Over all, I think you're correct.
The response, I believe, was correct in spirit. The problem with Santorum is that he is about as unartful a spokesman as I have ever seen. He allows himself to be trapped into these issues and then he has to explain his way out of his response. I don't think GWB was as inarticulate as Santorum. The man is tone deaf to what he says and how it will be interpreted.
His response on the college education issue was even worse than his church and state response. It was just plain stupid . . . "don't send your kids to college because they might be indoctrinated into liberalism???" Really?? That's his answer to higher education?
I don't like Santorum, because he is not likeable. He is dreary, depressing, negative, self-righteous, and lacks vision. He doesn't project optimism, as Reagan was able to do and as Gingrich does . . . he projects a grim determination and a bleak future.
Reagan was able to address the problems of the Carter years, yet provide us with hope for a brighter, more successful future. He saw America as the exemplar towards which the world looked. He literally saw America as that "shining city on the hill." Santorum seems to project a grim, dark, gothic cathedral on the hill--probably with gargoyles staring out at the world.
Beyond that, I do not think Santorum could beat Obama; his feet are too firmly implanted in his mouth.
posted on 02/27/2012 2:21:35 PM PST
(Anybody but Obama!!!!)
Jeremiah was not too popular either, but he was always right.
posted on 02/29/2012 12:19:11 AM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson