Santorum Claims Victory in CNN Debate UPDATE: Gingrich Goes Soft?

Posted on | November 22, 2011 | 49 Comments

Press release from Rick Santorum’s campaign:

SANTORUM ISN’T POLITICALLY
CORRECT, HE’S JUST CORRECT

Washington, DC — At this evening’s CNN/Heritage Foundation/AEI Republican National Security Debate, Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) showed he is the one candidate ready and able to answer the 3am phone call to ensure our nation’s security and safety.
Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: “Rick Santorum isn’t politically correct, he’s just correct. Should we be profiling grandma? No, we should profile the people who fit the description of radical Islamic terrorists. Senator Santorum is the one candidate with the experience, knowledge, and the willingness to level with the American people about the threats and challenges facing America.”

SANTORUM SAID:
On Profiling:
“We should be looking to find the bomber, not the bomb. To put the enormous responsibility on the Federal government and TSA is too much. I voted to allow privatization of the TSA. But the issue is the PATRIOT Act, we are at war. The last time we had a threat like this at home, Lincoln ran over civil rights because we had a domestic threat. But I disagree with Governor Huntsman. We have had the debate (on the PATRIOT Act and profiling) and it does show the values of our country.”

On Time Lines For Afghan Withdrawal:
“We are not fighting a tactic (terrorism), we are fighting radical Islam. All the radical Islamists are saying just wait America out — they are weak, they will set time limits and we will tell the people in Afghanistan and Iraq that we will be the strong horse in the region.”

On Foreign Aid To Africa:
“I believe it is essential. Africa was on the brink of chaos, where radical Islamists could take hold. While humanitarian in nature, (the aid) was essential for our national security…. We must promote our values. We are the shining city on the Hill.”

On Compromise:
“If the things you have to give up make the things you are trying to do harder, no. By raising taxes, what the Democrats are trying to do is slow down the economy. You don’t undermine the ability of our economy to grow. This president has poisoned the well. He’s divided group from group to position himself to win this election. I have a long record of bipartisan accomplishment. I point to Welfare Reform. We instituted work requirements, time limits on welfare. Yes, I compromised on some child care, transportation, but we 100% changed the welfare system because we stuck to our principles.”

On Highly Skilled Immigrants:
“As a son of a legal immigrant, I strongly believe in legal immigration because we are the shining city a hill unto the world. A huge percentage of legal immigrants come here want to innovate. That’s one of the reasons I put forward my economic plan to take advantage of legal immigration and encourage innovation. We need to make sure things are made in America. We need to make sure we create an environment to help innovation and create income mobility. That is why I have called for a zeroing out of the corporate tax for manufacturers, regulatory reform, repatriation of foreign profits, and increasing energy exploration to improve income mobility. Greatness has come from (legal) immigrants who have worked hard, created businesses, and created jobs.”

On The Most Under Discussed Foreign Policy Threat:
“I have spent a lot of time concerned with the militant socialists and radical Islamists bonding together in Central and South America… We have sent all the wrong signals to Central and South America. We need to build a solid hemisphere and they need to know we are in solidarity.”

UPDATE: By the way: I don’t know if Santorum won or not. It’s just that his campaign was the first one to send me a press release. I didn’t watch the debate. After the Nov. 12 debate in South Carolina, I’m kind of burnt-out on debates. We don’t get CNN at the house, and I’ve been watching Storage Wars on A&E all night. Anyway, Politico found Santorum’s performance worth a headline:

Rick Santorum says profile Muslim travelers

You may disagree. But are you going to be voting in the Iowa GOP caucuses? Because that’s the bottom line here, isn’t it?

UPDATE II: Daily Caller’s Will Rahn reports:

“We should be trying to find the bomber, not the bomb,” Santorum said when asked by moderator Wolf Blitzer whether the U.S. should use profiling. “Other countries have done it — Israel’s probably the best example. But to put this enormous expense on the federal government, to put this enormous expense on the traveling public for pat-downs and other intrusions — I think it’s too much money.”
Santorum then said that like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, he believes the TSA should be privatized and that Abraham Lincoln proved sometimes civil liberties have to take a back seat to national security.
Steering the conversation back to profiling, Blitzer then asked Santorum who, exactly, he believes security professionals should be on the lookout for.
“Well, the folks who are most likely to be committing these crimes,” he replied. “Obviously Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely. Those are the folks — the radical Muslims have been people committing these crimes by and large, as well as younger males. Not exclusively, but these are the things you profile to find your most likely candidate.”

Again, remember: Iowa GOP caucus voters. Not many ACLU types are going to be showing up Jan. 3. You expect Republicans in Des Moines and Davenport to have a lot of sympathy for Abdul and Omar getting hassled at the airport?

UPDATE III: Allahpundit wonders if Newt can get away with being soft on immigration. Watch the video:

Again: How will it play with Iowa GOP caucus voters? I’m guessing they’re no more sympathetic to Juan and Maria than they are to Abdul and Oma.

Category: CNN, Debates, Election 2012, Rick Santorum

Comments

49 Responses to “Santorum Claims Victory in CNN Debate UPDATE: Gingrich Goes Soft?”

Wintery Knight
November 22nd, 2011 @ 10:55 pm

That was fast. I think he did well tonight, but Bachmann was better.
Anonymous
November 22nd, 2011 @ 11:12 pm

I’m with RSM…these debates no longer have meaning (to me).

I’ve watched like 8 of them so far. Really, I’m going based on their resume….of course they can say whatever they like during a debate, but their resumes are more telling…
Joe
November 22nd, 2011 @ 11:16 pm

I did not watch it. I do want to catch the second episode this year of Walking Dead (I missed that one). Other than that I am good.
ThePaganTemple
November 22nd, 2011 @ 11:28 pm

I thought this might have been the best debate so far. Everybody got a reasonable amount of time, and believe it or not everybody did pretty well, except for Paul and Huntsman. Yes, including Perry, it was probably his best debate, but I doubt it will be enough to undo the damage he’s mainly inflicted on himself. Gingrich seemed somewhat restrained, but he still made good points, though Bachmann called him on his support of the Dream Act. She might have hurt him there. For that and other reasons, I say she won, though Santorum indeed did do very well. Romney was vintage Romney. Cain was all right too. I’ll have to say that Paul’s performance was pretty sad. In order-

Bachmann
Santorum
Perry
Gingrich
Romney
Cain
Huntsman
Paul
Steve in TN
November 22nd, 2011 @ 11:32 pm

I take this post at tacit admission from @rsmccain that Herman Cain’s run is over.
Anonymous
November 22nd, 2011 @ 11:46 pm

We won’t know about whose/whom/whoever’s run is over until after Super Tuesday.
Dcmick
November 23rd, 2011 @ 12:05 am

Don’t expect any upfront acknowledgement that his support for Cain proved itself to be political folly.

He’s apt to try to ignore the whole issue, ————- much like he ignored Alabama going down hard to LSU in a game they should have won.

But at least he’s finally gotten to that point where he understands Cain isn’t remotely equal to the challenge.

That’s progress.
Dcmick
November 23rd, 2011 @ 12:06 am

I don’t know about that.

If Romney prevails in Iowa and follows that up with a strong win in New Hampshire, it’s probably very likely that the race will end right there and then.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 12:10 am

I watched part of the debate.

I missed the part where Gingrich apparently tried to do what Perry already did — i.e. take a sensible position on immigration instead of giving the usual rhetorical blow job to the Know-Nothings.

Since I missed that part, and since the debate was focused on foreign policy, it’s just easiest to say that all I saw was everyone except Ron Paul babbling nonsense.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 12:13 am

Didn’t the GOP switch from a winner take all primary this cycle?

Romney is going to have serious trouble in the South.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 12:14 am

The nets seems to be ablaze with Gingrich’s slick version of “heartless.”
Charles
November 23rd, 2011 @ 12:22 am

If by victory he means beating Rick Perry and Michele Bachman then yes, Rick Santorum won. But losing to everyone else including Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, that’s not victory in my book. On Afghanistan Santorum is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Santorum press release omits his reference to Africa as a “country.” That would be fodder if he weren’t trailing so badly.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 12:35 am

Over the next few days – as Gingrich remains high in the polls – it will become clear that Perry’s “heartless” remark hurt him far less than did his serial cluelessness.
AngelaTC
November 23rd, 2011 @ 12:43 am

If the economy was booming, nobody would care about immigration.

We couldn’t get a sensible immigration policy before Homeland Security existed. There’s no way in hell we’ll get one now.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 12:58 am

OK, I watched the video.

While Gingrich doesn’t go nearly as far as I would (I advocate AT LEAST going back to the US Constitution, which gives the federal government zero, zip, zilch, nada, bupkis power to regulate immigration), it’s a fair start against which anything less is by comparison morally reprobate, mentally retarded, and un-American.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 1:06 am

Does the Constitution actually set up a nation? Because you obviously don’t think so.

The ability to define who is a citizen, and to guarantee territorial integrity, is fundamental.

Since by your own standards you aren’t a US citizen, when’s your flight?
Jim Addison
November 23rd, 2011 @ 1:06 am

No winner take all primaries until after March 6, I believe – PLUS those who moved up (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida) only get half the delegates for the first ballot. So even wins in the first three or four wouldn’t give a candidate an overwhelming lead in delegates.

However, if one candidate gets a roll going, the others are going to find it very difficult to raise money to oppose him or her. The perception of a steamroller with momentum is very powerful.

Maybe it’s an illusion, but an illusion managed over 66 million votes last time around.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 1:09 am

Good explanation, Jim. Thanks!
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 1:11 am

The “heartless” moment killed his campaign. His cluelessness merely gave it a proper burial.
Jim Addison
November 23rd, 2011 @ 1:19 am

Newt didn’t endorse “amnesty for 11 million workers” as Bachmann repeatedly claimed. He argued for legal status for the “subset” of immigrants who had been here for years, paid taxes, obeyed laws, etc. He said those who came recently, lacked ties in the community, or committed crimes should be deported.

I hate to be in the position of defending that jerk, but there is enough to dislike about Gingrich without just making stuff up, isn’t there?

I don’t think “Muslim profiling” would hurt a candidate anywhere, in either party, except for Dearborn, Michigan, Keith X. Mohammed’s district in Minnesota, or other enclaves. It only makes sense. No 92 year old ladies in wheelchairs have tried to bring down an aircraft yet, no 6 year old girl has tried to smuggle a weapon in a cavity yet, why the heck don’t we watch closely for the people who have?

So far, it has been young males, especially from muslim countries, but sure, check all the males under 40 and over 15 to be safe. Leave Grandma alone and send J-Nap on permanent vacation.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 1:20 am

SDN,

I apologize for not being more specific.
The Constitution not only did not enumerate a federal power to regulate immigration, it specifically prohibited such a power for 20 years, AND specifically prohibited any amendment lifting that prohibition for 20 years — and once that 20 years was up, no such amendment was ever thereafter ratified, and for 90 years Congress assiduously avoided claiming any such power, because they knew damn well they didn’t have it.

That changed after an activist Supreme Court created the power out of thin air in 1875; the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first federal immigration regulation other than bills allowing federal port officials to enforce state immigration laws and collect fees/fines or seize assets to cover the costs of doing so.

The matter was debated.

The anti-Federalists, especially John Winthrop, aka “Agrippa,” strangely felt that the one are which the national government should have authority in was protecting the “national character” — specifically the importation of Irish Catholic workers into industrializing Pennsylvania — by regulating immigration.

The Federalists disagreed due to the simple fact that the Constitution would not have been ratified had it included a federal power to regulate immigration. The southern states were afraid it would impinge on their ability to import slaves, and Pennsyvlania’s attitude was “national character be damned” if it held up progress.

The Constitution does enumerate a federal power to regulate naturalization — to define who is a citizen. That’s not immigration.

The Constitutionj also provides for defense of the borders from invasion — armed attack by organized enemies. That’s not immigration either.

The Constitution left the matter of regulating the otherwise peaceful movement of people across borders to the states. Period.

And while I oppose political government, period, I especially oppose political government that kowtows to a bunch of goddamn morons who want to turn the place into a police state and tank the economy because they don’t like espanol.
Jim Addison
November 23rd, 2011 @ 1:33 am

Hey, we have eleven declared candidates and only one nomination to give. There are going to be disappointed supporters of ten candidates, no point in rubbing it in (especially before any votes have been recorded). Whoever wins will need a unified party to beat Obama.

America can’t afford the luxury of Republican divisions this time.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 1:34 am

It was Newt’s “heartless” moment.

He has caused himself serious (but warranted) harm as it relates to the GOP nomination.
metro_con
November 23rd, 2011 @ 2:08 am

Newt doesn’t seem to understand that we don’t have to “split” those families of illegals up. If the family really wants to stay together, they can all return with the illegal alien back to their country of origin.

He’s falling for an entirely toxic and destructive line of logic that the liberals like to use, and it’s stuff like that that keeps from from supporting Newt.

(Expect to see Newt sitting on a couch with McCain any day now…)
metro_con
November 23rd, 2011 @ 2:18 am

“If the economy was booming, nobody would care about immigration.”

Oh, I disagree with that completely.

Illegal aliens have been wrecking every part of the country they’ve invaded. Also, there’s just the general concern that we’re too damn lax with who we let waltz into this country, especially after the terrorist attacks.

Beyond that, I think people have come to understand that illegal aliens drive down wages by under-bidding citizens for employment. That fact wouldn’t change in a good economy, and if anything a booming economy would be more of a magnet for the alien invaders.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 2:26 am

Then that begs a further question: To whom is it the government’s first duty to look after the interests of? Citizens, however you define them, or non-citizens?

We do not, by any stretch of the imagination, have the same economic system that could absorb unlimited immigration as we did when the nation was founded. We haven’t had it for 50+ years.

I submit that it is perfectly legal and moral to refuse to extend the same opportunities and rights to non-citizens as to citizens, until they follow the proper procedures to become citizens.

And that doesn’t change whether they habla Ingles or not.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 3:13 am

Rewatching Newt’s illegal answer and realizing how good he is at using diversionary tactics so you miss what he’s actually saying. For instance, this part of his answer

“Ya know, about 5 blocks down the street you’ll see a statue of Einstein. Einstein came here as an immigrant. So let’s be clear how much the United States has drawn upon the world to be richer, better, and more inclusive.”

Einstein was a LEGAL immigrant!!! We aren’t discussing the “immigrant” side of the equation, we are discussing the “legal/illegal” side! Newt just drew people in with an irrelevant example. And he is doing that constantly and we’re not even catching it
Dave
November 23rd, 2011 @ 3:21 am

You messed that up. It should read “I saw Ron Paul babbling nonsense”, full stop.

FTFY
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 6:23 am

Apparently we owe those “Undocumented German Guest Workers” from the 40’s an apology.
Zilla of the Resistance
November 23rd, 2011 @ 7:25 am

It’s too bad you missed it, Stacy, Herman Cain did surprisingly well for someone who has this topic known as a weak area. I think he & Newt have been working together behind the scenes, because Herman gave some VERY smart (Newtish) answers while Newt watched him encouragingly and Newt brought up THE CHILEAN MODEL for Social Security! I do believe that there is strong chance we’ll see these two on a ticket together, I swear, it does seem as if they are working on answers together behind the scenes. Please get hold of some video and watch it, Stacy, you will see.
ThePaganTemple
November 23rd, 2011 @ 7:39 am

If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he would have no problem winning South Carolina and probably would, and also Florida. At that stage, its over.
ThePaganTemple
November 23rd, 2011 @ 7:41 am

If Roehmer, Karger, and Johnson’s supporters are “disappointed” in anything that happens, somebody needs to do something to snap them back to reality.
ThePaganTemple
November 23rd, 2011 @ 7:43 am

Bullshit. Booger eater Paul just stopped short of sticking a finger up his ass and sniffing it on stage. I never heard such ridiculous nonsense out of anybody’s mouth in quite some time.
Bob Belvedere
November 23rd, 2011 @ 7:48 am

Ass.
Quartermaster
November 23rd, 2011 @ 8:04 am

Invasion does not necesssarily involve arms. What we are seeing in unrestrained illegal immigration is an invasion, pure and simple.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 8:14 am

No, not so much. I have various severe disagreements with Paul, but on foreign policy he’s the only Republican presidential candidate who isn’t, to one degree or another, a lobotomized Trotskyite on mescaline.

And like it or not, the US can no longer afford to throw three quarters of a trillion dollars per year at threats that range from the wholly imaginary on one end to “it’s actually a scurrying cockroach, but let’s pretend it’s a 10-foot grizzly” on the other.
ThePaganTemple
November 23rd, 2011 @ 8:15 am

The problem is, who gets to decide who has been here “long enough”? And how will that be defined? He said twenty-five years, but hell, why not twenty years? Or ten? Five? It’s just an invitation to more obstructionism from immigrant advocacy groups who plainly want you to just ignore the border and let anybody come and go as they. It was the stupidest statement Gingrich ever made in any of the debates, and Bachmann was right to call him on it.

Moreover, his version of the Dream Act went far beyond anything Rick Perry advocated. Perry was merely talking about Texas state policy. Gingrich is advocating making it a national, federal policy. I didn’t have a problem with Perry’s stance, as a general rule, depending on how its run, how its paid for, and who benefits from it, provided its limited to those who are demonstrably eligible based on the criteria of valid educational achievement and good citizenship, and loyalty to their adopted land.

But that’s a far damn cry from implementing it on the national level through the federal government. How are you going to propose something like that and out of the other side of your mouth advocate for small, limited government and federalism. It doesn’t compute, and Bachmann was right on the money. In fact, as bad as she knocked Perry in that earlier debate for his policy (one of the few areas where I disagreed with her) even she specified the difference in the two policies.

Gingrich pretty much colored himself as just another Big Government conservative, which of course is precisely what he is.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 8:17 am

Yeah, because cutting your lawn, slaughtering your poultry, reducing your rate of violent crime and subsidizing your retirement is exactly the same thing as bombing your town, bayoneting your babies, raping your women and decapitating you.

Also, read above — there being no enumerated federal power to regulate immigration, there’s no such thing as “illegal” immigration. “A law repugnant to the Constitution … is void,” as Mr. Marshall wrote.
ThePaganTemple
November 23rd, 2011 @ 8:32 am

You’re just wrong Knapster. The second the ink was dried on any document that delineated any kind of national border, there existed at that precise second an inherent duty and obligation to control that border as an aspect of national and international law. All of the treaties signed between us and Britain, France, Spain, and Mexico from the earliest days would have been unconstitutional otherwise, and it was a given that large numbers of people couldn’t just waltz across the border and take up residence. Some things are so obvious they don’t have to be spelled out, Marshall be damned.
ThePaganTemple
November 23rd, 2011 @ 8:53 am

Yeah, because cutting your lawn, slaughtering your poultry, reducing
your rate of violent crime and subsidizing your retirement is exactly
the same thing as bombing your town, bayoneting your babies, –

raping your
women and decapitating you.

The first has happened here with some frequency, the second is coming to an American border town, and possibly one near you. Or have you just been conveniently ignoring what’s been going on in places like Juarez. So don’t tell me we’re not dealing with an armed invasion. An invading force can be defined as an organized criminal gang as easily as a representative of a foreign power (and by the way there have been credible reports of incursions by the Mexican military), and warrants the appropriate security measures. And then of course there’s the drugs. I don’t use them and I reject the notion that I have to suffer the consequences because others here do, for the same reason I don’t subscribe to the insane notion that we have to constantly put ourselves under the gun because we are a so-called “democracy”. Sorry, we don’t have the right to cede the rights of the minority (and damn sure not the majority) for the sake of “democracy”, to say nothing of the constitutional rights and security of future generations.

Otherwise, if there’s no other way out, I would be fine with calling a constitutional amendment to deal with this issue, and in the meantime suspending the constitution in this regard on the basis of national emergency, which this is getting to the point of becoming.
Anonymous
November 23rd, 2011 @ 9:00 am

TPT,

It’s not just Marshall.

It’s every one of the founding fathers.

It’s every president and every congresscritter from 1787 through 1875.

Even at the height of nativist hysteria in 1830s and 1840s, no one seriously suggested that a federal power to regulate immigration existed — because it didn’t and because they knew damn well it didn’t.

The creation, from thin air, of that power by SCOTUS was the 1875 equivalent of Roe v. Wade, only worse (because the framers didn’t publicly, specifically debate abortion, while they did in fact dispositively debate and settle immigration).

And, in fact, “large numbers of people … just waltz[ed] across the border and took up residence” with no restrictions whatsoever until 1882, and very few restrictions until the mid-20th century.

While I may not agree with it, I can respect an anti-immigration position that starts with “hey, we should regulate immigration … anyone want to propose a constitutional amendment that will allow us to do that?” Anything else is just big-government “living document” horseshit.
richard mcenroe
November 23rd, 2011 @ 10:13 am

Knappster thinks it was sensible. Gingrich is therefore wrong.
Edward Royce
November 23rd, 2011 @ 10:34 am

So Newt is in favor of amnesty?

Considering that something similar pretty much torpedoed Rick Perry’s run in one single night you’d think anybody with any brains would be smart enough to leave that one alone.
Edward Royce
November 23rd, 2011 @ 10:35 am

Oh for the love of God!

Evidently, depending on what I signed onto, I’m listed as 5 different people here in the comments. What a mess.
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Santorum says aloud (what I think we’re doing anyway) » Datechguy's Blog
November 23rd, 2011 @ 11:31 am

[…] is a certain inherent power to saying the truth out loud and Stacy McCain noted that the target audience for that answer is not likely watching MSNBC this morning, nor caring if Politico has its knickers in a […]
Steve in TN
November 23rd, 2011 @ 11:36 am

Bless your heart.
Tennwriter
November 23rd, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

Well said Metrocon. Knappster is a libertarian, so he’s an illegal immigrant to reality. 🙂
BULLETIN: Earthquake Hits Vanuatu as Santorum Vows on National TV: ‘We’re Going to Surprise a Lot of People’ in Iowa : The Other McCain
December 1st, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

[…] ]]>/*]]>*/ RECENTLY:Dec. 1: Santorum Heading to N.H. FridayNov. 22: Santorum Claims Victory in CNN Debate UPDATE: Gingrich Goes Soft?Nov. 16: Good Question, TinaNov. 12: RICK SANTORUM AFTER DEBATEOct. 11: Ouch: Former ‘Americans […]
Santorum Praised by Sarah Palin on Fox; Endorsed by Key Iowa Evangelical Pastor : The Other McCain
December 2nd, 2011 @ 11:46 am

[…] Going to Surprise a Lot of People’ in IowaDec. 1: Santorum Heading to N.H. FridayNov. 22: Santorum Claims Victory in CNN Debate UPDATE: Gingrich Goes Soft?Nov. 16: Good Question, TinaNov. 12: RICK SANTORUM AFTER DEBATEOct. 11: Ouch: Former ‘Americans […]