Americans are “looking for a president who believes in them,” Rick Santorum said on the first day (and probably close to every day) of his primary campaign for the Republican nomination for president.
It’s an all-American message that gets lost among both political parties. Most obviously, it is poised as the polar opposite of the message sent in 2008 by Barack Obama, who presented himself as Change You Can Believe In. And most Americans who did believe in Obama now feel a deep disappointment, one that Santorum is seeking to tap into. But the message sent by many of the Republicans in this year’s race is not much better. Consider, for example, the intraparty derision of the richest guy in the race, Mitt Romney, because of his financial success — unhealthy criticism of someone who has demonstrated a work ethic of the type we’d be wiser to admire, of a faithful family man who has chosen public service instead of resting on his business laurels.
Advertisement
Santorum’s late surge in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses is both well-earned and ironic. He has been laboring tirelessly in all counties of the state. And despite his conservatism, which plays well with conservative caucus-goers, he is, in many ways, just what voters — Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and everyone in between who just goes to the polls — seem to uniformly recoil from: a Washington insider.
He did, after all, serve 16 years in Congress, first in the House and then in the Senate. And he has worked at a Washington think tank (one of my faves, the Ethics and Public Policy Center). But his sweater vests (which have taken on a Twitter account, if not a life of their own, in political-primary history) and his words about policies that empower working families and don’t leave the poor out in the cold — or perpetually dependent on an unsustainable state — point to the kind of genuine populist style that resonates with people.
And while the most radical left-wing activists on certain social issues love to paint him as harsh, there’s a compassion to his words and the causes he takes up. As anyone who has ever made the mistake of Googling his name knows, Santorum has been caricatured for decades, but his message is far from severe. Take, for instance, his public profession of faith. “We want leaders who understand that faith is essential to the sustenance of democracy,” he told me earlier this year, “that faith is an agent for good, that it protects the weak and defenseless, that it motives people to confront injustice.”
Leaders, in other words, who do not put Catholic Charities in Illinois in the position of having to choose between violating their principles and closing up shop because fundamental institutions have been redefined in the name of a tolerance that refuses to tolerate. Leaders who don’t compel taxpayer funding of abortion. Leaders who respect the conscience rights of voters.
On the Feast of the Holy Innocents, New Yorkers prayerfully gathered at a church by that name to pray for the conversion of the hearts of political leaders; to pray for young, scared mothers to have the courage to seek out help and support to bring their children into the world and provide for them, whether through adoption or by raising them themselves; to pray for the healing of those who have been hurt by abortion; and, yes, to pray for the lives of the unborn. This isn’t a militant message but a loving one, even as its advocates feel an urgency — one that sees right and wrong, but also sees pain and confusion.
This is in large part the message that Rick Santorum and his family carry with them. With his eldest daughter taking time off from college to work on the campaign, and with the constant source of inspiration provided by the determination of his youngest, Bella, to go on living despite being diagnosed as “incompatible with life” more than three years ago, he brings a message about happiness, restoration, and healing in our lives and our culture. About the fullness of freedom and its preservation.
Santorum has the wisdom of one who sees a fuller picture than just one campaign or strategy. This is on display most obviously, perhaps, when he is schooling Ron Paul on foreign policy and our obligations to our nation’s defense and our allies. Buoyed by this wisdom, Santorum projects a self-confidence that is not paternalistic. He exudes a belief in whatever he is speaking of. He has the air of authority that comes with experience. And he shows the refreshing authenticity of a guy who is a happy father and husband, and whose sacrifice in spending time away from home is apparent rather than an under-the-radar afterthought.
And even though he is ridiculed for being a culture warrior, he is not naïve about politics. My Facebook page experienced fireworks the other day when he was blasted as a “pro-life fraud” for some prudential endorsements over the years, the kind that one can agree or disagree with but that suggest some appreciation for forming alliances in an imperfect world — for governing.
His is the confidence of a man for whom experience has helped feed optimism — the realistic sort that comes with knowledge of something greater than oneself and one’s campaign, even than one’s exceptional nation. As someone who has worked with him puts it: “He is a man who simply loves his work, without an ounce of cynicism. And I’ve never heard him say ‘no’ to a request, schedule permitting. If it can be done, he wants to do it.”
We are not the ones we have been waiting for. Nor is Rick Santorum. Which is precisely why he wakes up every day and works, and why many Iowa voters see in him something of what they’d like to see (again) in Washington.
— Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor-at-large of National Review Online. This column is available exclusively through United Media.
Santorum has the wisdom of one who sees a fuller picture than just one campaign or strategy.
Really? The wisdom of anti-birth control? The wisdom of dumb manufacturing tax subsides? The wisdom of ethanol? What's his current position on ethanol? It keeps changing.
This "conservative" was a rubber stamp for every dumb big government Republican idea that came down the pike.
Santorum is a conservative Catholic. That's pretty much it.
As much as we like Mr. Santorum, the offering is a bit questionable (even by the fine Mrs. Lopez). For example, the "something greater than oneself and one’s campaign" concept becomes lost when Mr. Santorum offers a cheap distortion of Chris Christie for his personal gain.
The not so positive image appears when Mr. Santorum stands on a stage in a debate in Iowa, and completely distorts the reality of Constitutional Law in MA. The entire effort (knowing Santorum is studied in Law) is beyond the "larger than oneself" image, and is decided self serving to the point of concern.
No doubt Rick put in the work in Iowa, but his latest rise in the polls are a product of the fashionable jump still seeking the next image/identity product to find a suitable location. Already the spotlight is reminding all of Rick's poor offering as a Washington Politician from 1991 to 2007, having little accomplishment, no executive experience, without serious economic credentials, and even little home based support or influence in PA.
Unfortunately, Mr. Santorum would only enable the opposite, giving Obama the election handily. And Rick's recent claims about his electability remind one of his unfortunate presentation of Christie, a negative ploy which is hardly rational - and fail to meet "something greater than oneself and one’s campaign" standard.
I truly hope Rick grows from the experience. We shall see. But we have to defeat the Democratic Party in 2012, remove Obama from the White House. And it is clear Santorum is not up for this enormous task.
I'm ready to stand behind the guy (or gal) who will be most likely to take the bold steps to reverse the growth of the federal government and stand up for founding principles: limited government, robust defense, and a civil society. Only Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum fill that bill.
Whenever someone uses the word populism to describe a candidate, I tend to recoil, I really hate it. It usually means pandering to people who don't understand economics by supporting stupid economic policies that sound good to the people who don't understand how the economic policies.
Looking at his voting record in the senate, voting against NAFTA, support for all kinds of subsidies and tariffs, doesn't strike me as someone who is going to get behind the right kind of policies that will help our economy grow in the future.
And even Clinton was able to accept NAFTA, Obama was able to sign 2 or 3 FTAs after almost all the Republicans in Congress voted for them, that puts Santorum not to far form the Buchanan-Dobbs wing of party on that issue as far as I'm concerned, worse than the Democrat presidents we've had.
I have some serious questions on whether or not Santorum understands the importance of trade and whether or not a Santorum presidency would have a trade policy, or is that something that he would overlook as he is busy preaching about the evils contraception?
In his campaign he is also guilty of proposing ideas that are an attempt to micromanage economic growth by lowering taxes on manufacturers and keeping them higher on other sectors of the economy, that might sound nice to the factory worker in Pennsylvania, but it would have less economic impact than if you were to lower taxes on all businesses equally and let the market decide where the jobs are going to come from instead of trying micromanage that. Milton Friedman would not approve.
Too bad Santorum is so sanctimonious, so holier-than-thou. We voters in Pa. finally saw through his cracked veneer. Over the weekend, he tried to explain why he had supported so many egregious earmarks, including the absurd Alaska "bridge to nowhere." The answers were as hollow as Bachmann's were to the same question, something to the effect that as a legislator he had a responsibility to allocate money as he saw fit because he knew more than the rest of us. That's our money he was trying to spend. I won't even mention his condescending attitudes on family planning, faith and other social issues. In some vague way, he fails my trust test. I feel much more comfortable with Romney.
It's not just holier-than-thou on issues, though, its plain old bad manners. Remember in the debate when he kept interrupting Romney - who hasn't, but also - then smart mouthing immediately afterward, "you're out of time!" This is after at least two debates in which he whined about the time (Ron Paul has the good sense to do this OFF STAGE, not DURING the debate). We've had a whiner in the White House for 3 years already!!!
I do not know the details of his political history, seems to me all congressmen can be labeled as flip floppers as bills they sign have 20 different topics of legislation. So any bill you sign can be used by adversaries who are either pro or con to the issue. Thus when President Obama voted present he escaped any scrutiny at all.
What I do know is that when I watch him on TV he appears a frustrated man who cannot understand why people don’t see what is so obvious to him. It’s a petulance that does not serve him well because many times he does have a coherent and favorable argument.
Yesterday I listened to him on a 1 hour radio interview. On radio he was awesome, the interview was strictly on international affairs. The man knew his stuff and really earned my respect.
This is from Guzzardi, supporting the views of Indykat:
brilliantly accurate. The voters of Pennsylvania figured this out before I did.
There is an epidemic of groupthink among pundits who have not looked at the data.
Rick Santorum Cannot Win the Presidency because Rick Santorum Cannot win Pennsylvania.
Former three time US Representative and Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, cannot win Pennsylvania and there is a reason for that: the more the voters got to know him and his record, the less they liked him and the less likely they are willing to vote for him.
The Electoral Data
In 2006, Rick Santorum received 797,000 fewer votes than in 2000.Had he gotten the same number of votes he got in 2000, he would still be US Senator.
2006 Rick Santorum lost to Bob “98%” Casey, 2,393,984 to 1,684,778, that is, Incumbent Rick Santorum received 709,208 fewer votes than Democrat challenger Bob Casey who was one of the first Pennsylvania Democrats to endorse Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in Democratic Primary.
2006Official Penna Statistics Pennsylvania US Senate vote External Link
In 2000, Rick Santorum ran for an open Senate seat and received 2,481, 962 or 797,184 more votes than he received in 2006 External Link
In 2006, incumbent US Senator not only received fewer votes total, incumbent Rick Santorum received fewer votes in every county in Pennsylvania.
To put it another way, the more people to know Rick Santorum, the less likely they were to vote for him. And there is a reason for that, Rick Santorum’s Bush Compassionate Conservative Voting Record. Rick Santorum was part of Republican Leadership because he supported the Bush 1 and 2 Big Government Big Spending Polices and he liked his EARMARKS while in office.
SANTORUM SUPPORTED BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL UNION FINANCED REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT’S ARLEN SPECTER AGAINST CONSTUTIONAL LIMITED GOVERNMENT PAT TOOMEY
SANTORUM No Child Left Behind and Medicare Prescription D
I am from Pennsylvania and supported Pat Toomey in 2004. RickSantorum cannot win the Presidency because he cannot win Pennsylvania.
Rick Santorum received 797,000 fewer votesin 2006 than 2000. Had Rick Santorum received the same number of votes in 2006 that he received in 2000, he would have beated Sen. Bob Casey. This is a matter of record on Pennsyvania's Official Election web site.
2006 was a bad year for Republicans because of SpecterRepublicans like Rick Santorum. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription B, Ever increase spending and borrowing in lieu of tax increases.
After his Specter support, Rick Santorum's Big Union support increased and he became a Union Republican with more and more spending.
Rick Santorum reveled in his 100s of millions of Earmarks.
There is a reason Rick Santorum received 797,000 and it is because he was obnoxiously arrogant to his own grassroots potential supporters
dr. bob and I are in Iowa and met Anita Perry last night for about half hour. She is down to earth, authentic and the energy for Rick Perry is very high.
dr.bob and I are covering two of the precincts.
the news media has blacked out Rick Perry, the only authentic limited government candidate.
KJL gets my nomination for most clueless, out of touch NRO contributor - that she thinks that Santorum is a viable candidate shows either how naive she is or just how stupid she thinks her readers are.
Santorum is the best person for the job. He can win the swing states needed to beat Obama. I believe that no one has won the presidency without winning the Catholic vote. His genuine Catholicism will help him.
Wow, it seems the E-Haters are out in force early. Some people will never accept Rick Santorum because they hate his Catholicism. He doesn't hand-wave on debasing traditional marriage and he doesn't waffle on killing babies. He's personally opposed to contraception and doesn't see why we have to subsidize it and force other people (like religious employers) to cover it under their insurance.
Most other attacks we've seen are just hackery. Rick Santorum has a better record on free trade than the Republican Senate he was a part of. He voted for plenty of agreements other than NAFTA, and not all free-trade deals are created equal. Arlen Specter was still a Republican in the 2004 primary, one who had given Sen. Santorum a lot of support in the Senator. The hacks would be calling him "Judas" if he'd thrown in for Bob Casey just as fast - noting how untrustworthy his "betrayal" made him.
Follow
