First, what I didn’t like: I know how faith has sustained the Santorums, through the kind of trials I wrote about today and throughout this campaign, so it’s altogether fitting that he should thank God, but he has to watch the overt religiosity as he tries to broaden out his support. And there were too many “I’s.” This was his first chance to truly introduce himself on the national stage, so I understand the impulse to get in a lot about yourself — but again, something to watch. Otherwise, it was marvelous, built on the themes of the dignity of the human person and of work. The image of his grandfather’s hands was powerful and moving. He hit the right note in speaking of “so many men and women right now who would love to work hard, but they don’t have the opportunity.” In what was at least a tonal departure from Republican orthodoxy, he said tax and spending cuts aren’t enough — although he wants both. He emphasized that we need “a plan that includes people from all across the economic spectrum” — a sentiment surely no one disagrees with but too few Republicans bother to utter. He was compelling on the importance of families to communities and economic strength. Near the end, he described the struggles of his little disabled daughter Bella and “the dignity of every human life.” But he didn’t leave it there. He invoked “the dignity of every working person in America to fulfill their potential.” That’s a fundamentally Lincolnian sentiment, indeed you could argue is really the core of Lincoln. Some of the policy here may be dubious. And as Mark noted, this iteration of conservatism is not going to be a fit for everyone. But Santorum’s conservatism is deeply felt and has a distinctive flavor. This is someone who has thought through what he believes and why, and how best to express it. It’s not just schmaltz. To my mind, it shows the wisdom of Iowa sending him on to a broader audience. Now we’ll see what he makes of it.
As we've seen with the furor over Tim Tebow, blue state mandarins like Rich don't much care for those of us who publicly acknowledge the Creator.
Of course, Tebow's far more popular than Lowry is, so....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis has nothing to do with caring about a candidate "publicly acknowledging the Creator." Lowry is rightly concerned that Santorum's overt expression of faith may do little to help him win broad appeal which he desperately needs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuite. I'm pretty indifferent to candidates' public statements about their faith, but Santorum's behavior is another matter. He said this:
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country...It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
This stance is, of course, driven by Santorum's religious fanaticism, and it's utterly inappropriate. He's running for President, not Pope. It isn't the job of the President to preach about these issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's that very statement that will (or would) seal his fate in a general election, even against an unpopular president.
John McCain earned 53% of the white, female vote. He, of course, still lost by 7-points. Do Santorum's more strident positions, particularly as they relate to reproductive issues, make it more likely or less likely that he outperforms McCain with a critical demographic? I personally think the question answers itself.
For the first time since the advent of exit polling, the GOP lost college-educated voters in 2008. Does Santorum make it more likely or less likely that the GOP earn back those voters in 2012? Again, the question answers itself, and it's underscored when you see where those college-educated voters are on homosexual marriage and gays in the military in addition to unfettered access to contraceptives.
I have no doubt that Rick Santorum can do well with uneducated whites. The problem is that the GOP is already doing very well with uneducated whites. To beat Obama, the GOP has to do better with educated whites and educated white women in particular. Without them, Obama will win reelection with roughly the same exact map that he had in 2008.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to mention the GOP's lack of support among Hispanic voters, which will only become a larger problem for the right wing as time goes on. (Unless of course, you can get all those millions of people deported before their kids can vote.)
I certainly hope your trending predictions are accurate. George Will, after all, has already conceded!
Re-elect the Prez!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLowry is not anywhere sufficiently concerned about Santorum. In fact, he has been pumping him up for weeks now, starting with that notorious editorial, at the time Santorum polled at 1% (and then Lowry goes on TV and marvels at the strength of Santorum's retail politicking... unbelieveable...).
The support that NR is giving to Santorum will destroy the fusionism that NR once stood for. Buckley and Meyer are turning in their graves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, because the atheist vote is really going to tip toward Santorum.
He can write that off along with the gay vote---but this is true of ANY Republican.
When has Rich Lowry ever cautioned Obama on his very convenient religious utterances? Or warned Romney to ixnay on the Ormonmay?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference between Obama and Santorum is that Santorum gives every indication that his religious faith will impact his public policy decisions - from marriage, to birth control, to abortion, to AIDS in Africa, to foreign aide, to "social justice" issues, etc. For better or for worse, that bothers some voters. He's running for President, not Pope. He'll have to tone it down a bit if he doesn't want to scare of the voters who don't scare for the "God talk."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, because the atheist vote is really going to tip toward Santorum.
He can write that off along with the gay vote---but this is true of ANY Republican.
When has Rich Lowry ever cautioned Obama on his very convenient religious utterances? Or warned Romney to ixnay on the Ormonmay?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe previous commenter critical of Lowry must have missed Lowry's defense of Santorum against Alan Colmes, who ultimately apologized to Santorum and his wife.
All Lowry was noting in this column was the danger that many social conservatives face; namley, that they can come across as scolds, and that strikes many people the wrong way.
Also, I think the "impromptu" guy (whose name escapes me at the moment -- sorry) made a similar comment about Santorum's overuse of the word "I."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo pointing out what a horrible person Alan Colmes exonerates Lowry from trashing Santorum for mentioning God once in a speech? Really?
I look forward to Lowry's cautioning Little Lord Mittleroy against saying the M-word since some people find his underwear creepy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKnock it off, Teflon. Rich is one of Tebow's strongest and most effective defenders. And in the now-famous Fox segment with Alan Combs, he's already shown himself to be a vocal opponent of those who thoughtlessly belittle Santorum's personal religiosity.
I imagine he might smile at being labeled a mandarin of some sort, but a "blue-state" mandarin? That's fantasy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis problem is that his overt religiosity, and the views stemming from it, are both his biggest strength in the primary and his biggest weakness in a general election.
George W. Bush was open about how important his Christian faith was to him, BUT he would certainly never have made comments disparaging the use of birth control or comparing gay relationships to man-on-dog. A majority of Americans are weirded out by such comments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy do you have to start with the negative?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He hit the right note in speaking of 'so many men and women right now who would love to work hard, but they don’t have the opportunity.' In what was at least a tonal departure from Republican orthodoxy, he said tax and spending cuts aren’t enough — although he wants both. He emphasized that we need 'a plan that includes people from all across the economic spectrum...' "
What a socialist! Commie! How dare he acknowledge that some people aren't doing so well in America today through no fault of their own?!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse.“a plan that includes people from all across the economic spectrum” Plan? Like compassionate conservatism? I fail to see the embrace of Santorum- he's a Grade A RINO hack. [And like all ham sandwiches, I'll vote for him if it comes to that]
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse