Respecting the Question: How Does Your Candidate Rate?

One of the marginalizing comments often made about Santorum is that he’s not exciting. Such an assessment comes only from those who haven’t seen see his Iowa victory speech, or any of his 20 minute policy speeches which stir up deep passions in the hearts and moistens the eyes of patriots.

Such a blasé assessment from Santorum critics reflects an expectation of rabble rousing soundbytes when a candidate answers a question. We heard some in the last debate. When Ron Paul was asked if he were responsible for the racist comments in the newsletter edited by him, he converted the question into red meat comments about liberty and the constitution. Perry likewise converted his questions into a launching pad for his pre-rehearsed debate points. Newt is particularly astute in overthrowing questions, and does so with good humor, prompting the notion that he is a great debater. Huntsman was cool and awesome by answering in Chinese.

Romney was brilliant in side stepping Stephanopoulos’ inane question of whether the state has the right to ban contraception. Ultimately, however, he did not answer the question. The reason why Santorum gets these questions ad infinitum is precisely because he respects the question and will answer it fully, without just simply diverting the question to campaign talking points.

Rick Santorum simply answers the question. There is a certain respect that Santorum gives to the question itself, and hence, to the questioner. Instead of steering away from some answer that might lose him a vote here or there, he drives straight into controversy, makes his best argument, and says, “You may not agree with me, but this is what I believe.” And even if he gives you an answer you don’t like, at least he answered your question.

A week or so ago, someone asked Santorum about Social Security. Nothing he said could be reduced to a soundbyte, but his 7 minute reply taught me more about Social Security than I had learned in these many years.

While other candidates depended upon high priced Madison Avenue commercial advertizing in Iowa and New Hampshire, Santorum’s approach was to visit people, give his 20 minute speech, and then engage with them in a 30-40 minute question and answer dialog, precisely because he respects the question and the questioner. This commitment to dialoging with the people reflects an ethos that elitists simply cannot understand or reproduce. After all, so they think, what could they possibly learn from ordinary people?

Campaign managers would say that Santorum’s respect for the question is a liability, a campaign flaw, a lead weight around the candidate’s neck. For my part, this is a flaw that I can live with.

Santorum and Reagan's 3-Legged Stool

There's no doubt that the social conservative of this primary season is Sen. Santorum. However, Reagan conservatism is a three-legged stool, and all three legs are necessary for a stool to make: social issues, fiscal restraint/small government, and national defense. Accordingly, I don't support candidates just because they are passionate about traditional moral values. While Santorum makes the headlines on the social issues, it is his stance on all three legs which makes me an ardent supporter.

If it were only a matter of fiscal restraint, (and if there weren't so much racism in his newsletters), I'd be very much tempted to support Ron Paul. If it were only a matter of jobs creation, I might be tempted to vote for Romney. If it were only a matter of good governance, I might be tempted to vote for Perry. But the stool where the three legs of the stool are equally secure and proven is Rick Santorum.

On social issues and traditional moral values, little more needs to be said other than that Santorum rightly asserts that not only has he been the effective leader, but one who has been in the forefront taking the bullets. But Santorum's stance is not merely informed by his Judeo-Christian worldview. Rather, his pragmatic side is evident in that he alone articulates why healthy families are key to a healthy economy. Citing that 40 some percent of families with only one parent are living in poverty, Santorum perceptively argues that you can't fix the economy without strengthening families.


On fiscal restraint and on reducing the size of government, Santorum's bedrock beliefs can be seen in a number of episodes in his tenure in government, but none so keenly than in two particular titanic struggles. The first was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. For the first time ever, a federal entitlement was ended. While Gingrich is quick to take credit for this, it was Santorum who co-authored the bill and did the heavy lifting as the floor manager. The second epic struggle was over the 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment which Santorum co-sponsored . This bill was passed by a 2/3rds majority in the House and sent to the Senate . The final vote was a nail-biter, coming down to the vote of a RINO, Mark Hatfield. He will forever be remembered as the Senator who prevented the Balanced Budget Amendment being sent to the States which almost certainly would have ratified it, so that we would not be in the mess we are in today.

When the Senate defeated the bill by a single vote, Santorum vociferously railed against RINO Hatfield, arguing that he should be stripped of his chairmanship and removed from Republican leadership. Although Republicans did not take this punitive step, it was clear that Hatfield would be challenged in the next primary, and he retired the next year.

On national security, Santorum is well known for his strong stance on defense. He still remembers how we swore our most sacred vows that there must never, ever be another 9/11. None of the candidates is more informed on the threat of radical Islam. Frankly, with the exception of Santorum, the Republican candidates are all rather weak on foreign policy. On the other hand, Santorum's strong suit is the Middle East and Latin America. While the economy is the central focus of this election, I fear that the next President is likely to face a significant foreign policy challenge that will once again occupy his attention. That all important 3 a.m. phone call must be answered by someone who has depth in national security.

Yes, I am an Evangelical and social conservative. But social issues do not drive my motivation to support Santorum. I'm in Santorum's camp because his is the best stool for conservatives in this primary season.