Santorum outshines the field
Ed Morrissey,
conservative blogger and activist: “Rick Santorum is the last consistent conservative standing, and the only one both promoting the conservative agenda and campaigning as a conservative in the race. . . . Santorum has demonstrated a level of personal integrity in this race that outshines the rest of the field. Santorum has campaigned with blue-collar Reagan Democrats in mind, pushing for an economic plan that would revitalize manufacturing and small business. He could easily have tipped over into classwarfare populism while Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney bashed each other over their work at Bain and Freddie Mac in order to ingratiate himself with that sector by playing on latent envy. Instead, he defended capitalism and both of his competitors on the campaign trail more effectively than either could defend themselves.”
Kimberley A. Strassel,
in The Wall Street Journal: “It is one thing to argue that the federal government has no right to force religious affiliates to pay for contraception; or to say that courts should not impose gay marriage; or to criticize policies that are biased against stay-at-home moms. All those statements appeal to basic liberty and are winners for the GOP. It is quite another for Santorum to rail that contraception is ‘harmful’ to women; to wax on about the ‘emotions’ surrounding women on the front lines; to graphically inform the nation about his ‘problem with homosexual acts.’ . . . Those statements are rooted in a fervent moral view, one that many general-election voters will fear Santorum wants to impose on them.”
National Review,
in an editorial: “Santorum has been conducting himself rather impressively in his moments of triumph and avoiding characteristic temptations. He is doing his best to keep the press from dismissing him as merely a ‘social- issues candidate.’ His recent remark that losing his Senate seat in 2006 taught him the importance of humility suggests an appealing selfawareness. And he has rightly identified the declining stability of middle-class families as a threat to the American experiment, even if his proposed solutions are poorly designed. But sensible policies, important as they are, are not the immediate challenge for his candidacy. Proving he can run a national campaign is.”
Maureen Dowd,
in The New York Times: “I’ve spent a career watching candidates deny that they would do things that they went on to do as president, and watching presidents let their personal beliefs, desires and insecurities shape policy decisions. Mullah Rick is casting doubt on issues of women’s health and safety that were settled a long time ago. We’re supposed to believe that if he got more power he’d drop his crusade? . . . He seems to have decided that electoral gold lies in the ruthless exploitation of social and cultural wedge issues. Unlike the Bushes, he has no middle man to pander to prejudices; he turns the knife himself. Why is it that Republicans don’t want government involved when it comes to the economy (opposing the auto bailouts) but do want government involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives?
Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine:
“To be elected president, you have to do more than tear down your opponents. You have to give the American people a reason to vote for you — a reason to hope — a reason to believe that under your leadership, America will be better. Rick Santorum has done that. Sadly, Governor Romney has not. For some time now, it has been clear to me that Rick Santorum should be the Republican nominee for president. To be frank, I've had some sleepless nights. I could not, in good conscience, be on record endorsing Governor Romney when I knew in my heart that Rick Santorum was the better candidate.”