Jacksonville, Fla. — On the trail, Floridians hear little about Rick Santorum. In state polls, he’s languishing in third place, and as Romney and Gingrich claw each other, he has largely been forgotten, if local headlines are any guide. But tonight, here at the University of North Florida, he had an excellent debate, and asserted himself as the adult in the room. It’s probably not enough to win Tuesday’s primary, but as Iowa fades in the rearview mirror, it was necessary.
Santorum did two key things that impressed: He hovered above the Romney–Gingrich spat, urging the pair to “focus on the issues,” and he was the only contender to get under the front-runner’s skin. He also prodded Romney, like a prosecutor, about the Bay State’s health-care program, poking holes in Romney’s defense with ease, peeling apart its mandate and costs. That exchange, in the way it irked Romney, was incisive, a stark reminder of Romney’s vulnerability.
Santorum also shined in other ways, on the intangibles. In past debates, he has tended to be stiff and rushed in his responses. Tonight, from the top, he was in better form. That big grin during the introductions, when he thanked his 93-year-old mother for attending, was a warm way to begin. And his quip about Romney’s wealth — “I wish I made as much money as Mitt Romney” — reminded the audience about his blue-collar roots in western Pennsylvania.
But his focused, coherent policy responses are what will be remembered, and may intrigue Republican voters to give him another look. His tough rhetoric on Latin American dictators, for instance, blasting the “reign of terror” by the anti-American leaders in the region, was particularly strong.
“Chavez and Castro and Obama sided against the people of Honduras,” Santorum said. “This is a consistent policy of siding with the leftists, siding with the Marxists, siding with those who don’t support democracy, not standing up for our friends in Colombia, not standing up for our friends who want to engage and support America, who want to be great trading partners.” The crowd roared.
What may get the most buzz, however, is Santorum’s ability to play media foil better than Gingrich, who has used conservative suspicion of the press to bolster his poll numbers. When Romney and Gingrich argued over who was more closely associated with Freddie Mac, Santorum seized the moment, rapping CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and his competitors for going too far.
“We have been playing petty personal politics,” Santorum told Blitzer, his head shaking. “Can we set aside that Newt was a member of Congress and used the skills that he developed as a member of Congress to go out and advise companies — and that’s not the worst thing in the world — and that Mitt Romney is a wealthy guy because he worked hard? You guys should leave that alone and focus on the issues.” Once again, the crowd cheered.
Later, talking about space, not far from the Space Coast, Santorum showcased his seriousness on the deficit, and took care to distinguish himself from Gingrich, who remains his main challenger for the non-Romney crown. He blasted “grand schemes,” telling the crowd that “those are things that sound good and maybe make big promises to people, but we’ve got to be responsible in the way we allocate our resources.” The audience reaction was muted but respectful.
At the end, making his final argument, Santorum wrapped it all together, pulling no punches. He emphasized his differences with Gingrich and Romney, criticizing Romney for backing “top-down health care,” and Gingrich for his involvement in various bad ideas, such as cap-and-trade. Running against Obama, he said, demands someone to win independents and “Reagan Democrats.” He looked at the rest of field as he spoke, asking voters whether they could do that.
It was a sober plea. And if Romney sweeps, or Gingrich surges, it will be forgotten. But for the guy in third place, it was an effective end to a stellar performance.
We live +/- a mile from the debate site. I hope that the helicopter I saw go overhead about thirty minutes ago was for Mrs. Santorum.
He should be getting a better look. But when the media wing of the democrat party is running he debates, he's not going to. They surely do not want their team mate to run against a guy who has the courage of his convictions and who is such a stark contrast to the incumbent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>But his focused, coherent policy responses are what will be remembered...
***
Santorum is not my horse, but his "focused, coherent policy responses" are certainly impressive.
I do not agree that those responses are "what will be remembered." Sure, they were good, and they will be remembered somewhat. But -- for better or worse -- the elements that are most remembered, IMO, are more about theatrics and one-liners, about body language, perceived temperament, and so forth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEd, I still have a tough time with the terribly misguided Newt hype.
I think Conservatism is losing it, and it makes me deeply concerned.
Lost respect for so many Pundits, considered so worthy over these years.
Even trying to move on from NR, but it is rather tough, been a long time of devotion.
Read S.E. Cupp's piece, had to agree completely:
"Newt’s Doomed Crusade - The quixotic Gingrich campaign for the White House could sink the conservative movement."
If you don't see me around, I wish you and yours the very best.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes Old Fan.
But where do we go from NR ?
Seriously, where ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease don't leave. The ship of National Review is not sinking contrary to what some think NR is not the Titanic. There are a host of good thinkers. We may disagree from time to time but at least we are all working to rid this nation of social-planning representatives. Please give NR another chance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCosta, this is a pretty good write up of Santorum - especially considering you didn't even think to mention him in your Florida article from last night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like Santorum and he did have a good debate.
However, he sounded angry, rather than emphatic. I think he was turning red.
Also, he could afford to be "above" the bickering of #1 and #2, but I have no doubt he would have joined in the bickering if he was #1 or #2.
In all, it was a strong performance, but I'm not swooning as some others seem to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSaw this link promoted on another site, via Mr. Costa's tweet.
Certainly Santorum did better this evening, however...
On thing, Rick uses manipulation in his attacks, which is what I feel Mr. Costa should consider further. Santorum is completely distorting the real State Reform in MA. Conservatives simply do not embrace lies or fraud. Santorum looks as if he either is too ignorant to know what a real "government run" system is or he is a liar. Rick seemingly doesn't grasp the difference in a State Run Mandate/Regulation, or is not being honest. It is not signal payer -public option in MA. Santorum should not engage in such vivid fraud.
Second, there is nothing more ugly, than to see Santorum continually shake his head in this unattractive manner, be so completely snide and petulant. Rick is now competing with Gingrich on hubris. Besides, Rick is no "saint" when it comes to Conservatism. He is a 17 year old Washington Politician who supported the Prescription Drug offering, Arlen Specter, massive debt ceiling increases, obscene earmarks, and even opposed "Right To Work". He should look in the mirror a little more, before offering such snobbish disdain.
One has to remember, Rick Santorum is more than eager to have Government be involved in contraception - entertaining even Federal level intervention. Rick's smug contempt on stage is very unattractive, knowing he is rather hypocritical He simply does not endear others to his cause with his nature. He may play to some fashionable devotees amongst us, seeking to stick it to someone. But he simply does not have a record of which to support the obtuse self righteous indignation.
Just my two cents, for I still think highly of Mr. Costa...
Ms. Rubin has an interesting read as well:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Gingrich had a perfectly dreadful night, appearing angry and then sheepish, nasty and then defensive. He didn’t have well-prepared defenses on his time with Freddie or strong attacks on Romney’s earnings. He played to type in defending his fantastical idea for a space colony. And he sniped at conservatives who have forward to question whether he was all that close to Reagan, calling it part of an organized effort by Romney. For starters, that’s called a “campaign,” and if he can’t handle Romney he’ll be no match for Obama; Moreover, I’d be surprised if the Romney camp had a hand in every statement and article that criticized him over the last week or so. (They aren’t that good.) Conservatives have had enough of him, and have come forward out of fear he might actually get the nomination. After tonight they have less to fear. Not only did Romney have the best debate of the primary season, but Santorum’s strong showing should bleed votes away from Gingrich as well."
At this point, I'd pull the lever for Santorum, weak spots and all.
Among other things, I've appreciated (a) his calling repeated attention to manufacturing and "blue collar" issues and (b) his consistency in not pandering (too much) to audiences. He just told a Florida audience that, while important, we have to be sensible about allocating money we don't have to large-scale space programs. I admire that.
I'm also very socially conservative, so that draws me to Santo more than it would some others.
Apropos of nothing: I thought his answer about his wife was sweet. As cynical as I am about the whole lot of them, that moment seemed like a genuine expression of pride in the woman he married. Again, apropos of nothing. Doesn't mean he'd be a good president or that the saccharine has any place in determining the vote....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really don't get all these accolades for Santorum. What has he ever achieved in his life to make him a presidential contender? He was a mediocre Senator who lost reelection by a wide margin.
He has zero charisma. In fact he has anti-charisma. Most people just don't like the guy. He seems like he is angry all the time (Romney called him out on it tonight). He speaks through clenched teeth, and is off putting.
What's all this "blue collar" upbringing about too? His parents were government bureaucrats. Psychologists I believe. This guy earned his living most of his life living off the government teet. His parents earned paychecks from the federal government. He went to congress soon after law school. Since he left the senate, he's been making his living lobbying, and bilking Pennsylvania taxpayers of $100,000 for his own personal use as part of some home schooling scheme.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney straight up lied tonight. He said his father was an immigrant and then claimed that he never voted for any democrat when a republican was on a ticket.
Bald faced lies.
1. Did he vote twice in the '88 primary? He was a registered "independent" which by his own admission means he could have voted for any eligible candidate and he claims to have voted for Tsongas. Were there no republicans running that year? Geez...
2. "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."
Maybe that's what we need to beat Obama?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRichbarnet,
You overstate your case.
Mitt didn't say his father was an immigrant. He said his father was born in Mexico.
However, even if he had said his father was an immigrant, he would be correct, since he immigrated from Mexico, whether or not he was a US citizen. By a general definition of immigration, you don't have to change citizenship to immigrate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Rick had some very strong moments though he still suffers from thinking ticked off equals authority/leadership.
The way he was attacking Romneycare had an underlining disgust in the tone, it's a very unattractive quality and isn't presidential. Mitt was quite right to say you don't need to be so angry.
Plus in a previous debate when Santorum was taking a pounding, from Paul I think, about unions Santorum defended his unpopular decision with Republicans that citizens in his state wanted & he was following the notion of representative governing.
Well Mr. Santorum, isn't that what Romney did in his state too? Yes it is.
One more thing,,,,, that Michael Medved pointed out in the last debate...Rick Santorum took shots at Newt & Mitt again in his closing. This is such a cheap shot as they can't give a rebuttal. It's petty on Rick's part.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Santorum should quit dying his hair - he looks too green for the job, not too old for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSheryl makes a lot of great points. I agree with much of what Santorum says and lamented his loss in his last election. I read so many wrap ups that applaud what Santorum says, but most miss or ignore how he says it. Maybe I am focused too much on how it will be perceived by non-conservatives or influenced by my wife's reaction, but Santorum comes across as whiny and angry. Maybe he thinks it is forcefulness and passion that he exudes but that is not how it comes across to me. I think that is one of reasons he hasn't caught on despite holding positions that are much closer to the base than the other candidates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd vote for Santorum. Too bad the Establishment won't accept anyone but Mitt as the nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoth you and John Podheritz and others remarked on Rick's re-introduction of the Romneycare problem but Jay Nordingler seems tone deaf to it. Obamacare used to be one of the drivers of the GOP movement against Obama, not just as an issue in itself, but as a paradigm instance of what is so wrong with Obama's philosophy. But these debates seem to convey the message that Obamacare a la Romneycare shouldn't be a serious issue for the GOP nominee. Santorum strikingly evoked the original view, but the profile is that he will be forgotten on this. What are we to make of this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately for your argument, the so-called Reagan Democrats and Independents that Santorum might attract (very big "if" especially after his reelection drubbing in 2006) would more than be offset by the hordes of libertarian leaning Republican who can not stomach his social conservatism and statist impulses to implement same.
Barring an economic meltdown at election time, a la Obama, he is unelectable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know, I've watched Rick Santorum now. I see this "uncharismatic" meme repeated over and over again and it's contra-factual. People don't like to hear the message, but can't argue against it.
The baby-killers, angry gay lobbyists, "la raza" crows, welfare shills, and religion-bashers hate everything about Rick Santorum but can't debate those issues publicly. So they resort to playground-style insults basically saying "he's a big meanie," and then perpetuate a meme that he's a "hater." Unless he assents to their abortionist/socialist/atheist platforms he's "hating" on them. Repeating contra-factual allegations against Rick Santorum has been en vogue for the angry militant gay lobbyists online for a decade. This is nothing new. They repeat the same garbage over and over.
Keep rocking the vest and speaking truth to power, Rick. The next president has to win the Rust Belt and Middle America, not San Francisco, Chicago, Manhattan, and Boston.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDude,
I *like* Santorum's message on culture. I am decidedly NOT a baby killer, gay lobbyist (angry or otherwise), la raza, a proponent of welfafe, and I am definetely NOT a religion basher.
And I'm telling you, that Santorum has a very unappealing personality -- he is sanctimonius, shrill, self-righteous and generally obnoxious.
And with the passage of time he has become more this way, not less this way.
You can't be this unlikeable and get elected. Ask all those people who pulled the lever for Casey.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse