-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Just as candidate Rick Santorum was obviously building up to a compelling “grand finale” today in a speech at the Pavilion of the Battleship USS Alabama in Mobile this morning, there was a commotion in front of him and to his left. A middle-aged black woman had fainted dead-out, flat onto the concrete floor (it was a bit muggy; raining outside). A lot of candidates would have looked out, stopped talking, asked people to go see if she were okay, and then perhaps continued speaking once it was clear that responsible people were seeing to her well-being.
Not Santorum. He stopped his remarks dead in his tracks, just before reaching a planned crescendo:
“Oh — well everybody, thank you and God Bless,” he quickly mumbled, already leaving the podium. And then he leapt down the stairs and rushed to the lady’s aid, just about the fifth person to reach her side.
(The lady was soon back on her feet and emergency medical people were making sure she was okay. Thank goodness, it seemed as if she were indeed okay. Santorum never re-took the podium, instead just wading into the crowd to meet people and shake hands.)
It was an unexpected end to an unexpected speech. Most presidential candidates give the same stump speech over and over, with only tiny changes or additions each time to make minor news or to work in some local pitch. Not Santorum. He speaks, completely without notes, at a sometimes overly detailed level of policy minutia, about different subjects from one speech to the next. With old fighter jets in the pavilion providing a distinctly military background, Santorum began by indicating he would focus on two issues “linked together inextricably,” namely national security and energy. Both, of course, are of great local concerns, with fossil fuels exploration in the Gulf and with lots of military personnel and ship construction and aeronautical engineering in the area.
Well….
He did, eventually, return to defense and energy. But the bulk of his speech segued into a discussion of Iran. It was an in-depth, detailed policy analysis, and a big critique of Obama administration policy. (Did you know Iran has built a number of its nuclear-related facilities immediately near Islamic holy sites, in order to further deter attacks on them?)
Some lines from the speech:…Obama has “swept clean all references to religion when referring to the enemy. He won’t say that it is radical Islam…. Well, we may not be at war against them, but let me twll you, they are at war against us.”
And: Obama “went to AIPAC and said about Israel ‘we’ve got your back.’ And then two days later he turned his back on them.”
He charged Obama with “weakness in the face of hostility. Weakness over and over and over again. Ladies and gentlemen, we need a new commander in chief.”
[As he did the night before at a think-tank speech, he barely mentioned his Republican opponents at all. Not a single harsh attack. I counted just two Romney references and just one to Gingrich. But I’ll go out of order here and insrt one of his references, which actually came later in the speech but fits here. Speaking of the role of C-in-C, he said of Romney: “We’re not electing a CEO of the country. We’re electing a Commander in Chief. I’ve been there on these issues….” (meaning service on the Armed Services Committee, authorship of the act providing funding for Iraqi democracy activists and providing sanctions on Iran, etcetera).]
…..
Santorum finally left the topic of Iran by seguing into energy and the need for energy independence rather than Mideast oil. He accused the president of having “an ideology that puts humans not as stewards of the Earth but as servants of the Earth.” With new energy development, though, there is “an opportunity to put people to work, and an opportunity to lower the cost of living for the people of America.”
…
“This administration officially labeled carbon dioxide as a toxin. Tell that to a plant! Tell that to all of us who exhale CO2 with every breath. According to Obama, we’re all polluters by breathing. Obama sees us all as points of pollution instead of points of potential as human beings.”
“This is a president who is anti-energy.”
Finally, he moved on to defense (as opposed to diplomacy). “We will nto cut the defnese budget during my administration. We will moderately grow it. We need greater investment in our technology and greater investment in our people.”
——
Lastly, after the speech, he met with Mobile Press-Register political editor George Talbot (a superb reporter) for five minutes, with me the only other one there. I don’t want to steal too much of the material from George, so I’ll link later to anything he writes from that interview (here was his report from last night’s event, that appeared in this morning’s paper). But just a few quick notes:
1) Santorum ridiculed the Romney campaign’s claim that it would take “an Act of God” for Santorum to overcome Romney’s delegate lead now:”Three months ago, even more people would have said it would have taken an Act of God for me to be in the position I’m in as one of the two front runners. Well, here I am. [It wasn’t an act of God but hard work]. … We’ve been breaking all the political rules. We’ve stood for something much more fundamental than the Establishment is accustomed to, and it makes them nervous. We’re tapping into something they don’t understand.”
2) Finally, finally taking a shot at Romney himself, Santorum said “Governor Romney’s electionw would not be a clearcut election. Instead, it would be a muddled mess. … Especially when it comes to health care, our big issue is freedom. It’s our ace in the hole, but [because of the Romneycare “mandate”] he (Romney) turns that ace into a queen or a jack.”
—-
Okay, that’s it for now. Later today, I plan to attend a Gingrich rally also in Mobile, and report on that.
View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/09/santorum-this-morning-gingrich
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Garfield| 3.9.12 @ 1:35PM
Glad Santorum is focusing on Romney, whom would be the worst possible candidate for us to nominate.
I do think Santorum should get out of this, that said I think Santorum is probably in the top 3 to be a running mate for Gingrich.
List would probably be.
1. Sarah Palin
and tied at 2nd: Herman Cain or Rick Santorum
4. Rick Perry -- whom would have no problem debating Biden
Garfield| 3.9.12 @ 1:36PM
Btw, as a Gingrich supporter, I would have no problems supporting Santorum as the nominee, I would take serious issue with Romney.
mjs_pa| 3.9.12 @ 1:37PM
Video: http://electad.com/videos/rick.....ch-9-2012/
Oldefarte| 3.9.12 @ 2:04PM
To hell with those YANKEES: '.....NewsmaxPoll: Gingrich's Numbers Up in Alabama, Mississippi Friday, March 9, 2012 12:47 PMBy: Andra VarinFresh off his convincing Super Tuesday win in his home state of Georgia, presidential candidate Newt Gingrich might be about to score another comeback, with two new polls out Friday showing the former House speaker with slight leads in both Alabama and Mississippi.A Rasmussen Reports poll of 750 likely Republican primary voters shows Gingrich ahead with 30 percent support, followed closely by Rick Santorum at 29 percent, and Mitt Romney with 28 percent. Ron Paul got just 7 percent, while 6 percent were undecided.In Mississippi, a poll by American Research Group Inc. finds Gingrich in the lead with 35 percent. Romney is in second place with 31 percent, while Santorum has 20 percent and Paul has 7 percent.The American Research Group poll of 600 likely voters in the Mississippi Republican primary was conducted March 7-8 and has a margin or error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.The Rasmussen poll was carried out March 8 and also has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.....'
RTO| 3.9.12 @ 2:10PM
Thank you, Mr. Hillyer, for staying on the beat. Emphasize that Mr. Santorum does not use notes or other devices. I see Mitt using teleprompters. Why would he need them if he's been doing stump speeches for seven and a half years?
You are right. I cannot tell the number of times that I have been at a political rally and the speaker just sticks like glue to the script. The only edits are for "Hey! It is great to be in _______________ . I love your (BBQ, chicken, pies, accents, " They use the same material whether in Toledo or Memphis, Salem or Jefferson City.
Oldefarte| 3.9.12 @ 3:05PM
Santorum doesn't use notes because......he doesn't say anthing [See Ross K.'s recent TAS editorial]. You don't need notes to declare your Catholic morality speech repeatedly with is irrelevent, useless and detrimental toward the November cause !!!!!!!
Tom| 3.9.12 @ 5:08PM
The Stupid Old Fool is quite the expert on someone who "doesn't say anything," since all his mindless rants are little more than conrete evidence of his growing senility.
Oldefarte| 3.9.12 @ 7:56PM
TomCat, I'll match my educational credentials against your lack of same any day. You're up, POLLCAT! Oh Dumba*s, you don't capitalize every word of 'Stupid Old Fool' and you don't place in quotation marks "doesn't say anything"---are you possibly Media Matters Clit in disguise who extensively uses capital letters for each/every word used, and your inept comments are equally stupid and void of substance??????
Tom| 3.11.12 @ 4:14PM
Case in point.......
Simon Templar| 3.9.12 @ 2:56PM
This definitely was an unscripited testimony to the man's basic character and should not be dismissed.
You may not want to vote for him, ok, but you should shout proudly that this is a conservative who DOES care about people, all of them. This is the true character of conservatives, all of us.
I can tell you with certainty if this had happened with a liberal candidate they, MSM, would be applying for cannonization and talking about it for a few days. T-shirts with this image would be on sale.
Interesting and informative article, Quin.
Oldefarte| 3.9.12 @ 3:07PM
Santorum is obviously a very good person morally, but what is needed is to defeat Obama [and Santorum will be destroyed by the Democrats in November]!!!!!
Simon Templar| 3.9.12 @ 5:07PM
Vote for whomever, you like..I am not interested in convincing anyone to do anything in regards to this one or that one for the most part. I have been saying that for almost a year, and no one seem to notice this.
My comment was not just another, 'hey vote for my guy.' I am not out here to spin for him, Santorum, and say idiot, exaggerated, and sometimes offensive remarks about the new other guy in second place that I now feel is a threat to me in some manner or another.
I have not endorsed anyone. I am endorsing the idea that conservatism win and actual change.
Great, you now like Romney and think he can beat Obama and its a given. Great, I damn well hope so, and when he loses by a landslide I hope you do not disappear, but rather help explain why this happened besides blame everyone else but yourself and Romney.
If you truly think what you think now, great, convince us that this is true with some hard evidence and a seriously argued case that seriously challenges the people who believe otherwise and the evidence to the contrary, then I can sleep better at night and look forward to this November. Please do it without the slams and unnecessary digs on the other guys religion, choice of clothes, his dog, his cadillacs, his wife, his big family, his values, his past personal life mistakes that he since has corrected and asked forgiveness for, his wealth and money, his past jobs, false sexual allegations, liberal talking points, liberal smears echoed, and all the assorted bullshit I have had to listen to for nearly a year.
One wonders if we are no better than the liberals when it comes down to it.
Oldefarte| 3.10.12 @ 4:40PM
'....
Great, you now like Romney and think he can beat Obama and its a given. Great, I damn well hope so, and when he loses by a landslide I hope you do not disappear, but rather help explain why this happened besides blame everyone else but yourself and Romney.....' ST: You are misinterpreting my opinions. I do not endorse/promote Romney. Personally I do not like his most-probable borderline liberal nature as a GD yankee. As it appears now, the ultra-conservatives are maybe tea partying their social agenda towards a showdown between Romney and Santorum, and if Gingrich quits and his votes go to Santorum then the Rickster sould very well overtake Romney and he would become the Republican nominee. If that happens, whoever desires this social conservatism agenda to result in that WILL BE THE ONES THAT WILL BE FORCED TO ANSWER THE 'WHY' WHEN SANTORUM IS GOLDWATER SLAUGHTERED BY OBAMA/DEMOCRATS. Again, I do not promote/endorse Romney, but I know for a certainty that the only chance the Republican have of defeating Obama/Democrats now rest with EITHER Romney or Gingrich [and I will vote for Gingrich next week and if he is not the nominee selected, thereafter for whomever is evnetually selected]. My one and only desire is not for any particular candidate [since they all have warts IMHO] but instead to defeat Obama/Democrats. If you're read my comments here, then you will recognize my numerous pleadings of.........IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS! So please don't accuse me of being partial to any particular candidate because to do so would be to entirely misinterpret my messages!!!!!!!!!!
Tom| 3.9.12 @ 5:12PM
Of course, the Stupid Old Fool is wrong again in ranting that "Santorum will be destroyed by the Democrats in November." Santorum is the ONLY Republican candidate who has any chance of beating Obama.
But as I said before, I would rather lose with Santorum than "win" with an unprincipled political huckster like Mitt Romeny or a piece of political junk like Newt Gingrich. And if the Stupid Old Fool doesn't like what I have to say on the subject, that is HIS problem, not mine.
