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.
Advertisement
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.
Barone is one of the smartest guys writing about politics. It is good to listen to what he has to say.
Santorum is the personification of the straw-man Obama has made his career on by knocking down. And it was Santorum's social issues centric brand of Conservatism known as "Compassionate Conservatism" which I think caused a great deal of the problems that the Republican party has gotten itself into in the 2006 and 2008 elections. In 2006 we tried to run an election based on social issues, I'm originally from a swing state, I remember getting robocalls and fliers stuck in my door from the Senate and Gubernatorial candidates from my state (using their secret weapon they were bragging about at the time known as "micro-targeting" that was supposed to save the day) on social issues, gay marriage and abortion while the Democrats talked about jobs and the economy, the Democrats won both races in landslides. Santorum has not shown himself as capable of running any other kind of campaign, that stuff worked in the 90s (the last election Santorum won was in 2000, against a weak opponent) when half the country was working class whites, WCWs are now about a third of the population, that well is dry, going back to it is suicide.
And I don't get these people suggesting that he is likable, he reminds me of a schoolmarm who is always peeved. How is he going to convince the 3% or so of the electorate that voted for Obama to vote for him when he is busy preaching to them that they should not use birth control or get a vasectomy even if they are married?
Agreed, Richard. I must say that I used to find Rick Santorum the Senator somewhat amusing, mostly because he so clearly drove the Left crazy, especially with all his "churchy" talk. However, one can be a niche-market candidate and be a Congressman or Senator (e.g. Barbara Boxer, Santorum's political doppelganger), but one can't get away with that schtick as a presidential candidate. That's why I share your concerns about Santorum's general-election chances, should he get the nomination.
Moreover, like you, I worry that Santorum, even if elected, wouldn't be willing to fight for the necessary cuts to the federal budget. Just listen to his excuse in the most recent debate as to his support for Title X and the taxpaper monies it doled out to Planned Parenthood; he said that he made that vote "all better" by voting for Title XX, which doled out taxpayer cash to anti-Planned Parenthood groups. Ugh. The spending -- all the federal spending! -- is the issue, Santorum!
How unfortunate that Santorum's rare and refreshing honesty will stand no chance against the left's smug and well-rehearsed fog bank of lies. Instead of "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free," we have "Then you will know the truth, and you will cower from its light, and you will scurry back into the darkness of your own destruction." To paraphrase, "The first casualty of war is truth" and we are now knee-deep in an era almost completely devoid of truth. Let's just see how we do without it.
Nothing is "radical" about those beliefs, but as long as you are in the USA, personal liberty and the retained rights of free citizens will trump those things whenever the state attempts to control the behavior of an individual as guided by his or her own conscience.
Some on the wacky right envision a state with the power to enforce codes of personal behavior based on rigid theologically derived rules imposed by their perception of what the Deity requires of us. This always runs the risk of becoming a delusional exercise in the control of others who do not share any particular belief. Many of the Christian right begin to resemble the Taliban in Afghanistan when stridently advocating rules for what they feel should be godly behavior.
When believing in God, preserving life, liberty, sanctifying marriage, so forth, one needs to consider whose belief in God is being imposed on others (which religion, of which there are many and none with an exclusive hold on the Truth as far as our system is concerned).
Many of us are just plain scared when people like Santorum get to talking about what they think is right because he plainly is driven by a rigid and extremely narrow view informed by his deeply felt faith. We have seen this type of thing before used to abuse power and trample the rights of others. There are too many historical antecedents to begin listing them here. And there is always the risk that the pious leader is using faith to manipulate his followers and is nursing his personal vices in secret before the inevitable scandal is revealed. How many times do we need to see that example played out in public?
As far as the marriage equality hubbub, the plain fact is that no one advocating same sex marriage is trying to "unsanctify" marriage between a man and a woman, which is still considered a personal choice protected by the state and occasionally blessed by various sacraments of the different faiths. I treat marriage between myself and my wife seriously as a union we consecrated in front of a pastor decades ago. However, I also recognize that my brother and his partner have the right to marry and I also - thankfully and joyfully - celebrate that as a valid and legally protected personal choice in a growing number of states.
The dreary truth is that the R's tend to rile up their base with God Guns and Gays and dang it if they aren't trying to do it again in 2012. If Santorum wants to use God as a campaign advisor, then have at it. He (Santorum) is not going to be elected to anything this year anyway.
We are electing a President, not a Sunday school preacher. God isn't the government's business, unless you wan to live in Afghanistan. Marriage isn't the government's business. Santorum isn't about preserving liberty, he's a Bush-style big government guy. He voted for Sonia Sotomayor - a totalitarian racist.
If Santorum gets the nomination, we will be stuck with four more years of Obaminable. I don't think independents will go for him, and certainly not independent women voters.
Excellent commentary by the brilliant Michael Barone.
In my opinion Newt and Santorum can't win for different reasons. Both lack discipline in different ways.
Santorum is too much of a scold. Newt has way too much baggage.
I say this as one who finds Romney quite underwhelming.
As a staunch pro-growth economic conservative and a tolerant traditionalist, either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio would have been fantastic candidates. But I digress.
Romney unfortunately speaks in Occupy Wall Street rhetoric -- i.e. 1% versus 99%.
Guess what -- I'm part of the 100%.
I want our candidate to be unapologetic and confident when taking on the class warriers on the looney left and Romney is too pathetically timit and scared in that regard.
His capital gains tax cut could have been crafted by a Democrat as there is a cut-off for people making above $200,000. He's playing on the Left's turf. How weak!!
On the merits, Newt by far has the best tax plan.
But at the end of the day, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney because I want Obama sent packing in November 2012 and I think Mitt on balance is the best in our weak field of candidates.
I disagree wholeheartedly with Mr. Barone. What Santorum has to offer, besides decades of experience and a solid conservative worldview, is the most refreshing mix of candor and personal courage I have ever seen in a politician operating at that high level. This is what really sets him apart from the others, and will endear him to the people once they have a chance to see beyond the lazy MSM caricature that is now even dominating at NRO. Keep talking, Rick!
Santorum's cocksure sanctimony might explain how he got buried by an 18-point avalanche in his last election. He gives me nightmare flashbacks of Jimmy Carter. Ron Paul is right - Santorum's a fake. So is Romney. The GOP is suicidal if they think they can win with a bible thumper and/or a warmonger. I wish they would just go away. America needs a real party, not a sham party, that will do more than just talk about reducing spending and shrinking government. I hope Ron Paul runs 3rd party.
