Santorum was like a top attorney completely shredding a hostile witness during cross-examination. He made mincemeat of Romney here. I disagree with Santorum about letting felons who have served all parole and probation and met all other requirements get their votes back without a strict review board (something he proposed only for federal elections, under federal law), but it is at least a logically defensible, and compassionate, position. It is fully consonant, too, with Judeo-Christian notions about the possibility of (various levels of) redemption. The bigger point, though, is that in terms of the exchange, Romney came off looking like he was at least somewhat associated with a dishonest ad and like he was either to the left of Santorum (Massachusetts’ law doesn’t even require felons to finish probation and parole) or completely ineffective as governor of Massachusetts. Moreover, he for once came across as the “weaker” (in the alpha male sense) of two candidates going head to head. Moreover, I think this exchange once again made Santorum, not Gingrich, the main challenger electorally to Romney, because it was such a memorable back-and-forth.

Normal.dotm

0

0

1

168

960

National Review

8

1

1178

12.0

0

false

18 pt

18 pt

0

0

false

false

false

/* Style Definitions */

table.MsoNormalTable

{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;

mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;

mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;

mso-style-noshow:yes;

mso-style-parent:””;

mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;

mso-para-margin:0in;

mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;

mso-pagination:widow-orphan;

font-size:12.0pt;

font-family:”Times New Roman”;

mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;

mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;

mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;

mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;

mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;

mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}