Not that I want to make a habit of going against Dave Mustaine, but I just can’t quite get excited about Rick Santorum. Don’t get me wrong… I’ll vote for him as often as I can (:-) ) to get Obama out of office if he becomes the GOP candidate — and gladly. I’ve always been skeptical that a guy who lost his last election (running for US Senator from PA) by 18 points — the political equivalent of the Bears beating the Redskins 73-0. Byron York does a great hjob of delving into Santorum’s defeat and what it might mean for a Santorum presidential campaign should he defeat Romney. From The Washington Examiner:
All that hurt Santorum. But there was one more thing that hurt him as well, and that was what might be called the Rick Santorum issue. In the Senate as well as in his home state, Santorum often struck people as arrogant and headstrong, preachy and judgmental. Even today, he believes what he believes strongly and can sometimes become so involved in an argument that he seems focused more on winning the argument than reaching some sort of useful agreement. Throughout his career Santorum has always maintained that his forthrightness means everyone always knows where he stands. Sometimes that means people know they don’t like him.
With all the other factors going against him, the personality factor helped sink Santorum in 2006. Yes, it was a bad year for Republicans, but Santorum’s 18-point loss was larger than any other GOP senator. It was more than just a defeat; it was a personal repudiation. In private conversations with friends, Santorum is said to understand that he sometimes came on too strong for the voters’ comfort. It’s something Santorum still struggles with; he can still be argumentative, still be determined to win a dispute he probably shouldn’t be having in the first place.
So Santorum’s defeat was a complicated affair. He can blame a lot of different factors, but in the end he was most responsible for his own fate. Now, if Santorum’s presidential campaign continues to gain popularity, he’ll likely have to discuss the ’06 defeat more. The Romney campaign will continue to point to it as proof that Santorum can’t win the White House. Voters might believe that, too, unless Santorum can show them that he learned from his loss, and that he is a better candidate for it.
I’m sure I agree with Santorum on most things and as I said, if he wins the nomination I will be all out for him against Obama. I’m still leery of his electability and personality has a lot to do with that. Stiff and cold isn’t the best either of course. Anyway… it will be interesting to see how this plays out. York also draws some comparisons with Romney’s 2006 MA campaign so go read the whole thing.
“I’m sure I agree with Santorum on most things…”
I doubt it Floyd, unless you’re into socialism, gun control, and cronyism.
He’s a gun grabber? I knew he was a “compassionate conservative” i.e. big gov’t type — didn’t know he was with Chris Christie on guns. I haven’t taken a serious look yet since our primary is a ways away and I didn’t think he’d make it this far quite honestly.
If you want to check out his record, here’s a big chunk of it: http://commentarama.blogspot.com/2012/01/real-rick-santorum.html
On guns he did the following:
? Rick voted for the ban on “assault weapons.”
? Rick voted to make it illegal to sell guns without a secure storage or safety device.
? Rick voted to fund anti-gun education programs in schools.
But that’s just the tip with this guy. If he called himself a Democrats, conservatives would be all over him.
If it was “just the tip” he wouldn’t need birth control at all.
Cyue Outlaw Archer video in 3, 2, 1…
Floyd wants to make birth control illegal in all 50 states?!
Hey man we had a Reformation for that… I don’t need a Nanny or a Priest in Chief.
What about the other seven?
I’d vote for a 2×4 with a smiley face on it over Obama but if I have to push the button for Santorum I’ll probably dry heave a bit. We need a 4 party system…badly (one to split the GOP vote and one to split the Dem vote). The GOP clearly doesn’t understand the concept of putting your best candidates forward.
“I’d vote for a 2×4 with a smiley face on it” Isn’t the 2×4 already running? http://reason.com/assets/mc/mriggs/MittRomneyProfilePic.jpg
Snap!
Alfred E. Romney
Mitt Romney — the Pat Paulsen of the GOP.
I agree with the need for more parties. As in Europe, causes like the environment and religion should be relegated to their own parties so candidates don’t have to do ridiculous flips and twists to incorporate those themes into their candidacies.
The only reason he is still in it because people aren’t sold on Romney and Santorum is one of the only alternate choices left. If any of the others had stayed in it longer, they would be doing better now as well.
The way his last Senate campaign ended up left a fairly bad taste in my mouth.
I wonder how much (if any) of Santorum’s rise is a “Beck bounce?”
Good question, does Glenn Beck wield that much influence?
I’m wondering if there’s a birth control bounce… Obama’s war on the church may motivate his fellow Catholics (some anyway) to get out and vote.
Oh, that was huge and I don’t see President Obama smoothing that over prior to November. For the non-Catholics out there, 99+% of Catholics attend churches were politics are never discussed. That letter was nearly unprecedented in most of our lifetimes and it was a major wake-up call. He has awoken a sleeping giant.
But, the Republicans are so gosh awful at communicating a coherent, positive message we still might lose the Presidency (and the Senate and House) this fall!
Pedal to the metal, Nancy!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pelosi-catholic-church-should-directly-pay-free-birth-control-pills_629923.html
Think Obama’s looking for that roll of duct tape, right about now.
How long have you hated women and wanted to deny them essential health services, Kenn?
You know, I’d be looking for that right in the Constitution, if I could just make it past this part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
I forget my history… how many women ratified that document?
Misogynist!
I don’t know – back then a lot of men wore wigs and frilly little outfits – it was kinda hard to tell.
Surprised Beck would still be for Santorum – given his gun rights record.
He thinks his Israeli and middle east views are the most realistic.
Remember Tim Pawlenty?Folded up like like a house of cards
I’m not sure about Santorum, but, according to http://www.issues2000.org/Rick_Santorum.htm ;
he has Lifetime A+ rating with the NRA; despite trigger lock vote. (Jan 2012)
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
How dare you besmirch this place with your lousy facts and original sources!
Sorry….not sure what I was thinking. I’ll try to find something from Media Matters to counter these “facts”.
Thanks for the link. He is a good guy, not perfect. I’m not sure why conservatives are all up in knots about him, just look at that record. The one thing, which I had already mentioned, that riles people up was his support of Alan Specter. Was it bad? Yes. Was it unforgivable considering his long record, uh no.