« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Would Rick Santorum Know a Tea Party if he saw it?

By: Ben Domenech (Diary)  |  November 11th, 2010 at 03:02 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

From the diaries.

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets with Brad Jackson and Anne Sorock, I mentioned witnessing a conversation with Rick Santorum yesterday, without realizing it had been written up in Politico and at CNN. Essentially, Santorum was arguing that outlier 2012 candidates like himself and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson were “true Tea Party candidates”, which he describes as follows:

“There isn’t a single candidate running for president who can claim to be a Tea Party candidate,” Santorum told Politico. “That’s by definition. The people involved in the movement weren’t involved in politics, and were only activated by what they saw in Washington.”

Santorum and Johnson no longer hold elected office, a fact Santorum said qualifies them as possible Tea Party candidates.

“I qualify,” Santorum said. “I was out, content to be out, but now I feel compelled to come back.”

Does Rick Santorum have any clue what the Tea Party movement stands for? Is he being purposefully obtuse here? Doesn’t he realize that the big government solutions he advocated for in his book are exactly the reason so many Tea Partiers today don’t call themselves Republicans any more? Certainly, Santorum was a crusader for social conservatives during his time in office, and since leaving office has become a more prominent spokesman on foreign policy — but he was never categorized as someone with robust views on the size or scope of government. As Jonathan Rauch wrote in his book review of the Senator’s It Takes a Family, “[Santorum's] first priority is to make government pro-family, not to make it small.”

Whatever Santorum is as a candidate for the 2012 nomination (besides laughable), he is not and will never be a “Tea Party candidate” by any definition but his own. While he and other candidates may long to adapt the Tea Party label to their own political comebacks, the truth is that the Tea Party exists mainly as a rejection of a permissive attitude toward massive government spending and “compassionate” programs by people who loved playing the statesman role in the GOP over the past decade. And Tea Partiers know it.

One final note: as Dan McLaughlin noted on his Twitter feed, it’s funny to consider all this in the context of Santorum’s decision just six years ago to refuse to endorse Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Today Toomey is a Senator, and Santorum is just a scalp on Tim Gill’s wall.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • SIConservative

    It was his own reelection.

  • GT350

    I can’t speak about Rick Santorum from experience, but I do know that Gary Johnson is a goofball who should not be taken seriously.

    I lived in NM when Johnson was governor. At best he was a good-times governor, it’s easy to run a state in the ’90′s when the tax money was rolling in (and Intel was expanding local production, helping to boom the local economy). He did nothing to allay the corruption that festered up more noticeably during Richardson’s tenure. He was a moderate Republican in a purple state. Tea partier he is not.

    He has some really toxic ideas about legalizing drugs. Not just pot, mind you, but everything up to heroin. He sees it as a victimless crime. Coming from a state where substance abuse and drunk driving is a serious day-to-day social problem, I think he’s delusional that he’d be taken seriously. .

    • C.S. McCoy

      I don’t live in NM and did not follow Johnson when he was governor, but everything I’ve read about him suggests he’s a full-blown libertarian. If libertarian falls into the “moderate” category then I guess he’s a moderate. However, I’ve always been under the impression that he’s about as staunch a supporter of limited government and as strong a fiscal conservative as anyone. The term moderate reeks of someone like Olympia Snowe, whose views/votes differ substantially from Johnson’s.

      That said, his foreign policy views and stance on drugs are a bit out there, and will almost certainly make a run at the Republican nomination awfully difficult for him, especially if Ron Paul makes another run at it.

      • calgacus

        I agree w/ how Rick Santorum opposed Pat Toomey in 2004. How can he possibly call himself a Tea Party candidates? Arlen Specter was the worst Republican in the Senate. As for Gary Johnson, (a) un-electable (b) open borders on immigration (c) he isn’t just for legalizing drugs, I’m pretty sure that he is on them (d) he would almost certainly draw a 3rd party candidate that would take votes away.

    • Finrod

      In case you hadn’t heard, Portugal decriminalized pretty much all drugs back in 2000, and that country has yet to fall into the abyss that anti-drug crusaders constantly say will happen.

      In fact, I’d go so far as to say that federal anti-drug laws are fatally incompatible with the Tenth Amendment. If states have the authority to make drugs illegal, then by the Tenth, the federal government does not have that authority. It took the Eighteenth Amendment to ban alcohol, it shouldn’t take anything less to ban other drugs.

      My problem with him is his naive foreign policy views. Libertarians (with a capital L) never seem to realize that supporting liberty shouldn’t end at our own borders; if we didn’t know it before, then 9/11 should have ended that notion once and for all.

  • Adjoran

    If the utter Epic Fail of the Obama Administration teaches us anything, it is that it is disastrous to put someone without strong executive experience in the world’s top job, running the largest operation in human history (the US government).

    Governors, generals, CEOs, even big-city mayors have a leg up on the job, although no one is truly qualified for it until they prove it.

    There is no need to demonize the guy – except in the de rigueur demonizing of anyone without 100% approval from the purists which now seems required – to say he isn’t qualified.

    Of course, the idea of Santorum as a “Tea Party” guy is about as ridiculous as SC Lt. Governor Andre Bauer – the guy behind the scurrilous attacks on Nikki Haley – saying “I was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.”

  • maddog

    I see the guy and his family every Sunday in church. Heck, his kids are alter servers. This is not in Pennsylvania.

    • JadedByPolitics

      proximity then either of us probably knew, because I know where that is and I would answer that he is not a resident of PA any longer :)

  • C. Marie

    in Red State? It seems we pontificate like arm chair quarterbacks who analyze yesterday’s big game.

    I continue to stand for former Senator Rick Santorum and red conservative. There are many other pro-life politicians, yes. But Rick Santorum had the guts to move heaven and earth for the pre-born. There are stories– not from him– but from couples who did not abort their children because of his words. That saving work affirms this man’s honor more than any other misstep he may have made.

    • powertothepeople

      is not eating our own, it is called vetting. While I would agree many go to far and start trashing instead of vetting, it is not all nor most.

      We do need to be a little more careful on our take of a person as things we say may come back to bite us. If the person wins for our side and goes up against the left, we need to make sure we do not give them ammo. But at the same time, we need to be diligent in making sure the persons past, character, and leanings are discussed so that we can put up only the best for our side.

      Rick has some good points, but he also has some glaring weak points. We must examine all he is in order to make an informed and good choice about who may lead us all.

      By the way, since we are the bosses of all politicians, using an analogy like arm chair QB’s does not fit. We are the boss, we vote them in, we would be derelict in our duties if we did not look back at places we failed, at places we did well in, and where we need to go in the future. That is simply being a good boss and a caring citizen, not a couch side QB.

  • Superheater

    As a lifelong Pennsylvanian originally from the ?greater Scranton area? (home of the Caseys) who gleefully watched Santorum dispatch Harris Wofford to political ignominy in 1994 while sitting in a Scranton area bar, I was infuriated by his propping up snarlin? Arlen in 2004, I find this thread bothomewhat fascinating and disturbing.

    First, let me concede Santorum screwed up by supporting Specter (has anybody every thought that now, as a Democrat with no middle initial, Arlen could follow the example of Harry Truman an adopt ?s? as his middle initial?). Santorum could have taken a much less visible position or deferred to the will of the electorate. Instead, he squandered his political capital on a man who proved that straddling the fence is simply the fast way to political emasculation. So I grant you, Rick screwed up, and screwed up royally.

    That having been said, a lot of people on our side screwed up. President Bush screwed up royally in many ways-and supported Specter as well. Despite this, he is being welcomed on every media outlet. Even Pat Toomey supported the post 9/11 airline bailout (that?s not conservative, free market or Tea Party, sorry) when a Congressman, something I vehemently disagreed with, but I voted for him earlier this month and contributed to his campaign, because I don?t expect perfection.

    Quite frankly, its not nearly as much as a disqualifier as say, Romneycare is, at least to me.

    I?m not interested in being manipulated by that part of the right that would just like the pro-life, pro-marriage Republicans to GO AWAY. I find Jonathan? Rauch?s comment about family vs. small government to typify the narrative that would disenfranchise social conservatives as inauthentic or impure. Whether or not he?s part of either group, he?s clearly sipping from the country-club or libertarian KOOL-AID.

    As for Santorum as a presidential candidate, when I read his missives from the EPPC on Jihadistan, I see somewhat who properly understands that preemptive capitulation isn?t diplomacy, its cowardice. Whatever his status as a ?beltway? guy, I?m pretty sure he wouldn?t be bowing before other heads-of-state if he were the next Senator elected President.

    I?m not interested in having Santorum swing from the gallows for the political crime of supporting Specter, but in any future quest for public office, especially the Presidency, I?d like to hear what he?s learned from having gone ?all in? for an individual that had no core, no loyalty and whose indispensability was proven to be false twice. How would this affect and inform his selection of cabinet officials for example?

    As frustrated as I was with Rick in 2004, lets be blunt: His loss was OUR LOSS. Had he prevailed in 2006, there would likely have been no Obamacare. Let?s examine Rick?s successor: ?Where?s Bobby? Casey, Jr., recruited and wholly owned by Chuck Shumer.

    He sought national significance by being an early supporter of Barack Obama and has been a reliable vote with the Northeast radicals. Now the most visible thing he?s doing is encouraging women to get mammograms. Facing election again in 2012, he?ll have to try to regain the moderate Democrat label he tossed into the wind when it was blowing strongly leftward.

    Nobody will every accuse him of being a ?luminous? intellect and his sole claims his present office are rather uninspiring.

    First, he?s the son of the late PA governor best known for giving Pennsylvanians a ?pizza tax? and a ?union shop? in state government employment. Politics is the family business. (His brother sought the PA-10 Congressional seat before losing a couple of times and giving up). The Caseys fancy themselves as the Kennedys of Scranton, Pennsylvania, although as soon as they can, they head for Harrisburg or Washington-because they are people whose pedigree compels them to careers in ?public service?.

    Second, ?Bobby? served as Pennsylvania Auditor General with as little distinction as he?s serving with in the U.S. Senate. AG was clearly a step on the gubernatorial ladder until that ambition was derailed by Ed Rendell. Third, polls indicated that some Democrats thought he WAS his father, despite the elder Casey?s death several years earlier.

    Yeah, Rick screwed up by supporting AS, but the people that stayed home in 2006 because of that have even worse instincts because they gave us ?Bobby?. Similarly, should it come to pass that 2012 gives us Santorum vs. Obama-what will be your choice?

    Burn this in you brain: a Republican, any Republican, unless he or she clubs a baby seal on live television, is better than Obama. He’s always been dangerous, only before it was because he was taken seriously. Now he’s headed for the same part of presidential history as Carter-and we can’t afford that today.

    • BA Cyclone

      I can’t say I am personally excited about Santorum as a candidate, but my personal ranking has him higher than several in the conventional-wisdom field of candidates.

      I think he is a “we can do better, we can do a lot worse” sort of conservative.

      At the end of the day I think we need to be careful not to end up with “another McCain” as our nominee; that is probably why it can appear we are “eating our own” at times in this 2012 debate.

      Ffirst and foremost the POTUS nominee MUST be strong and bold on cutting the federal government. That person needs to not just be a spending-cutter but a department-cutter; it must be sold to the public as cutting the role of government in our everyday lives.

      The person that can boldly articulate that message and show some considerable spine in selling that on the stump should be the nominee. I hope there is one in the field.

  • Scope

    nothing else needs to be said about him. He isn’t a serious contender by anyone’s standards.

  • eburke

    his embrace of Arlen Specter at a critical time in that campaign disabused my of any notion that he was anything other than the consumate insider with no real political compass, his protestations not withstanding.

    The only thing worse than those in our party who stand against the principles of our party are those who feign to be our friends while in reality being just another establishment, elitist insider.

    As a result, Rick is even underneath Huckleberry for me, and considering that Mikey’s not even *on* my list…..

  • audax

    …under the bus when he was substituting for Bill Bennett the Friday before the election. He talked about how Mooocowski had it won because Joe had screwed up by using government computers to (take a poll). he showed he wasn’t a serious contender because he didn’t come out iin full throated support of the REPUBLICAN NOMINEE, that would be JOE MILLER, and ask that every Alaska voter VOTE for the REPUBLICAN NOMINEE, that would be JOE MILLER. He could have discussed in detail how MOOOOOcowski and her family have profited from sweetheart land deals, using government earmarks to build roads to said property and increase it’s value, ad nauseum….but NO, he just couldn’t bring himself to do it! He did to Joe Miller what he did to Pat Toomey 6 years ago. If he had come out for Toomey over Specter 6 years ago, Pat would have been running for re-election to his second term instead of his first.

    Santorums ONLY redeeming grace is his pro-life position…and there are plenty of other candidates who support the pro-life position. Good riddance Rick Santorum! Just be “content to be out” and stay OUT! Don’t embarrass yourself by being “compelled to come back”, you wont make it far!

  • chihank

    Back in 2005, I supported the notion of a Santorum for President. Then Santorum got trounced by Casey in 2006.

    If Santorum wanted to be a political player again, then he should have ran for Senate this year.

  • jomo2009

    Once he gets one percent of the vote in Iowa and three percent in New Hampshire, he’ll be gone and, most definitely, forgotten.

  • acat

    You’re exactly right, Chihank – if he wanted back in the game, he should have gotten back in the game.

    Not necessarily Senator, though – Governor would have been better… any bets on whether he knew Corbett would clean his clock?

    (perhaps we owe ol’ Rick a thank you .. he could have Tancredo’d…)

    Mew

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    Santorum had a tough challenger in Casey as Casey really was a great candidate for PA, but if you cannot win in your own state, or step up when the time comes, you’ve got no place running for President. Same goes for Giuliani and Pataki. In a year when NY could have used some GOP heavyweights, they could at least have netted a more positive result for some of the narrow down ballot races. Santorum may have a political future, but it should start in PA, not in a misguided run for 2012 nomination.

  • victrola

    When you lose a statewide election by nearly 20 points, you’re dead weight.

    Pennsylvania is a swing state, and he had PLENTY of money for that election. He also was up against a complete moron with Casey. Absolutely no excuses (and he endorsed Arlen Specter over Toomey)

    A Republican has to show me they can WIN before we even start this conversation.

  • roguebeaver

    The Tea Party movement is based on principles of fiscal responsibiity. So for a man primarily known for being a social conservative who happens to be a fiscal conservative (reminiscent of Huck) to claim to be something he isn’t is absurd. As jomo said, he’s a white-noise candidate unworthy of serious attention.

    Regarding Gary Johnson: he’s the new Ron Paul, but with more orthodox views on finance and a good fiscal record. Like Paul he’ll keep on running into his dotage.

  • Adjoran

    We need people with executive experience – governors, generals, CEOs – who know how to administer a large operation.

    Senators are mainly buffoons.

  • Tbone

    ?I qualify,? Santorum said. ?I was out, content to be out, but now I feel compelled to come back.?

    His “war chest” would look like Palin’s shoe allowance.

    Plus, he is not as smart, has less experience and isn’t as good looking.

    Next!

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …maybe, maybe not.

    His boat/dinghy may very well have sailed, but that he is or is not at the foot of the cross of small government is a big deal to him, if that is indeed the case. He must avow it. And it is to me too, for I too am a former sinner myself. Being redeemed is a big deal to me.

    Be charitable, Children. Look before you leap.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    And Congressmen better than CEOs. Both are more in tune with the people and the political world with some know how of how to get things done. A CEO’s first foray into public service should not be as POTUS.

  • acat

    Yes, Santorum may, in fact, be sincere. I don’t know his heart, being a mere mortal, but .. saying “I’m a Tea Partier” no more makes him one than saying “I’m a triceratops” makes me one.

    Mew

  • http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com Adrienne Royer

    This was added to the story and changes it.

    Clarification: This article originally quoted Santorum as saying former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is another presidential aspirant who could be considered a tea party candidate. Santorum now says he misspoke and meant to say Ron Johnson, the senator-elect from Wisconsin.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44952.html#ixzz151N1S5NG

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    I’ve heard him speak, and he seems sincere. He certainly is pro-family, which is a major plus. I don’t think we need to kick him to the curb on that score. If being for small government means you can’t be pro-family, then count me out. But the truth is the two beliefs are not mutually exclusive and can complement each other very well. In the end, being for small government is being pro-family because it enhances the freedom, dignity, and property rights families need to thrive. Once he develops that part of his public persona (in an elected office from PA), then he can resurrect himself.

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    Senator Johnson is a great statesman, but ultimately a novice. Someone with less than a full term in the Senate should not be running for President unless they’ve got a lot more going on that qualifies him. Johnson’s definitely not going to run for President in 2012.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • JSobieski

    nt

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    And only governors who used to be CEO’s. Not monster corp either. How about 500 employees.

    Congressmen, more in tune with the people, without a clue about economic realities, got us here.

    Here ain’t good.

  • cej

    Hmm… How about a 2 term governor of a democratic state, a self made millionaire in construction, and the absolute BEST fiscal record of any Republican in the mix. A man who vetoed 700+ pieces of legislation over 8 years.

    This man’s name is Gary Johnson. Get in on the ground floor – he’s building something, so to speak :)

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    I don’t want to get into handicapping individuals yet.
    Instead let’s draw a picture of the right kinds of people, not only for President but also for Congress, Senate, Governorships, Legislators, etc.

    Like a police sketch artist. Then we look for suspects.

    Rather than lock on to Gary Johnson this early, let’s find five Johnsons*, and put them in the arena.

    *Even though we are talking about politicians, no “Johnson” pun was intended.