The Not-Romney Express Continues With an Attempt at a "Santorum Surge"
Rick Santorum, that vintage mid-aught candidate, that would-be star of Jesus Camp, might be having his moment. Or at least, says Salon, his poll numbers in Iowa are no longer in the single-digit stagnant state that they have been since the former Senator from Pennsylvania threw his moralizing self into the GOP primary ring.
Salon's Steve Kornacki offers the following tentative bullet points on some reason for optimism in camp-Santorum —remember, it's not a surge, it's a "surge watch." As we all know, the GOP is dying for someone who isn't Mitt Romney and whether their flirtations with just about every Not Romney contender who is also not Buddy Roemer, Gary Johnson, or Jon Huntsman are just flirtations or something serious remains to be seen. But Newt Gingrich's poll numbers are falling after peaking and the Evangelical Iowa vote is hot and Santorum has picked up some of their endorsements recently.
So lists Kornacki:
- A parade of influential Iowa evangelical leaders has stepped forward to support him. In 2008, 60 percent of GOP caucus-goers identified themselves as evangelical Christians. That number may have been inflated by the Christian right's enthusiasm for Mike Huckabee, a Baptist preacher, but religious conservatives still hold disproportionate sway in the caucuses — and many of their leaders have been particularly eager to unite behind an alternative to Romney. With his extramarital baggage, Gingrich was apparently too much for them, and with time running out before the January 3 caucuses, some big names are turning to Santorum. Over the weekend, Albert Calaway, a retired pastor who heads a group called Truth, Values, and Leadership endorsed Santorum and offered harsh critiques of his opponents. On Tuesday, Bob Vander Plaats, perhaps the single most influential evangelical leader in the state, added his support, as did Chuck Hurley, a key Vander Plaats ally. Several other leaders with influence among Iowa's Christian right have also come out for Santorum recently.
- Finally, some good polling news: A PPP survey released late Sunday night showed Santorum at 10 percent in Iowa, his first time in double-digits in the state. Bachmann and Perry were tied with him. The leader was Ron Paul with 23 percent, followed by Romney at 20 and a fading Gingrich at 14.
- Democrats are taking note, with one of the leading Obama-aligned Super PACs, American Bridge, suddenly deciding to assign a video tracker to follow Santorum around. The group's spokesman told ABC News that they made the move after sensing momentum for Santorum.
- It's probably too much to call this a surge, since Santorum's numbers really aren't moving nationally or in any other early state. And there's even a chance the PPP result is a mirage, with a new survey from the (less reputable) Insider Advantage giving him just three percent in the state.
Well, here's to the sudden credibility of Insider Advantage over PPP. Santorum may sound less offensive than in earlier years when asked about that whole gay people exist issue, though his definition of "equal rights" for gay people leaves something to be desired.
He actually got a 100 percent rating on free trade from Cato's Institute for Free Trade Policy way back in 2002, and he's made the near-enlightened point that "like Blitzkrieg, terror is a tactic" (except that just means the U.S. is in a War on Islam, not Terror) but he's still fighting the last war on social issues. Even his excitement about homeschooling cannot warm my cold, cold heart since he also really wants to sanction, sanction and possibly bomb, Iran.
So yes here's to its continuation of the meme of Santorum not being worth taking seriously, and to the "Santorum surge" being more of a fluke than all the rest of the candidate's moments in the sun, including that pizza fellow's. What's his name.
Reason on Santorum, including a beautifully immature in spots candidate profile to remind yourself why you have been ignoring the man these last few months (and years).
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Given the popular definition of "santorum" going around these days, the idea of a "Santorum surge" is both sickening and hilarious.
Santorum kept rising and falling on the polls. Now Santorum is surging, albeit somewhat murkily, but pulling out of the rear.
"...butt but pulling out of the rear."
Is it ironic that Santorum supports trickle down economics?
^^WINNER
I checked Wikipedia to find how the foul "santorum" joke started. Some gay columnist got people to seed the internet with these insults to get hits from Google searches.
It would be as if santorum supporters used Google to associate "Ron Paul" with a Photoshopped picture of Paul fellating the President of Iran. That would be nasty and foul, and you'd be criticizing it - rightly so, of course.
And Michelle Malkin would be making snarky remarks about "now that the term 'Ron Paul' is associated with a hilarious picture, etc."
And why does the gay-rights crowd choose to focus on the most disgusting aspects of gay sex - are they trying to attract popular sympathy? I don't think so - they're trying to threaten people - "we can do this to a U.S. Senator who dared to question our program - imagine what we could do to a schlub like you if you get out of line!"
That's why many citizens wait until they're safely in the voting booth before expressing their views on gay rights. At that time, perhaps they will recall those aspects of gay sex that the activists themselves choose to showcase.
Santorum essentially said that gays are no different from pedophiles and beastophiles. Dan Savage held a contest for his readers to come up with a meaning for the word "santorum" and this was the definition that won.
Yes, it's immature, but so is Santorum's name calling, fallaciousness and bigotry. He gets no sympathy from me, and richly deserves this fate.
Savage wants people to think about the disgusting byproducts of sodomy. I don't know if even Fred Phelps sunk to that level - if he did, he would be rightly denounced.
There's no way this will increase sympathy or support for gay marriage (the actual target of Santorum's remarks). It might intimidate people not to oppose it in public, but as it happens, voting is by secret ballot.
If Savage's campaign succeeds, then voters could think, "gays...oh, yes, they're the people who produce that disgusting byproduct with the sex practices...better not support SSM!"
How on earth is bestiality more gross than the stuff Dan Savage proudly publicized? I think that Savage unwittingly reinforced a link between these two things.
Never Forget.
http://reason.com/blog/2006/11.....mmy-and-sw
Seriously, Lucy. Nobody at this blog can be accused of ignoring Santorum for years. We're still discussing his defeat from the last election.
First of all, the post is funnier if you guys are more coy about it. Second of all, you were not being accused, but rather complimented.
Good lord, Lucy, you've been hanging out around here for how long now, and you expect anybody here to be coy? We routinely make jokes about human fecal consumption and rape, for the love of pete.
Fer rilla. Jim here is the paragon of rapier wit at H&R, and he's as subtle as a dumptruck full of wet hammers.
Seriously; I shouldn't even be allowed near a computer, and I'm one of the better ones. That's fucked up.
whatever. The GOP is going to nominate Romney. Paul may very well win IA and will be strong in a couple of other states, but he will not launch a third-party bid for one reason, his son.
Rand has a pretty good future ahead of him and the doc splitting the Repub vote ensures that the party bosses will take it out on Rand. As to Santorum, every empirical measure for the past year and a half has shown that voters have little appetite for a moralist in chief.
Who on earth thinks Romney can win the general election?
Nobody. ROMNIAC vs Obama = Obama.
I didn't say that; I said the party is going to nominate Romney. Some might consider his losing the general the worse of the two potential outcomes.
To see how Romney's Mormon faith would affect him in the White House, go to mittromneycult.blogspot.com
For all the attention the Newsletters[tm] get, you'd think someone would bring up the racist not-so-distant past of the Mormon church. As in, recent enough history to be when Romney was an adult, card-carrying, underwear-donning member.
Not-so-distant past? I had a (more progressive) mormon friend, who invited me to a cookout, and there was some discussion of interracial dating - and someone said, "oh but that's okay, it's one of the tribes we like".
Which was really awkward because there was a black mormon person there. I think she was adopted. And her name was "ebony".
Ewww,santorum's surging?! I don't want to hear about surges of the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.
http://blog.spreadingsantorum.com/
Thank God! I was afraid we might have go through the entire election season without being able to make frothy lube jokes.
Man on dog! Man on dog!
Everybody's latched on to the fecal/semen aspect of the Santorum myth. What about the fact that this guy brought a dead baby into his home and then slept with it? Much more potential there, I say.
Just goes to show you that Americans are nothing but a bunch of violent sexually repressed mother lovin' fecalphiliacs.
Don't confuse backwash with an actual surge. They've just run out of NotRomneys and it's Sanitarium's turn at bat.
And THIS is what we are supposed to make common cause with within the Stupid Party? It is enough to make me want to give the liberaltarian alliance another go.
The correct answer is `neither`.
Well these guys seem to know what the deal is. Wow.
http://www.real-web-privacy.tk
Santorum is an idiot.
With regard to the author's claim that the U.S. is in a "war on Islam" - put down the bong for a second.
In understand that in the drug-addled world of hippie-ism, reality is seen as a distant but threatening thing that should be kept out of the protest teepee. However, this claim that the U.S. or anybody else is at war with Islam is so utterly stupid that it requires an intrusion by real-life into the tie-dye fantasy land.
Q: A 97-year old veteran in full VFW regalia and rolling in a wheelchair approaches a security screening point in an airport around the same time as a vaguely-Middle Eastern-looking man wearing a taqiya and muttering to himself. Which one gets the full-blown TSA treatment?
Q: What kind of person did Janet Incompetano's DHS say we should be on the look-out for as possible terrorists:
a. Virulently anti-American flight school students from Saudi Arabia
b. Virulently anti-American sons of Nigerian bankers with bombs in their shorts
c. Angry "right-wing" veterans with "anti-government" views
Q: What was the religion of the hijackers on 9/11/2001? What was the religion of the men who decapitated Daniel Pearl? What was the religion of the men who decapitated Nick Berg? What was the religion of the folks who built and emplaced the truck bomb in the parking garage of the WTC in 1993? What was the religion of the folks who set off bombs at the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya? The Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? The Marine Barracks in Lebanon? What sort of folks threw Mr. Klinghoffer off a ship in the Mediterranean in his wheel chair to drown? Those guys who beat a Navy diver to death and threw his body out on the tarmac...were they Presbyterians?
The U.S. is at war with al Qaida and those groups and individuals that affiliate themselves with al Qaida. Al Qaida professes to commit their violent acts as part of their Salafist Islamic faith. The U.S. did not label it such - it is AL QAIDA that claims it.
And by the way, it ain't just Americans that are at war against Islamists. Everyday there are plenty of MUSLIMS around the world who get out of bed to go to work fighting against the same murderers.
When it comes to foreign policy, everybody in San Francisco just do the adults a favor
AND
SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP.
You're all over the place, man.
Here's something for your hippy hating war-boner.
This has to be the stupidest fucking post I've ever read. Sorry, the ALL CAPS SPACED OUT does not make you look cool, you simply look like the histrionic 8th grader you either are or have the thought process of.
It is not Reason that is initially claiming we are at war with Islam. It is the folks on YOUR side of the fence that promote this nonstop. I'm talking about the Pam Geller/Ann Barnhardt set. These are not dope smoking liberals you fucking halfwit. These are conservatives who are framing our foreign policy in this manner. It is YOUR side of the fence that insists that all muslims be kicked out of the US military, not ours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
(I would draw your attention to about 00:30)
You need to get a fucking clue.
Wal-Mart sells 16 different brands of santorum cleaning aids.
16 brands of gay-rights, same-sex marriage cleaning AIDS.