This is a very, very powerful speech. The word I would choose to describe it and him is “grounded.” There’s a reason Rupert Murdoch used a word not often used about a presidential candidate surging: “humility.” The humility that comes from standing for something larger than yourself, for people other than yourself. As Rick said, “Game on!”
"The humility that comes from standing for something larger than yourself..."
Which race are you watching?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There’s a reason Rupert Murdoch used a word not often used about a presidential candidate surging: “humility.”
Murdoch knows as much about humility as Gingrich knows about fidelity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree. I hardly ever listen to these kind of speeches even if I like the guy. They're so freaking awful. I expected to tune out Santorum by default but I couldn't because he kept drawing me in. Congrats to him tonight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo are we to expect that every time a candidate does better than expected, NR pundits will jump and start up a personality cult?
God knows I believe that Santorum could be way better than that g*dawful ObamaLite media creature known as Mitty, but honestly I had enough of effeminate enthusiastic hysteria regarding ANY candidate. Please, keep some of your precious emotions to yourselves. This is the National Review, not Puffington Host. Thank you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCongratulations to Mr. Santorum, and I enjoyed his speech as well.
Iowa is always a fascinating adventure.
It is nice to see Santorum do well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVast improvement over the other Beltway Celebrity.
Well said, Maggie.
Watching Santorum's speech and Romney's back-to-back is very clarifying.
Santorum is a far better speaker than Romney, better campaigner and better candidate.
If Romney and Santorum had the same amount of money, this wouldn't even be a contest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn Galt>>Watching Santorum's speech and Romney's back-to-back is very clarifying.
***
Oh John, be serious.
It is not called "clarification" when you go away with exactly the same set of fixed opinions that you had when you arrived.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt appears that RP and MB are scuttling ship. If their solid 15% goes to RS, then he's got a dog in the hunt.
NG will probably sell his support +/- 10% to Romney.
Romney will then try to buy off RS. Might take it if he offers AG or State where Santorum could have real policy impact.
Ron Paul setting up organization for his son, Rand. He's not going anywhere until the end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe good news about Santorum surging is that now the media can finally focus on the things that America wants to focus on: More limited access to contraceptives, abortion, gay marriage and finally getting those homosexuals out of the military.
If they have some extra time, maybe they can spare a few minutes talking about intelligent design, too.
That should seal the deal for the GOP in the fall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd when the going gets tough, well, just ask Pat Toomey how Santorum treats another conservative.
Sorry, I'm not buying into the warm and fuzzies tonight. I'm sure Rick's a nice guy, and sure he has a nice story. But so what? If we want a good talker who stabs conservatives in the back, reelect Obama. At least we'll get someone who's honest about his big government intentions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the emergence of Santorum poses some real serious issues for National Review.
I have complained frequently in the past that I think NR has an unhealthy mix of (Catholic) religion and politics. Now with a über Catholic candidate who is stridently behind the whole Catholic position on life and birth control BUT IS NOT A POLITICALLY VIABLE CHALLENGER TO BARAK OBAMA, we are going to find out just how much of a problem we have here with a magazine that so liberally mixes its religion and its politics. I sense that we have a heck of a problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI completely agree. Santorum is a self-avowed "big government" conservative, opposes the 10th Amendment, and actually OPPOSES the idea "that people should be left alone" by the federal government. He's an undeniable national STATIST, for crying out loud!
Santorum is absolutely the least conservative candidate except for one thing, and one thing only: his (admirable) firm Catholic beliefs. Apparently that is all it takes to make the NRO staff swoon in delight. This is tribalism at its worst.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo "Rick" now means Santorum? Somewhere in Texas, a governor just shed a tear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI get the impression Maggie now can see gay marriage being banned in all fifty states. Must be very exciting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne thing that Santorum does have in his favor is that he should be able to get his great pal Arlen Specter to make some campaign appearances with him. Even after Specter's last party double-cross when he went (back) to the Dems to give Obama critical support in the Senate, Santorum, when he got the Friday hosting gig on Bill Bennett's program, had Specter as his first guest. And he made a big deal about it and how much he admired the rat Specter and what great personal friends they are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, but just remember, it was all about getting John Roberts on the Supreme Court! If you can follow Santy's convoluted reasoning on that fib.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had a very different reaction. To me Santorum's speech came off very pretentious and smothering, with heavy-handed emotionalism. I don't want to feel emotions about politicians. I'm barely reconciled to casting votes for them.
I was also very frustrated by his multiple references to freedom and liberty, given his previous arguments against individualism and against being left alone. It came off very disingenuous, saying popular buzzwords he has no actual belief in.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlmost fell out of my chair reading this line about "humility." I suppose there might be humility in a candidate who wants to actively expand the role of government in telling people how to live their lives, but then I'm not too sure how we're defining "humility".
Just what the GOP needs....more big government, pork-barrel, moralistic "conservatism".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's see what Maggie has to say after the New Hampshire results come in.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse