Posted on 02/23/2012 6:43:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A candidate’s strengths can also be his weaknesses. Take the case of Rick Santorum.
One of his strengths is perseverance. For more than a year, he made hundreds of appearances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, with no visible result in the polls.
He persevered and ended up finishing first in the Iowa caucuses on January 3. Then, after poor showings in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada, he finished first in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado on February 7.
Now he’s leading Mitt Romney in most polls nationally and in Romney’s native state of Michigan.
Santorum’s other strengths include spontaneity and authenticity. His speeches are unscripted, and he answers, often at considerable length, every question at campaign events.
And those answers are sometimes not what any competent political consultant would recommend. Which is where Santorum’s strength becomes a weakness.
For example: In an interview last October with the evangelical blog Caffeinated Thoughts, Santorum said, “One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.” Contraception, he went on, is “not okay.”
“Maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things,” he added. And he has said later that he doesn’t seek a ban on contraceptives — a good thing, since that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut 47 years ago.
But by bringing the subject up, he guaranteed that he would be peppered with questions about the issue by the likes of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and CBS’s Bob Schieffer.
More recently Santorum opined that Barack Obama had a “phony theology.” The context showed he was referring to Obama’s environmental policies, and he later said he doesn’t doubt the president’s claim to be a Christian. But his ad-libbed use of the word “theology” inevitably caused controversy.
No one can doubt that his opposition to contraception and his recent denunciations of prenatal testing and women in combat reflect his deep moral and religious beliefs.
But they also allow opponents to pigeonhole Santorum as a religious conservative despite his considerable record on and knowledge of economic and foreign-policy issues.
It is political malpractice to give opponents such an opening in a year when voters are overwhelmingly focused on the economy and the Obama Democrats’ vast expansion of the size and scope of government.
It’s unfortunate also since Santorum sometimes make similar points in a less inflammatory manner. On the stump, he often cites a Brookings Institution study that shows that virtually all of those who graduate from high school, get a job, and marry before having children escape from poverty.
It’s a valid argument, one made some years ago by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Charles Murray and emphasized in his recently published book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960‒2010.
As Murray shows, much of the income inequality that political liberals decry results from bad personal choices and behaviors rather than the operations of the market economy.
But it’s unclear what presidents, much less presidential candidates, can do to influence these personal choices and behaviors, beyond setting a good example in their personal lives, as Obama, Santorum, and Romney all do.
“I’m not running for preacher,” Santorum said in his Caffeinated Thoughts interview. “I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public-policy questions.”
But contraceptive use is not a public-policy question, and in bringing the subject up, Santorum sounded like he is running for preacher or pastor.
Mitt Romney took a different approach when George Stephanopoulos raised the subject in the New Hampshire debate on January 8. “Contraception, it’s working just fine,” he said. “Leave it alone.”
Voters often say they value authenticity and spontaneity in candidates, and Santorum gives them plenty of that. And they admire perseverance in the face of adversity.
But they also want a certain amount of self-discipline in their officeholders, and particularly in their presidents, and they want them to focus on public-policy issues they consider important.
At his best moments in the campaign — in his Iowa-caucus-night speech, in the second South Carolina debate — Rick Santorum has shown such discipline and focus. He needs to do that again.
— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner
Look, the problem isn't principled candidates. I want to know as much about who I'm voting for as possible, and cannot believe guys like Barone are recommending they shut up.
Its the agenda driven night crawling leftwing media selectively reporting the news thats the problem.
The devil as always is in the details.
Santorum can’t be faulted for cheering for an older, wiser view of morals. Most people who have questions about that would want to know how this thrust would operate in a putative Santorum administration. Nanny states aren’t particularly welcome to a lot of people whether that state comes from the left or the right. That said, Uncle Sam would do well to withdraw his hand from a lot of wickedness. Santorum might sell better coming from that point of view.
Santorum seems to think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
Woo-hoo. In before Michael Barone’s called a RINO.
I don't want to see our daughter in the front line. Some may want that, but if we get them, the day will come when they are forced there, and men ARE created different then women.
Rick has had some slip ups, but compared to the one percenter mormon who pushed healthcare and was for partial-birth abortion and gay marriage, he looks great. I like Rick, and Newt is my second choice. But if Newt keeps agreeing with romney and kissing up to him, I think a lot of people will think twice about Newt as our second choice. I wondering if romney got to Newt like he did hypocrite Paul. I hope not.
Newt Gingrich demonstrated last night, exactly how a master Statesman conducts himself, as well as conveys his wisdom to the audience. Newt had them riveted to his every word and his unmitigated wisdom was unequaled.
RE: Santorum seems to think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
And you believe that?
Bingo, Rick is an undisiplined politician. It is going to get us killed in the general if he is the nominee. I do not expect him to quit talking about his values, but geez he needs to learn “how” to express himself better. Flame on dedicated and devoted Rick lovers. I am not a hater, I just want to win. If Rick is the nominee I will vote for him, but he scares me to death.
RE: Newt Gingrich demonstrated last night, exactly how a master Statesman conducts himself, as well as conveys his wisdom to the audience.
The key word is “last night”. I’m afraid it’s too late for him though...
Newt usually suffers from foot-in-mouth disease as well ( perhaps even more than Santorum ).
LOL
RE: I do not expect him to quit talking about his values, but geez he needs to learn “how” to express himself better.
Just curious, how does a conservative with strong moral convictions “express himself/herself” better?
Let’s take the following questions:
1) Are you for making abortion illegal? If not, why not, given that you believe that a baby is being killed.
2) Are you against gays in the military? If so, why?
3) Are you against gay marriage, if so, why would you deny the same right straight people enjoy to homosexuals?
Just a few issues a conservative cannot escape because THEY WILL BE BROUGHT UP.
How does one answer them “better” without inducing groans from some FReepers?
Voters are too stupid to hear the truth regarding what a candidate believes.
Now, that might be factual, as evidenced by the election of Obama. If so, our collective stupidity will be our demise and we deserve it.
you are preaching to the choir, I am a strong social conservative. I believe deeply in traditional marriage, pro life and am a total tea-totler. That is not the point. He needs to be able to state his position clearly, and offer the hope that he is everyone’s President, even those whom he disagrees. Here you go:
1. Abortion. I do believe that Roe vs. Wade needs top be revisited. At the same time I understand why women do not want to go back to the days when abortions were illegal and dangerous in back alleys. No one is for abortion, some what to be able to have a choice, but I believe that is not the answer. It is complicated sometimes with rape and the danger of death to the mother. I understand that. BUT, I also know that this country is not only in moral decay but also in near fiscal ruin. First I will look for ways to address the current fical mess. And then do everything I can to keep the government out of our lives.
2. Gays, period. I am not so naviee as to believe that ‘gays’ have not always served in the military and are in all walks of life. As the President of the United States I will make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law. Having said that I will let the military decide how to best deal with personal behavior, they have been doing well for years with this, including it being against any sex outside marriage, uncluding adultry. Sexual sin is not just the domain of gay people, it goes beyound that in our culture. BUT, I realise that the issues of our economy and fiscal house needs to be address primarily and will have the greatest common solutions. You can not legislate morality. I will let people know how I believe but I will be the President of all people including those who describ themselves as being gay.
3. I think I answered that in the second response. Marriage should not be defined by the government or the courts. Peopl are free under the consitiution to make any kind of partnership that deals with fiscal matters including who see them in a crisis hospital stay. Marriage is defined by our culture and religious institution. It is the backbone of our culture. BUT, here again we are getting off track because none of this matters unless we fix our economy and address the entitlements and spending addiction we have in Washington D.C.
He needs to stop sounding preachy and keep turning the converstaion back to the leading issue of the day: Obama is a train wreck when it comes to spending and the economy.
“One thing about Santorum is absolute. He does not know how to keep his mouth shut, and he does not closely monitor what comes out of it.
Newt Gingrich demonstrated last night, exactly how a master Statesman conducts himself, as well as conveys his wisdom to the audience. Newt had them riveted to his every word and his unmitigated wisdom was unequaled.”
I am a Newt supporter and agree with you. I will, however, give Santorum a bit of credit. He is ahead in the polls and Newt is behind even Ron Paul in most polls (how embarrassing is that?). Santorum’s campaign thus far has been brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
He had no money so he lived in Iowa visiting every county (most multiple times) for a year to either be a viable candidate after the caucus or not. It worked.
He stayed completely out of the fray in a crowded field and watched as the herd thinned itself (Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman and Perry — gone). That, too, worked.
He sat back and let Romney carpet bomb Gingrich in Florida. That tactic weakened another in the herd (Gingrich).
He campaigned hard in Missouri (in a contest with no delegates!) as well as Minnesota and, to a lesser extent, in Colorado as Newt ignored all three and Romney wasn’t even aware of Santorum’s existence. A stroke of genius.
He has since ridden a tidal wave of a surge as the alternate to Romney — all with the smallest warchest of any of the candidates.
Now that the light has been cast on Santorum in the public’s eye, it is up to his message and delivery. Now, the flaws of the candidate have more to do with the nomination than the strategy of becoming a viable candidate.
Newt’s biggest problem is that he didn’t hire Santorum as his campaign manager!
His performance last night was exactly why I can not stand Santorum. I have never liked him because he comes across as a sanctimonious jerk. Some people can pull this off but Rick can not. Reagan could, Newt can but Santorum has no charisma and comes across as a sour, insipid baffoon who wants to tell others what to do. He is a sure loser in a general election and should be voted off the island ASAP.
RE: His performance last night was exactly why I can not stand Santorum.
Funny how some people see it differently.
See here:
Only to mentally deficient folks kept locked up in attics and basements.
I am deeply saddened to have to be the one to break this to you because I know your statement is conventional wisdom for the best and brightest but the statement is laughable.
Legislators legislate morality every time they pass a law. There are no laws without moral components and whose morality gets legislated is why the battles at the ballot box are so fierce.
Once again, sorry to have to break this news to you but somebody had to.
And you believe that?
Look his wife...but she has shoes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.