additional $100-$250 apiece for each of them when the general election campaign starts.

What about you, Clint? Donate or volunteer at all? (Jack says he donated in the past, but I doubt he has exercised himself for Paul.) Or do you just write venomous screeds.

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 9:32PM

You're The Israel Firster Smear Bund RINO-CINO,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman,Mittens Romney, Tool Job.
We Are Being Set Up By The Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The 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 Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Floyd Looney| 2.20.12 @ 5:56PM

I think I agree with most all of this.

Kingsmill| 2.20.12 @ 5:59PM

Willard is lining up his stooges for a smear job on Santorum. Drudge is filling his website with anti-Santorum headlines. GranPaul, as usual, is gearing up to attack the not-Mitt. As soon as Coulter gets the memo, all Three Stooges will be in play.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 6:11PM

Drudge seems fascinated lately with photos of Santorum in odd poses.

And of course this is all in furtherance of the notion that Santorum himself is odd.

Just step back for a bit, and look in awe at the brazenness of a Drudge, a Matt Drudge, daring, daring to finger somebody else as an oddball, while somehow overlooking the creature staring back at him from every mirror he happens to gaze into!

Kingsmill| 2.20.12 @ 6:23PM

Absolutely, public enemy numero uno is any Christian who thinks for themselves.

Mark Levin, has been above the fray so far, but his defense of Drudge during "Mitt Smear:Gingrich" was nauseating.

If, as expected, Drudge fills his website now through Super Tuesday with his ad hominem hit pieces against Santorum ---I sure hope Levin doesn't lose all credibility by backing Drudge.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 8:05PM

Actually Levin was correct to go ballastic, because Romney was launching the most dishonest campaign in Republican primary history. It was almost like Obama was running for the Republican Presidential nomination.

No wonder I think Obamney = Obama.

Kingsmill| 2.20.12 @ 8:11PM

Right, Levin was spot on in taking Romney to task. However, Levin went to bat for Drudge and called for conservatives not to criticize Drudge as part of the Willard cabal.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 6:08PM

"Right on target?"

Yea, "right on target" to get the target off the economy, off the rising price of gasoline, off the lack of job creation.

Yea, and "right on target" to shift attention to areas that play into a liberal culture's wheelhouse!

Now having said that, ------ was Santorum wrong?

No.

But was that the point?

Santorum can't simply allow his interlocutors to dictate issues to him, and thereby CONFINE him, pigeonhole him, limit his ability to speak to those issues that predominate, and predominate precisely because they impact EVERYBODY!

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 6:29PM

"Santorum’s Liberal Voting Record

Rick Santorum voted with Barbara Boxer with this: S Amdt 3230 – Gun Lock Requirement Amendment

Rick Santorum voted for H J Res 47 – Debt Limit Increase Resolution – Key Vote

Rick Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill

Rick Santorum voted for HR 1 – No Child Left Behind Act

Rick Santorum voted to confirm President William J. Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.

Rick Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed.

- Allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed.

- Repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.

Rick Santorum Voted to confirm President William J. Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the third four year term.

Rick Santorum voted for the protection of Abortion Clinics

I would add that this list just scratches the surface of Santorum’s career-long liberal voting record. As Sen. Rand Paul said of Santorum to CNN on Monday:

“He voted to double the size of the Department of Education… He voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs for senior citizens and he has voted for foreign aid. Those are not conservative principles. Seventy-seven percent of the American people are opposed to foreign aid and Rick Santorum has voted for it every time it’s come down.”

The RINO-CINO Stupid Party Rides Into The Ditch, Again.

Dai Alanye| 2.21.12 @ 2:21AM

Double-pay Paul has only two weapons to use against Santorum, those of exaggeration and distortion. Santorum is the only true conservative in the race, as long as national defense is considered a conservative principle.

The question is, what does RonPaul gain from assisting Romney to the nomination?

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 6:35PM

Now Clint,

haven't you read RSM over at The Other McCain decry those who are "nitpicking" over Santorum's record.

Can't have that now..........

You're going to get The Other McCain all worked up, and we can't have that. After jumping off the bandwagon of Cain, he's jumped right up on board that of Santorum, -------------- and he's posted all those wonderful photos of him with the Santorum family!

I mean, now how can you still have any probs with Santorum after RSM had all those wonderful pictures taken with Santorum's nearest and dearest?

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 6:58PM

Arlen Specter.

michael corleone| 2.20.12 @ 10:55PM

Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter, who is a liberal.

To punish Santorum, we must therefore nominate Mitt Romney, who is also a liberal.

JJ| 2.20.12 @ 11:07PM

The Paulites ignore Ron Paul's cozy relationship with Romney.

Clint| 2.21.12 @ 6:51AM

Do Your Homework, Israel Firster Smear Bund Clown.

" Mr. Paul, a 76-year-old congressman from Texas, sees his three Republican rivals as more or less the same politically. He can be tough on Mr. Romney, whom he describes as a flip-flopper with a dubious political core.

“He’s been all over the place on some of this stuff,” Mr. Paul said in a recent interview near his Texas home. But he seems to segregate those views from his personal feelings for Mr. Romney, whom he sees as a steady, dignified personality whose devotion to wife and family reflect his own values. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Clint| 2.21.12 @ 6:42AM

Brokered Convention.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 6:40PM

You know, I used to have probs with Santorum, what with all of his off-putting ways, with little things like worrying over how he would go over with the modern woman, with worries that the guy is over apt to get all worked up about abortion and contraception.

I used to worry that such things, and the fact that nobody really took him seriously as a candidate would blow up our chances in the Fall.

But after seeing the Santorum brood in endless photos with The Other McCain, ---- I'm going to put all my worries aside.

Because the guy that actually thought Cain was knowledgeable enough for the nomination, because the guy that actually thought Cain could come up to speed, as it was then said, on the issues of the day, be they foreign or domestic, ----------------- because the guy who made me see the error of my ways in regard to Cain, is precisely the guy all of us should hearken to when it comes to Santorum.

Art| 2.20.12 @ 6:51PM

The Democrats never worried about indy voters when they spewed nonstop hate at Pres.Bush.
Santorum is right. I just wish he didn't get sidetracked quite so easily. Got to get quicker on his feet.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 7:33PM

Art,

He's been in politics for twenty years. If he hasn't acquired some swiftness on his feet by now, ----------- he's never going to get it.

Gingrich had liabilities, as we all know. But I supported him because of his ability to frame narrative, and to frame that narrative in a commonsensical manner that makes things plain for ordinary voters.

So I thought that despite his liabilities, he would be able to overcome them by his unusual skills at framing and persuasion.

Santorum has no such skills.

Whereas a Gingrich victory would automatically mean a massive mandate for as he put it, "REAL CHANGE," a Santorum victory would necessarily be crabbed because it would be understood by all that he won just because obama was so terrible.

George S| 2.20.12 @ 6:58PM

If Santorum keeps going after Obama on an ideological level, he will win the nomination. Can you imagine Romney saying something like that? Never -- Romney is a believer of the church of global warming and would never call out Obama on his Marxist ideology (where environmentalism goes hand in hand). Instead we get "Obama's a decent guy who's in over his head". Romney will never understand why Trump was an early favorite. It's just something not to get angry over.

JJ| 2.20.12 @ 11:05PM

So many conservatives are cowards. They run as soon as there is a fight. That makes it easy for the liberals. They are afraid the democrats will twist some issue. Yet they know that it will happen anyway.

Art| 2.20.12 @ 7:17PM

George S.I really think Obama is more afraid of a guy who will come right at him.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 7:36PM

Well, I think Rick and Newt will come right at Obama. Why else would Rick have plodded on, when no one gave him a chance, to become the front runner that he is?

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 8:14PM

The problem is Santorum is going about it in a way that actually hurts Santorum's credibility. He lets the left frame the narrative.

When Gingrich goes after Obama, Gingrich frames the narrative, he refuses to let the left redefine the narrative.

Santorum can't beat Obama because he has problems defining and/or maintaining control of the narrative.

Romney can't beat Obama because he's so much like Obama it's scary.

Gingrich can beat Obama cause he can frame the narrative, he has real solutions already laid out, etc.

Obama can't claim that Newt doesn't have an idea how to fix things, cause Newt probably already has 15 different solutions that can be tried, has laid out how each would work, and has probably even dismissed 10 of those 15 because of flaws.

What I'm finding hysterical is people talking about Gingrich having a habit of saying off the wall stuff, yet the people shooting themselves in the foot are:
"I don't care about the poor," Romney

And 'insert latest gaffe' Santorum

I mean seriously, it looks like Gingrich is the one that is being the most level headed.

DavidH| 2.20.12 @ 9:32PM

Gingrich can frame the narrative? Did you come to that conclusion when he was proposing a moon base or getting flattened by Wolf Blitzer?

Gingrich may be the least likable candidate running, and he's utterly unelectable. Thank goodness he's now toast.

Garfield| 2.22.12 @ 3:39PM

Get this Mittbot, I'll vote third party over Romney even against Obama.

I view Obamney as the exact same as Obama.

Furthermore, for the record Newt's Republicans taking control of the House idea was considered just as crazy back in the day as a moon base. Thing is Gingrich actually accomplished the Republicans gaining control of the House in 1994.

Just because something sounds crazy, doesn't mean it is, that especially holds true when the individual in question has come up with "crazy" ideas in the past and got them to work.

So Newt's ideas aren't as crazy as people think.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 7:38PM

Art and George S.

Unfortunately, it's not just Romney trotting out that crap about obama having a "wonderful family," or being in merely "over his head."

We got that same garbage from Rubio the other day at CPAC.

They seem tremendously scared of saying, flat-out stating:

I don't like obama;

I really don't like his wife;

I don't like the book, and I don't much think he wrote the thing anyway;

I don't like his choice of friends, not a single normal person seems to be in the lot of 'em;

I don't like his fondness of Jeremiah Wright, who is an unrebuttable whack-job;

I don't like the fact that he needed so many "mentors;"

I don't like that he went to Pakistan;

And I really don't like the fact that he can't disclose his transcripts, because to do so would reveal he's affirmative action all the way.

We don't get anything like that from our leadership.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 8:15PM

I agree with most of what you say.

The point I don't agree with is going after Obama's family as a campaign issue.

That has a tendency to backfire for starters and we're also not Democrats we actually have some principle.

JJ| 2.20.12 @ 11:03PM

I am waiting for their girls to demand their birth control pills.

Garfield| 2.22.12 @ 3:40PM

Children should be off-limits in politics.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 7:50PM

Oh, and Hillyer,

you seem to think it a virtue that Santorum sat there without much response for that jerk who could barely contain his disdain for Santorum, and everything Santorum thinks or believes.

Could you explain to us what would have been wrong with Santorum absolutely scorching the tail surface off of that relic from CBS?

I think that passion ignites, that passion can be contagious, that passion can catch on and spread all across the electorate.

So why is it that every single conservative pundit seems to take as a fixture in the political landscape the idea that NO conservative can dare respond with fire in his eyes to these liberal jerks.

DavidH| 2.20.12 @ 9:34PM

Your handle says it all with respect to the value of your comments. Anger doesn't win general elections. Compare Goldwater to Reagan.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 9:51PM

That's true.

I'm in a mood today, have been for the last few weeks.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 9:55PM

DAVID H,

There are instances where a candidate has to distinguish himself, has to demonstrate that he has the passion for the job.

And remember too that our current President repeatedly flipped the finger to women during the election cycle. He did it to Hillary, {I think he did it twice to her}, did it once to McCain.

So just think about that, we've got a guy who flipped the bird to competitors, but we're supposed to worry overmuch with a candidate showing the fire in his eyes to a reporter who is trying to make him look a fool..........

Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

And if I'm angry, --------------------- well don't we ALL have a great deal to be tremendously angry over?

Is my anger, my irritation, without cause?

Ward Bond| 2.20.12 @ 10:51PM

Hey Drek, I remember obama giving the finger to Hilliray and McCain too. A Chicago thug. Slick Wille had that one right.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 11:26PM

And then he called then Governor Palin a pig with lipstick.

Yea, but he's supposedly so elegant, so sophisticated, so stylish, ---- all of our liberal elites can finally be proud once again of the American President, without having to cringe when he opens his mouth.

That was how it all was.

And all the while, the truth was that their guy spent twenty long years listening to a lunatic, swanning around with America haters and the moment you got the guy off his ubiquitous teleprompter, he sounded like an uninformed boob1

I ought to take a break from following the news and politcs for a couple weeks......

If I'm like this now, -------- what's it going to be like at the end of the Summer?

DavidH| 2.20.12 @ 11:16PM

I wouldn't say without cause.

cybercorrespondent| 2.20.12 @ 8:07PM

Even if Santorum did inject theology into the subject, as far as Obama goes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, what else can it be? http://youtu.be/8qHmXMMCrlI

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 8:18PM

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chr.....istianity/

I don't like the source, but if this is true I don't think Santorum can win the general.

DavidH| 2.20.12 @ 9:36PM

This is a yawn of a statement in the Santorum world. He's saying that "mainline" churches like the Episcopal Church aren't Christian. Most of the hard right would agree wholeheartedly. Is the sentiment appealing to a larger audience? No, but it's hardly the most off-putting thing Santorum has said, and it's hardly the blockbuster you seem to think.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 9:57PM

As many have observed, his whole demeanor, the way he's apt to speak out the side of his mouth with a look of exasperation on his face, -------- it's all irritating.

And it's all consistently irritating. Few are the moments where Santorum appears the happy warrior.

With Santorum, peevishness, exasperation, pointed remarks, ----- that's all you're likely to get.

ThatJoeGuy| 2.20.12 @ 8:30PM

What a wasted interview. Those are good topics sure but right now they are not what's on everyone's mind. Getting jobs are and what is the next president going to do about it?

Bob| 2.20.12 @ 11:45PM

I wish I could say that, but these are the topics the media are forcing on the public to divert attention from the real issues. Obama can't win if he tries to challenge, well, any Republican on jobs and the economy.

DavidH| 2.20.12 @ 9:23PM

I'm pretty sure my wife has never voted for a Democrat in her life. With his comments, however, Santorum has managed to make it borderline impossible for her to vote for him.

The only virtue in Santorum being nominated is that the conservatives will finally have the great fight that anger has demanded. After a loss in the fall leaves Obama with another four years, perhaps conservatives will realize that purity uber alles is not a winning political formula.

I say this as a conservative, albeit a more pragmatic one. The above forecast is unfortunate, but if Santorum wins the nomination, I think it is certain. What Republicans have allowed to happen in this primary season -- from the stellar candidates that did not run, to the utterly unqualified (Cain, Perry) and utterly unlikable and unelectable (Gingrich) that did, to the vilification of Mitt Romney -- is inexcusable.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 10:01PM

The only real virtue, other than the obvious one of getting rid of obama, that I can see with a Santorum victory, is that our F-15E Strike Eagles will finally get the go ahead for strike packages throughout Iran.

Santorum is not kidding around about the Iranians.

He means to pound them.

And at the first opportunity, the strike orders will be issued.

And I'm all for that.......

Ward Bond| 2.20.12 @ 11:05PM

Agreed. Like him or not, I think he means what he says. Kinda refreshing ain't it?

Jake| 2.20.12 @ 10:01PM

" What Republicans have allowed to happen in this primary season -- from the stellar candidates that did not run, to the utterly unqualified (Cain, Perry) and utterly unlikable and unelectable (Gingrich) that did, to the vilification of Mitt Romney -- is inexcusable. "

Right on. Absolutely inexcusable.
We had a tremendous chance against Obama that has been frittered away by elevating the most unappealing and unelectable candidates possible.
While simultaneously vilifying Romney.
Romney actually had a good chance of defeating Obama , but, he'll probably be so damaged if he gets the nomination it may be hard to recover.
Now that Santorum has decided to campaign as our national preacher while alienating the women and independent votes with his draconian positions, even if Romney is our nominee ,
I have very little hope for November.
They don't call Republicans the Stupid Party for nothing.

JJ| 2.20.12 @ 11:00PM

Its Romney's own fault. He has been going negative to kill off Gingrich.

Garfield| 2.22.12 @ 3:43PM

I would go a step further and say that Romney is very lucky Gingrich is a public figure, otherwise Gingrich would have sued Romney for slander, and probably could easily win.

Bob| 2.20.12 @ 11:41PM

Yeah, right.

You want draconian? Just look at the Obama administration. The latest in the draconian circus is his decision to attack the Catholic Church outright.

Bob| 2.20.12 @ 11:43PM

A more pragmatic one? You mean like McCain and Graham?

mjs_pa| 2.20.12 @ 10:44PM

100% spot on Quin!

Santorum has staked his claim on the social issues and solidified Social Conservatives in his camp.

Now's the time to solidify fiscal and national security conservatives.

JJ| 2.20.12 @ 10:58PM

Santorum is a great counter puncher. The lame-stream media will eventually learn that any issue they present to belittle Santorum will instead give Santorum an opportunity to use it against Obama.

Want to talk about birth control. How about Obama defending killing the victims of botched abortions? Want to talk about religion. How about Obama sitting in Wright's church for 20 years listening to how the white man is the devil. Want to talk about children on single mothers. How about the fact that these children are destined to lives in poverty? No these social issues are a loser for Obama.

Drek| 2.20.12 @ 11:21PM

The only thing you proved JJ was that YOU'RE much better suited to counter-punch than Santorum.

Be careful of projecting your own aggressive instincts onto Santorum.

Until such time as all of us see and hear Santorum stating what you did, with exactly that tone of confident defiance, ------ until such time it's all so much wishful thinking.

Bob| 2.20.12 @ 11:38PM

The only way you'll see and hear it is if you're at his speeches live. The media won't dare air something that exposes Obama's lies without heavy editing to broadcast their own message instead of Santorum's message.

John T. O'Connor| 2.20.12 @ 11:58PM

Great point by Hillyer. The trouble is that Republicans are always reacting to probes and false charges launched by Democrats and their media allies. For once they should assess the strongest issues, and form a CONFIDENT, AGGRESSIVE, non-challengeable fact based campaign promoting them. God knows that there is NO shortage of critical and even grave issues this year. Hang them mercilessly around the Democrat necks. Why is nobody saying that we are broke!, that Obama has lost the Iraq war, is shutting down our oil supplies, crippling our economy, metastasizing our debt and in the process is shredding the constitution. It's all there. Just say it!
Use a little sarcastic humor to soften the overall thrust of the attacks, much like Rush suggested against Clinton. Using Bill Clinton's own sound bites, he created a hilarious suggested commercial saying that "Two of three Clintons think they raised your taxes too much." Using Obama own contradictions, you could say that two of three Obamas think our debt is too high. This guy lies so frequently, there have to be many others. Nothing will freak Obama out more than being laughed at. Just grab them by the neck, stay on the offense and make a fight of it!!

Oldefarte| 2.21.12 @ 10:51AM

Quin, respectfully this ['....Santorum's biggest task now: He needs to start working overtime to broaden his economic message to explain how his plans would help not just manufacturing, but help small businesses across the board, especially small retailers, and how it would help the whole economy...'] is impossible for Santorum, given his Pennsylvania background of playing footsie to labor unions. The one and only hope for a revival of manufacturing in this country is to somehow eliminate or lessen union's influence monetarily. It is due to these unions' wage ingredient within manufacturers' wage cost-expense structure that originally cause same to seek lower wage-expenses oversees in India, China, etc. If/until labor unions are nullified as far as manufacturing is concerned, there will be no revival of same in this country; and Santorum certainly will not be willing to even consider that as a president!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 2.21.12 @ 10:51AM

Oldefarte| 2.21.12 @ 10:52AM

Casey Abell| 2.21.12 @ 10:54AM

Quin's hopelessly in the bag for Santorum, of course. But a little sense manages to get into Hillyer's comments now and then. Let's parse the only paragraph of Quin's latest screed that means much...

"All of that said, if I were Santorum, I would for now back off any voluntary social-issues discussions other than those currently in the news independently of his comments (i.e. the Obama Admin's assault on religious liberty)."

No, just forget about social issues completely, no matter what Obama or anybody else does. Santorum's already got social cons like Hillyer locked up tight. He doesn't have to say one more word about their issues.

"Every time he goes there, the establishment media will take his words out of context -- and, worse, since he talks without a prepared text, he often leaves a little room for misinterpretation, just enough to get himself in trouble."

It's plenty enough to get him in trouble, because the guy is a natural scold who irritates everybody except social-con true believers like Hillyer. Also, forget about such routine attacks on the media. They sure don't win any converts among the indies who will decide the election.

"(Almost always, even a semi-careful parsing of his words makes absolutely clear what he really meant, even without his subsequent explanations, but the establishment media can't be bothered with being even semi-careful.)"

Pure bullhockey and Hillyer knows it. Quin (and his hero Rick) just can't help the kneejerk attacks on the media. If you shout about the evils of contraception, the media don't have to distort a thing.

"Also, while the substance of his social-issue commentary is eminently defensible even to those who don't agree 100%, the actual language he uses can lend itself to being characterized as extremist. It is NOTHING OF THE KIND, of course, but it is easy to mischaracterize."

More bovine excrement, and the ALL-CAPS SHOUTING show that Hillyer can seem just as whacked-out as his hero Rick. Attacking birth control is nutty to most Americans, and Hillyer knows it.

Anyway, Hillyer is right when he says Santorum should zip it on social issues. The rest of the anti-media tirade is the worst possible advice to Santorum if he wants to have any chance against Obama in the general.