Columbia, S.C. — Fighting to regain momentum in the South Carolina primary, Rick Santorum has shown little of the pizzazz that has characterized so many of the poll frontrunners this cycle.
“I may not be flashy and have a bunch of applause lines,” he admitted Tuesday, speaking at the Flight Deck restaurant in Lexington, S.C. “But what I’ve got is good, solid principles and I’m not changing my mind every ten minutes.”
In a navy sweater vest, his name embroidered on the upper right, Santorum earnestly and aggressively makes the case that he is the candidate around whom South Carolina conservatives should rally.
“South Carolina has a chance to nominate someone . . . who reflects their values,” Santorum says, speaking in a room papered with photographs of old military planes, to an audience clustered in booths and rows of chairs.“Don’t compromise.”
Advertisement
“The best chance to win this election is to not compromise,” he adds. “The country is looking for leadership. They’re not going to be looking for someone who can manage just a little better than the guy that’s in there now.”
Long before his Iowa surge, Santorum had shown at debates a willingness to go after his rivals. Now a top-tier candidate himself, he’s just as willing to throw punches. “Newt’s a friend of mine, but Newt is great in a think tank, coming up with a lot of different policy ideas, but as far as leadership, look at when the two of us were in leadership,” Santorum says, arguing that conservative organizations trusted him to fight for the issues they cared about from his perch in the Senate. In contrast, “three years into the speaker’s speakership, there was a conservative revolution against Newt trying to throw him out because he wasn’t advancing conservative [causes].”
As for Romney, Santorum argues that the former Massachusetts governor is “timid and, at best, inconsistent with respect to the issues we’re dealing with, and on the wrong side of many issues, like health care, the Wall Street bailouts, and global warming.”
Asked about Ron Paul, Santorum launches into an extended discussion of the differences between the conservative and libertarian outlooks on the Constitution. But at the end of his riff, he references Monday night’s debate, talking about Paul’s attempt to make a distinction between military spending and defense spending. “If someone can write me a memo on the difference, I’d appreciate that,” Santorum quips.
In Iowa, Santorum distinguished himself from the pack by pointing to his extensive retail politicking in the state, including visits to all 99 counties, a feat matched only by Michele Bachmann. In South Carolina, he has no such edge over his rivals.
And the chosen focus of his remarks, at least at this particular event, is perplexing. At the Lexington town hall, before opening up the floor to questions — usually a time when candidates deliver a brief sketch of their views on a wide range of issues — Santorum dives into a prolonged discussion of Social Security. He uses the topic as a way to distinguish himself from Romney and Gingrich, but he also delves deep into the details, rattling off factoids such as the percentage of seniors living below the poverty line, and musing on the fiscal benefits of pushing Social Security eligibility back just one or two months from age 62.
The questions after his remarks are wide-ranging, touching on topics from energy to immigration, and Santorum deftly handles them. Retiree Jane Flythe was struck by Santorum’s sincerity. “This man answers questions directly and right away,” she remarked. “You can’t always trust what everybody says. But I think he means it.” After commenting that she liked Gingrich, Flythe admitted she had lingering concerns about the former Speaker, saying she was “not comfortable with him because of his past and his changing his views.”
The Republican nomination contest is far and away too front-loaded, such that the early primary States have disproportionate influence. The minor modifications in the awarding of delegates proportionally through the super-Tuesday votes in early March do little to mitigate the built-in bias towards selecting the survivor of the first 3 or 4 contests.
Furthermore, why does the Republican Party allow so-called Independents to vote in its contests? If Independents want to vote on the Republican nominee, then they can register as Republicans. People who refuse to register Republican are going to be unreliable in the general election; and a case could be made that many of these voters are voting deliberately for the Republican whom they judge to be the least likely to win against the Democrat in the Fall.
My view is that the primaries are arranged the way they are deliberately in order to give the advantage to the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. By and large, once again, this tactic is proving to be effective in shutting out conservatives.
If there is to be a third-party effort this year, the RINO's can blame themselves -- for biasing the primaries towards RINO's; and for their barely-concealed disdain for the conservative Tea Partiers.
I would much prefer to see a knock-down, dragged out contest such as the Democrats had in 2008, with the Republicans going into the convention without a nominee if need be, than to see our current system continue.
Florida's Republican Party did the GOP a favor by jumping the gun and conducting its primary earlier than allowed by Party rules. My hope is that, come 2016, a good 30 or 40 other States will follow Florida's lead. Better to have half a vote at the Convention, than no influence in deciding the nominee at all because the primary is held so late in the season that the nominee is already picked.
As for indepedents getting to vote, I think this is a good thing. If a candidate can't appeal to conservatives AND independents then they won't be president.
Also, I'm not quite sure how the primaries are designed to help out the rockeffler wing. Iowa and Sough Carolina are both fairly conservative places, and New Nampshire has a strong liberty streak.
The system certainly isn't perfect, but at least it gives less well known canididates a chance to compete.
As I see it Santorum could question the vote in Iowa. How do officials make that mistake. Final Iowa Results: Santorum Tops Romney, but We’ll Never Know Who Won(title of one news article) because problems in eight of Iowa's 1,774 precincts leave the actual winner unclear.
In a statement, Romney called it a "virtual tie." My problem is that there is a problem with vote counts. In Iowa did the vote counters simply not read the counts correctly, or was there something else(who knows what) at work. Yesterday I heard on the TV that Romney has a secret bank account in the Caymen Islands. That doesn't sound good. I understand his 15% tax rate. But the secret account is another story, that from what I can tell is being ignored today. It won't be ignored this fall. Romney had better explain this-and have a good story. Why was it secret? Obama will have fun with that this fall.
Gingrich has his own set of problems what with his ex-wife being on ABC tonight. His explanation of the divorce might be plausible, but the Obama Re-election committee will make much of it.
I'm still ROC ABO(Republic Only Congress & Anybody But Obama) this autumn, but I don't know about the rest of the nation.
So Sen. Santorum has so far won Iowa, taken 4th place in New Hampshire, and now sits alongside Newt Gringrich in the "not Romney, not Paul" slot on primary circuit.
I don't want Ron Paul. I don't want Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich is un-electable - in part due to his affinity for cookey technocratic schemes of the week and in large part due to the still-fresh decade of reprehensible personal behavior before he found religion.
The answer is simple - if you don't want Romney the Technocrat with his Caymen island tax-evasion scams or Paul the King of Internet Cranks it's time to buckle down and elect Rick Santorum.
When nobody here at NRO had anything good to say about Santorum, you were there, before all the kudos started popping up after Iowa. And now that he seems to have lost polling steam, you're still there. I greatly admire your consistentency and your refusal to stick your finger into the wind. Doesn't hurt that Santorum has been pretty much my favorite the whole time.
Bottom line, I am ABO myself, but I never have understood why Rick hasn't gotten any traction this time -- more conservative than anyone except maybe Bachmann, more articulate than anyone except Newt, more passionate than anyone -- cool demeanor notwithstanding -- except Cain. Ah well. All the best to you, Rick, wherever you wind up.
Gingrich will put on his rhetorical suicide vest and destroy himself. Romney will paint himself to be the unflattering caricature of the well connected, tax avoiding ,crony capitalist once his tax returns are public Santorum, if he perseveres will win both the GOP nomination and the presidency. Santorum will be a great president.
Mr Santorum is a true Bush clone. He likes to spend trillions we do not have to expand the Government in a compassionate fashion , and tell everyone else how to live their lives. The exact opposite of a real conservative.
Mr Santorum, the answer to the question, : How does Mr Obama carry 49 states?