Oldefarte| 3.10.12 @ 4:49PM
TomCat: The old Alabama philosopher Forrest Gump once proclaimed words that directly apply to YOU, and that was......STUPID IS, AS STUPID DOES! Go vote for the Rickster and you'll insure that Barack Hussein Obama, David Axelrod, Nancy Pilosi, Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, Hillary Clinton, Norm Chu, the US Injustice Dept etc will be continuing their socialism enslavement of all of us for four more years. I'd bet my last dollar that you personally were one of the idiots that [1]either voted FOR Obama in 2008 or [2] did NOT vote due to your dislike of McCain [which allowed Obama's victory. It's dumbars*s like yourself who are to blame for the dire economic socialism that we're all faced with today. Sadly there's no medical cure for STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!
WL| 3.10.12 @ 10:35PM
Simon and Tom...
Your blood pressure will go down a few notches is you just slide right on past Oldfarte's postings. I got all upset at the wrinkled whanker's pap and got into it with him. Since then, I just skim by his blabbing. It's not always incoherent, and he's really fairly rational. There's just something of a bubba mentality that seems to expel itself from his thinking.
Oldfarte is kinda like having a decent aquaintance that you know is a decent person, and won't steal the stuff out of your house. However, you don't ever invite him in because he passes gas in the middle of your house constantly, but won't admit it.
Tom| 3.11.12 @ 4:21PM
"I just skim by his blabbing...."
Not a bad idea; just pay him about as much regard as I do the homeless bums I encounter on the street who are are sitting around asking for a handout.
Tom| 3.11.12 @ 4:22PM
"Sadly there's no medical cure for STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!"
As you well know from first-hand experience.
ncatty| 3.9.12 @ 3:06PM
Time for someone to make a deal.
Simon Templar| 3.9.12 @ 4:40PM
Yes, I think you are onto something, ncatty...the clock is ticking..
PattyMor| 3.9.12 @ 4:46PM
Let's face it, no matter who our nominee is, the Dems are going to trash him. That's Barack's and Axlerod's MO. So let's pick the best. Its either Gingrich or Santorum. No to Mitt, the pin stripped progressive masquerading as a moderate. And no matter how many times, he says he'll repeal Obamacare, I simply don't beleive him.
If Newt and Rick could put their egos aside, they should team up against Romney. Let Gingrich campaign in the South and Santorum in the Midwest. It could be a winning strategy to block Mitt.
Simon Templar| 3.9.12 @ 5:17PM
Patty,
Now that is some creative thinking. Some would obviously disagree but at least you are trying to think out of the box and beyond the conventional wisdom.
Mitt obviously needs to hear your concerns and actually listen to them if he has any chance to not only win you over but the rest of the nation in November. Now, if he started to actually act, behave, and speak like Gingrich (that is the passion), particularly with the MSM, I would guess you might reconsider.
People can actual change, even their politics and their views on things but they have to demonstrate that, not just say they did.
But what are the chances of that?
Oldefarte| 3.10.12 @ 4:56PM
If Santorum was a winnable candidate, I'd agree. He's NOT, and will be disected like a frog for his ultra-religiosity by the socialistic, governmental-as-a religion radicals tagteam of Hollywood, academia, NE liberals, NOW femi-nazies etc. They will paint him as wanting to take away their abortions and heard everyone in front of his Catholci Pope for imprisonment. JFK was only eletable by tabling his Catholism and Santorum will be crusified for his sadly but truthfully. the best choice is Newt, but his numbers are bad presently. Sadly the only shot may end up Mitt [unless a dark horse emerges]!!!!
Oldefarte| 3.10.12 @ 5:01PM
I wish someone could wave a majic wand and allow a Santorum to ride and conquer the immorality of this nation, but that's just not going to be brought about from a politician or a government. It has to come from the privacy of individuals re-dedicating themselves to religion and to morality. The immorals sadly outnumber the morals in this nation, and we have to concentrate upon the economy first and individually fight the morality war privately!!!!!
Nick| 3.9.12 @ 6:58PM
Another stenogropher for Santy.
Lori Bardsley | 3.10.12 @ 9:10AM
I think it was Newt that said "it would take an act of God". But this was a good article.
Lori Bardsley | 3.10.12 @ 9:13AM
I think it was ridiculous of Romney to say "it would take an act of God". This was a good article.