The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Good Question, Tina

Posted on | November 16, 2011 | 95 Comments

Three of Rick Santorum’s children outside the Ames Straw Poll, Aug. 13, 2011

“Rick Santorum is seemingly so impossibly behind in the polls that it’s difficult to think he’s running for president for his own ego or because he’s particularly power hungry. In fact, what praise Santorum receives is always praise of the same ilk: He fills his niche well, speaking eloquently and evenly about social and foreign policy issues that desperately need to be addressed but threaten to be overlooked in this economy-dominated cycle. Why doesn’t that score him more points with voters supposedly sick of politicians who care more about themselves than they do about the issues?”
— Tina Korbe, Hot Air

One of my beefs about the “Second look at Gingrich” trip is that it is being promoted by people who never gave Rick Santorum a first look. If you’re scouting around for your next favorite Not Romney candidate, certainly Santorum is more plausible than Newt. (Today’s headline: “Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million by Freddie Mac.”)

Santorum’s brand of conservatism may not be your particular cup of tea, but there is no denying that he is a man of firm principle, untainted by even the slightest hint of corruption or scandal. Neither can it be denied that Santorum has campaigned tirelessly despite all discouragement. He has held events in all 99 counties in Iowa and you might think that some of Herman Cain’s critics — who have slagged him for his alleged neglect of Iowa — would give Santorum credit for his relentless campaigning in the Hawkeye State.

But no: The bandwagon-jumpers, who have flitted around from one Republican candidate to another, always want to jump onto a bandwagon they think can win, and so the media’s pre-emptive judgment that Santorum is not a contender becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s a matter of perception and reality, and that Saturday in August when I caught up with Santorum at a barn party in Roland, Iowa, stands out in my memory for the contrast between the perception of Santorum’s campaign and the reality.

When a candidate is bumping along in single digits in the polls, there is the tendency to think he’s got no support at all. Yet there was Santorum in a barn in the middle of a cornfield, surrounded by dozens of ordinary Iowans who were enthusiastically devoted to his candidacy, and telling them confidently that he was going to shock the world by winning the Iowa caucuses and going on from their to win the Republican nomination and then defeating Obama.

It was a classic Iowa moment and, despite everything, I cannot even now — with just 48 days remaining until the Jan. 3 caucuses — rule out the possibility that Santorum’s “Little Engine That Could” campaign might indeed succeed. Stranger things have happened in this weird year, and once the bandwagon-jumpers realize that the Newt Bubble is foredoomed to failure (see Maetenloch’s post at the generally pro-Newt AOSHQ for a few hints) I wonder if Santorum might finally get that first look he has been so long denied.

Iowa blogger Shane Vander Hart has endorsed Santorum, and his list of reasons for supporting Santorum begins with this:

He is a man of integrity. What you see is what you get. There hasn’t been any doublespeak. He doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet. He doesn’t flip flop. He’s a strong family man. If you spend any time around him it is quite evident that he loves his wife Karen and their seven children. He has strong character, and is faithful both to his family and God.

It is fashionable among pundits nowadays to derogate social conservatism as a spent force in GOP politics, but if the Christian Right has any remaining clout, surely it has clout in Iowa, and Santorum’s family-friendly campaign — his wife and kids traveling with him to every event — has a built-in appeal.

While I’m not sure that Shane Van Hart’s influence will set off a herd stampede toward Santorum, I am reminded of something that Joe Albrecht, spokesman for Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, said to me in August: “Iowans . . . recognize the value of hard work.” They expect candidates to work for their votes, and no candidate has worked Iowa as hard as Santorum has.

Nothing else but hard work can explain how Santorum over-performed in the Ames Straw Poll, where he finished a strong fourth and, as he pointed out in our post-event interview, was massively outspent by all three candidates who placed ahead of him.

Santorum’s strong finish at Ames should have given his campaign a boost, but was overshadowed by (a) Rick Perry’s Phantom Menace, and (b) Tim Pawlenty quitting the next day. Looking back now, three months later, it is supremely ironic to see Gingrich (who got just 385 votes at Ames) in the four-way Iowa front-runner scrum, with Perry fifth (7%) while Santorum is seventh (3%) and continues to be low-rated as a non-contender by all the pundits.

There’s something definitely wrong with that picture and it seems to me that anyone who thinks Santorum will be a non-factor in Iowa is likely to be very surprised come Jan. 3.

UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein says, “Yet again, we’ve been played” — although I hope he doesn’t include me in that “we,” as I’ve been fighting the Conventional Wisdom for the past year. And quite frankly, I think it’s time to start casting a skeptical eye at Fox News coverage of the campaign, because they’ve been pushing their own sort of Conventional Wisdom that’s not quite the same as the MSM’s version, but still quite influential.

Linked by Nice Deb and the Spartanburg Tea Party blog, as well as by Da Tech Guy who says I gave Lisa Graas “the best birthday present ever.” Lisa’s response to that on Twitter caused me to accuse her of sexual harassment.

Not like that’s a bad thing, you understand . . .

UPDATE II: Massive Memeorandum thread on Gingrich’s Freddie Mac deal, and Iowa reporter Kay Henderson provides audio and a transcript of Newt’s exchange with reporters this morning:

Bloomberg’s John McCormick: “Bipartisan commissions have sort of found that ‘influentials’ were sometimes put on Fannie & Freddie just to have them friendly. Is this is a case of that?
Gingrich: “I have no idea…I was approached to give strategic advice. I was glad to offer strategic advice and we did it for a number of companies and Gingrich Group was very successful.”
McCormick: Do you think you were sort of being bought to just be there and be a friendly voice?”
Gingrich: “No, I don’t think that anymore than your institution is being bought by the people who advertise in it.”

The New York Time’s Trip Gabriel: “Do you recall any of the strategic advice you did give?…Expanding housing for low-income Hispanic communities, for example?”
Gingrich: “Well, first of all, if you can do it in a way that is financially sound, every American should be interested in expanding housing opportunities for people whether they’re African American, or Latino or of any background so the idea that you’re thinking about how can we help people learn how to budget, how can we help people learn how to save, how could you help them learn how to maintain a house on a low income would strike me, for more people, would be good things to do, not bad things to do and I’m happy to say I made public speeches to the National Association of Home Builders. I’m in favor of the largest possible home ownership. This is all public knowledge. I’m in favor of doing the right kind of things and you can go talk to Rick Lazio about the support I gave him as speaker on housing reform which he pushed through despite opposition of some of the people like Barney Frank and others, so I think the record there is one of I’m pretty consistent and frankly, I tend to give the same strategic advice in private I give in public.”

….AP’s Tom Beaumont: “Does this remind you that your background comes from being a Washington insider?”
Gingrich: “It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington and if you want to change Washington, we just tried four years of amateur ignorance and it didn’t work very well, so having somebody who knows Washington might be a really good thing.”

Yeah. Good luck with that argument.


Category: Election 2012, Iowa, Rick Santorum

Comments

95 Responses to “Good Question, Tina”

  1. DaveO
    November 16th, 2011 @ 9:32 am

    The Right’s blogosphere is split into 2 camps: win at any cost vs  conservatives. For all of the mature, reasonable-seeming advocates of winning at any cost, the lessons of history are lost. The devolution of society as every contest becomes ever more bloody turns to constant warfare (such as we see in Wisconsin), eventually leading to another, outside force taking over. We don’t have Huns knocking at our door, but the PRC is there.

    For those win-at-any-costers, Santorum can’t win. He’s a man of principle in a race known for lacking any principle but winning, as they see life. IMO, Santorum is wasted talent in the WH. 

    Santorum may get picked up either as SecDef or SecState with his credentials. Our “Smart Power” and other failings in the realm of diplomacy, policy, and use of intelligence suggests we need as strong a leader at the helm at State as we do in the WH. Santorum, as a man of principal, may be the right man at the right moment in history.

  2. smitty
    November 16th, 2011 @ 9:41 am

    That’s an interesting slant. Where I think Mitt and Newt unite is that they are made men in the Ruling Class mafia.
    Rick S. has some insight into the sausage making, but has kept a firmer grip on his soul. *cough*Arlen Specter?*cough*
    Santorum is a fine candidate as far as I can tell, but will he sign in blood on the pigskin to be the December flavor of the month with the propaganda media?

  3. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 9:47 am

    There’s only one issue that comes to mind where I agree with social conservatives as far as what the government should do: abortion.  And frankly, that issue pales against general fiscal issues or limited government issues or foreign policy.

    Emphasis on social conservatism in a large way by a candidate is, frankly, a turn off.  It’s often just statism dressed up a little differently than the standard Progressive party line.

  4. Rob Crawford
    November 16th, 2011 @ 9:47 am

    “surrounded by dozens of ordinary Iowans who were enthusiastically devoted to his candidacy”

    Dozens? Really?

  5. Joe
    November 16th, 2011 @ 9:48 am

    untainted by even the slightest hint of corruption or scandal

    What was it that made Santorum support Arlen “Golum” Spector? 

    That said, I would actually like to see Santorum shake up Mitt, Cain, Paul and Perry in Iowa. 

  6. Josh Painter
    November 16th, 2011 @ 9:49 am

    Santorum’s problem is that he’s running as a social conservative in an election cycle when voters are overwhelmingly concerned about pocketbook issues, federal government spending and the national debt. Santorum even frames economic issues in a social context. That may resonate with many Catholics and evangelicals in the Iowa primary, but it won’t win over the independents a Republican candidate will need to prevail over Obama in the general election.

    I like Santorum. He’s one of the good guys. But why all the scorn for Gingrich over his Scozzifaza endorsement and very little of it for Santorum endorsing Specter over Toomey in PA? Both Newt and Rick have admitted that their respective endorsements were mistakes. Is only Santorum allowed to make them?

  7. Spartanburg Tea Party » TheOtherMcCain on Second Looks re: Santorum
    November 16th, 2011 @ 9:50 am

    […] There will be a lot written in the coming weeks about “second looks”. I have a post that I’m mulling. Here is Robert Stacy McCain, one of my fav bloggers with a Second Look at Santorum post. […]

  8. Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Stacy McCain gives Lisa Graas the best birthday present ever… » Datechguy's Blog
    November 16th, 2011 @ 9:53 am

    […] Datechguy | November 16th, 2011 This post on Rick Santorum: Santorum’s brand of conservatism may not be your particular cup of tea, but there is no denying […]

  9. Steve in TN
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:04 am

    @rsmccain We want the most electable conservative. Santorum has yet to show he is electable.

  10. Brian O'Connor
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:06 am

    Rick Santorum cannot even win in his home state of Pennsylvania.

    Everything you ever wanted to know about him can be summed up in one endorsement: Santorum sided with George W. Bush and backed Arlen Specter rather than the conservative choice, Pat Toomey.

    Brian O’Connor
    Pittsburgh, PA

  11. Joe
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:13 am

    A Bloombergian tyranny is not my idea of progress–which to various degrees is where some social conservatives are going.   Social conservatives raise good points, but they should lead by persuasion not coercison. 

    Government should be smaller and more local.  The less federal oversight the better. 

  12. Joe
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:14 am

    Santorum said he endorsed Gollum Specter because the GOP told him to do so.  Or some other lame excuse like that. 

  13. Joe
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:14 am

    When you lose your own state as an incumbnant by almost 20 points–it is generally a bad sign. 

  14. Steve in TN
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:16 am

    Sez he is a TEAM player. Sometimes the team leaders are wrong, and one can point it out, but when it comes time to execute one supports the team.

  15. Squeek71
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:18 am

    Josh, Newt not only endorsed Dede, but he insulted conservatives as well in defending his endorsement (until he had to retract his endorsement due to Dede endorsing the dem).   Also Santorum’s record is far more conservative than Newt’s, so people trust him more to follow through and not go all squishy.  Newt talks the talk well, but he often has not walked the walk.  I am tired of being ignored or misled the by the GOP.  I want someone that I don’t have to  hold my nose to vote for.  It doesn’t look like I will get that, once again.  I am reaching a point where I am almost done with politics.  There is no point in continuing to fight, when the establishment and the MSM always win.   

  16. Tennwriter
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:20 am

    So you’re in favor of open borders? Raising taxes to redistribute wealth? Crony capitalism?Feminism?

    Social Conservative equals Conservative.  Each of those issues has a strong moral component and the evil-doers have either an amoral stance, or an incorrect morality.

    And,while people don’t like Nazi Germany for its military expansionism, the real horror was the concentration camps.  Same with us…the loss of liberty, and the lack of Constitutionality, and the crushing debt load are bad, very bad indeed, but the true horror is our worship of Moloch.

    The problem with the ‘turn off’ is two-fold. First, turning to the socons means admitting most of modernity is mistaken in large parts.  Second, there is the whole ‘erm, hello, omnipotent and completely just Deity’ face to face meeting that all humans dislike/are fearful of in their hearts.

    But in order to fix our nation we need God and radical change. Each of us needs that meeting.

  17. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:26 am

    You’ve redefined Social Conservative.  And “modernity.”  Including anything with a moral component in “Social Conservatism” makes discussion using the term pretty meaningless.

  18. Garym
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:26 am

     I don’t see anyone in the field that I can get behind, so at this point it is anyone but Romney. Newt will do, but with the latest headline, he’s got some ‘splainen to do.

  19. Tennwriter
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:27 am

    From what little I know Gingrich did it freely and agressively of his own free will.  Santorum was, as RSM said, ‘made to walk the plank’ and take one for the team.

    Can’t trust a pure fiscon, like the governator, to remain firm on money.  Plus, social lib policies destroy society thus leading to fiscally lib policies to pick things up from the wreckage.

    A hardcore fiscon should pragmatically support socon policies as the best way to get fiscon policies.

  20. Republicanmother
    November 16th, 2011 @ 10:46 am

    Rick S. has some big bank money behind him, which is why I don’t trust him. That also explains why he thinks its so American Exceptional-like to have a base in every country around the world, they(big banks) do profit handsomely from it.

    Others have pointed out that Pat Toomey still has the knife sticking out of his back.

    And when it came to Ames, I do believe (c) RP kicked Ricky’s tushie quite soundly. As Jon Stewart so blithely put it “Santorum lost to the guy (Pawlenty) who lost so bad he dropped out. “

  21. American Abroad
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:11 am

    Steve, here’s the question.  What presidential candidate has won the White House without winning his own home state? 

  22. Newt Says Gingrich/Cain or Cain/Gingrich Ticket “A Real Possibility” « Nice Deb
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:13 am

    […] out, with exception of Ron Paul, who Yid With Lid tells me, really is an anti-Semite. Like RS McCain, I like Rick Santorum and wish he were doing better in the polls, as I stated not too long ago, here. […]

  23. Instead of a second look at Gingrich, why not a first look at Santorum?
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:15 am

    […] Stacy McCain and Tina Korbe raise the […]

  24. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:17 am

    Josh, Sarah Palin isn’t a social conservative?  He’s not “running as a social conservative”. He’s talking about all the issues across the board and it just so happens that he doesn’t give lip service to ANY issue. He has a solid position on everything from abortion and gay marriage to ending entitlements to returning programs back to the states, fighting terror, etc. It’s because he is a strong leader on ALL issues while other candidates pay lip service to everything but the economy that he is perceived that way. If we can’t recognize an across-the-board conservative anymore, then the GOP deserves to lose.

  25. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:20 am

    Everyone claims he should have supported Toomey, but Toomey supported Sotomayor. Do we not know there are three branches of government? For the Specter endorsement we got Roberts and Alito on the Court, which would not have happened otherwise. Further, because of those appointments, Specter lost the election. WIN/WIN, PEOPLE! Toomey subsequently endorsed Santorum saying it was the easiest decision he had ever made, and Toomey subsequently supported Sotomayor. This Specter criticism is a load of crap.

  26. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:22 am

    But Santorum is for limited government. He wants to return programs to the states like he did with the Welfare Reform Act, the only time in history a federal entitlement was ended. Where do people get this idea that he’s not a fiscal conservative because he’s a social conservative? Ever heard of Ronald Reagan??

  27. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:23 am

    27% of voters are Catholic and we finally have the bishops in our corner on the “gay marriage” issue. Nine of the last ten presidents were elected with 50% or more of the Catholic vote. No candidate can win without the Catholic vote and if the GOP nominee isn’t strong on life and marriage, you can kiss your dreams of a GOP win goodbye.

  28. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:25 am

    Um…no. Read what I commented above about the Specter endorsement.

  29. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:26 am

    A GOP nominee who isn’t strong on life and marriage is unelectable. See comment above re: Catholic vote.

  30. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:27 am

    No Republican won that year, and Pennsylvania is a very bluish-purple state anyway. It’s a miracle he ever won to begin with and to win re-election, too, while never compromising on his principles? That’s the leadership we need to beat Obama.

  31. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:27 am

    Yes, and I generally like Santorum.

    I think you’re reading too much into my comment.  People cannot generally be boxed into a simple label like Social Conservative, but different aspects of a candidate can be emphasized by the candidate or his supporters.

    There are also temperament issues, and I think Santorum is losing on this front.  In the debates, at least, he almost always comes across as angry, which is not good politics.  And the debates is where most people (at least outside of Iowa) see him.

  32. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:28 am

    When you compromise your principles as a conservative just to win in a blue state it’s a bad sign. When you win election after election as a conservative in a bluish purple state, and then lose in a year when ALL the Republicans lost…it’s not a bad sign.

  33. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:29 am

    Was it a blue state or a red state? And was the candidate a conservative or a liberal? Context.

  34. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:30 am

    Oh, my. What a load o’ hooey. Big bank money? Not hardly!! 

    See above re: Toomey and Sotomayor….and then pull your knife out of Santorum’s back.

  35. Tennwriter
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:31 am

    Redefined socon to match reality, I did.  Those who want socon to equal just getting rid of no-fault divorce, gay marriage, and abortion do a disservice (often deliberate) and an inaccuracy.

    Your typical socon is about 85% Libertarian so there is no need for a Libertarian wing of the R party, except for the most doctrinaire (six year olds should be allowed to carry guns….and yes, for a long time L. Neill Smith was The SF writer for Libertarians.)  Your typical socon is Jacksonian in nat’l defense, and a solid supporter of the military so there is no need for a Hawk wing of the GOP either.  A soconner is a conservative.

    Including anything with a large component of morality puts the lie to those who claim moral issues are the problem.

    So the question is: Do you support conservatism?

    And so very much of modernity is created by or polluted with the Left.

  36. Lisa Graas
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:32 am

    I don’t see him as being “angry”. I see him as being unafraid to call other candidates out for taking positions that aren’t conservative…..same as Sarah Palin does. Also, it’s not his fault that he’s always asked (ALWAYS) the social conservative question first by the media. They do this on purpose and then claim it’s all he talks about. 

  37. Steve in TN
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:33 am

    See my electability comment above. But, that said, if Santorum caught some unbelievable wave to surge to the nomination, I’d have no problem supporting and voting for him as POTUS.

  38. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:34 am

    If that’s how you want to define it, then fine.  But don’t fool yourself, and don’t expect other people to know what’s in your head when you say, “Social Conservative.”

  39. Joe
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:36 am

    Toomey was wrong, but of course his endorsement was not worth a lot and was a self serving one trying to appeal to moderates in Pennsylvania.  Santorum did not vote because he lost his seat by almost 20 points. 

    I am not sure Roberts and Alito got on the court solely due to a deal between the GOP, Santorum and Specter.  But I do like Roberts and Altio being there. 

  40. Joe
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:41 am

    Do you talk with fellow Catholics.  They are hardly overwehlminging anti gay marriage.  They do tend to be pro life. 

    I am not suggesting the GOP should back off a reversal of Roe pro life platform.  I am suggesting other issues, including gay marriage, should be left to the states.  We should be promoting a federalist position on most social issues.  Less Feds, more local control.  You want to know why Santorum is not getting support?  Because even among Republicans (with the exception of pro life) his positions are just not that important or popular. 

  41. Joe
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:42 am

    Santorum comes across poorly.  Fair or unfair, that is why he lost so bad as an incumbant. 

  42. Joe
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:46 am

    He won in 94, won in 2000, and lost in 2008 by 19 points.  Yes 2008 was a bad year, but 19 points is really bad.  It was not even close. 

  43. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 11:56 am

    I’m kind of ambivalent about Santorum.  But your statements about his loss do not include some very significant facts.  Pennsylvania flipped from Red(ish) to Blue during Santorum’s time in the Senate. Also, Santorum lost to the son of a VERY popular figure in PA politics.  So it’s not all on Santorum for that loss.

    His problem is in management of the issues he discusses.  He continually lets himself get pegged as the kind of old-school, fire and brimstone right winger who wants to do terrible things to gays and abortion doctors (or something).  I think he speaks what is on the minds of a huge number of people, but he shouldn’t LEAD with that stuff.

    The Reagan style is the way to go.  Nobody seems to use it.  I don’t understand why.

  44. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

    The Santorum and Bachmann kinds of candidates (and Ron Paul!!!) can’t break through until the Republicans get a better “debate” format.  The current one is designed to protect the “machine” candidate, period.

    Unless Rick really does well in Iowa, I can’t see him gaining momentum.  The good news is, he’s working hard in Iowa. The bad news is people like Ann Coulter.

  45. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

    When did the Republicans get to the point of joining in the chorus of booos against bankers and Wall Street?

  46. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 12:25 pm

    You will find very few saints from the Caligula period of Republican rule.

  47. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 12:33 pm

    Interesting, do you claim W as a socon? as a conservative? if he was a socon does that make him a conservative?

  48. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 12:37 pm

    Santorum comes across as “angry” that is an objective fact.

  49. Andrew Patrick
    November 16th, 2011 @ 12:38 pm

    Good on him, says I. I wish him well. If he comes out of Iowa viable, I’m prepared to take a look at him.

    But honestly, I don’t know many independents he can win.

  50. Anonymous
    November 16th, 2011 @ 12:48 pm

    Given Wall Street’s overwhelmingly disproportionate support for the SDs, booos and rotten fruit if not rocks are in order.

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin