Here’s what we know about Rick Santorum: He wears sweater vests, at least when members of the media first noticed him. He surged. He’s a social conservative—very against abortion, very against gay marriage (which turned a college audience in New Hampshire very against him). You don’t want to Google him. And he can be prickly and long-winded, as noted in this story (among many others) from The Washington Post’s Rosalind S. Helderman: “Rick Santorum talks to voters in New Hampshire—and talks and talks and talks”.
In an era of carefully scripted and scheduled campaign stops, Santorum’s town halls are marathons — 90 minutes or more of long discursive history lessons. Interested in Ronald Reagan’s reform of Social Security in 1983? Rick will tell you about it. He has plenty of thoughts about the Islamic significance of the town where Iran is thought to be building a nuclear facility, too. And, of course, he talks about presidential term limits in Honduras.
But for a man that talks and talks and talks, we know relatively little about the substance of what he talks about. The only things we learn about Santorum’s policy positions in Helderman’s article, for example, we learn by chance—given in descriptions meant to illustrate what a windbag he is.
“Anyone know what life expectancy was when Social Security was started?” he often asks. “Anyone?” as audience members call out guesses.
“Sixty-one!” he replies, going on to explain why he believes the retirement age should be raised from 66 now that people are living to 80. Few make for the doors before he finishes.
Later in the article, there is a passing reference to Santorum’s opposition to gay marriage. And that’s it.
It’s nice to get some of this color from the campaign trail, but given that most of the country is just starting to pay attention to Santorum, Helderman could have summarized all that talk in more illuminating fashion.
Helderman is hardly alone: on Friday, in reading the past week of reporting about the recently relevant candidate, it’s been almost entirely color or horserace coverage—with few points made about what Rick Santorum actually stands for and what he’d do as president.
Instead, there have been lots of stories alerting us to the fact that Santorum must prepare for the national spotlight and greater scrutiny.
Take for example, this story, “Spotlight shines on Santorum rough edges and all” by New York Times’s Michael Shear, which discusses the perils the candidate faces with his new prominence:
As he tries to quickly build on his success in Iowa, Mr. Santorum is displaying the spunk that kept him going for months despite hardly a mention by the national press corps. But he is also displaying the rough edges and lack of polish that go along with a presidential campaign that was for months conducted largely out of the public eye.
Until now.
A dozen television news cameras were lined up at the Rotary Club meeting in Manchester at the crack of dawn, waiting for Mr. Santorum to arrive. Reporters swarmed him a couple hours later at his first town hall meeting. And there were so many cameras and reporters at the Tilt’n Diner in Tilton that he could hardly move through the aisles to shake hands.
All the new-found attention is forcing Mr. Santorum to perform under intense pressure, with only five days left before voters in New Hampshire will help decide the fate of his presidential campaign. This weekend, Mr. Santorum will have two more debate appearances. And his lectern is likely to be dead center, a reward of sorts for coming in second by a ridiculously close margin in the Iowa caucuses.

Every since Massachusetts became the first state to allow Gay couples to legally marry, hundreds of thousands of Gay couples across the United States have either legally married or had their civil unions or domestic partnerships officially registered. But Rick Santorum has expressly stated that those legal contracts will be officially made “null and void” under his administration. He has made it clear that he wants ONE law to define marriage in the United States, a law that will leave Gay couples with NO legal benefits and protections. That make the prospect of a Santorum administration an intensely personal issue for Gay Americans.
I'm sure Rick Santorum would prefer to focus on the economy during this campaign, but the fact remains that a Santorum Presidency would not bode well for Gay Americans. He needs to be held accountable for that.
#1 Posted by Chuck Anziulewicz, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 10:54 AM
Santorum versus liberty: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-v-limited-government/
Santorum, enemy of individual freedom: http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/06/the-dreamy-thing-about-rick-santorum-is
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 03:54 PM
Santorum's record of "betrayal": http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5Aohgrn1peA
Santorum's nephew endorses a real conservative: http://www.dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/the-trouble-with-my-uncle-rick-santorum/
"Santorum in NOT a Conservative": youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RTqIIoDALeA
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 04:01 PM
"Catholics won't warm up to Santorum's pro-war mindset": http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/catholics-wont-warm-up-to-santorums-warmongering.html
"A Catholic's Case for Ron Paul": http://www.altcatholicah.com/altcatol/a/b/spa/4383/
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 04:09 PM
> Dan A
I hope you don't start clogging up CJR with Ron Paul based crud. Ron Paul supporters tend to be nutcases. Please go elsewhere.
#5 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 10:42 PM
---Putting to one side our latest,
CFR capstone fronting 'Republican'
race ---
IS everyone noticing, as the Globalist
RED China sellout and TREASON OP finishes
off ----BOTH the 60th Anniverary of the
KOREAN WAR ---AND! the 200th Anniversary
of the DEFEAT of another Globalist police state power grab ---Napoleon's 1812
DEFEAT in Russia are being 'overlooked'.
AS Globalism, TREASON and EUGENICS unfold
all around us, BOTH are astoundingly relevant.
NOT GOOD
'overlooked'. . .
#6 Posted by Anon Ymus, CJR on Sun 8 Jan 2012 at 01:42 AM
1) In a field populated almost entirely by extremists of one stripe or another, Santorum is perhaps the most extreme. It's probably difficult for reporters to cover Santorum's medieval stances on social/sexual issues or complete corporate whoredom during his K Street Project days without appearing to be taking sides against him.
2) Although it would be fun to see an utterly corrupt, bigoted and not all that bright guy setting Obama up not only to be the first incumbent to win reelection with unemployment running above 8% but to do so in a landslide, Santorum has no shot whatever at taking the GOP nomination. If reporters spent a lot of time on the issues, they couldn't keep the horserace going even for the additional few weeks for which they can milk Santorum.
The guy reminds me of John Randolph's description of Edward Livingston: "He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight." Except Santorum's splendid abilities are limited to his capacity for corruption.
#7 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Sun 8 Jan 2012 at 01:45 PM
Rumpledforeskin wrote: "I hope you don't start clogging up CJR with Ron Paul based crud. Ron Paul supporters tend to be nutcases. Please go elsewhere."
Care to honestly dispute my information?
Didn't think so.
Calling dissidents "nutcases" is the m.o. of authoritarian regimes and other assorted losers, frauds, and tyrants. You must be an Obama supporter.
#8 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 9 Jan 2012 at 09:03 PM
@Dan A, "nut case" was gratuitous but "clutter" was to the point. And the tactic of attempting to marginalize people by calling them names-- "losers" and frauds," for instance-- isn't confined to supporters of a single candidate.
#9 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 11:13 AM
Weldon, have you chosen to take the side of the slanderer simply because my damning reply to him implicates you in some meaningful way?
Uh huh.
The CJR author mourns the lack of critical Santorum coverage, so I provide many links to said coverage. For doing so, I am likened to a "nutcase" for my "crud." I contribute to the topic yet am scorned by two busybodies who themselves add NOTHING on-topic to the discussion.
But I'm sure you'll convince yourself that there must be something you can honestly dispute with me. *smh*
#10 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 13 Jan 2012 at 08:37 PM