Santorum was a huge contrast to Huntsman. No matter how he tries to present himself, Huntsman (and his beautiful wife) come across as patrician because they are, not unlike Romney. Huntsman is much more likeable than Romney, but on a likeability scale, Santorum is a 8 out of 10. He’s like the smart, idealistic kid next door who grew up to run for president. Very likeable.
There were easily 400 people at the Daniel Island School last night compared to about 100 at the coffee shop where Huntsman presided in the morning. The conservatives were out in force, and they were enthusiastic. I don’t think Santorum was playing to the crowd; I think he related to the people in the audience because of the similarities in point of view. Preaching to the choir, as it were.
Some say that he was a little preachy, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. As most conservatives, he was right on concerning the role/responsibility of the individual in determining his/her own destiny, and (collectively) the destiny of the country. If there is one weakness I see, he is a little too idealistic. He gives the American people much more credit that a great portion of them deserve.
In one Q&A exchange, a guy asked the seemingly stupid question, “What have you eaten today?” Santorum responded good naturedly with quips about Chick-fil-A and Jersey Mike’s Subs, noting that his campaign was heavily focused on gourmet food. It got a good laugh. But then the questioner segued into his real (leftist?) question concerning children having enough food to eat and the right food. Santorum didn’t rise to the bait, but instead just observed that PARENTS are the people who are responsible for what their children eat, not government. This response got good applause (me included).
Another questioner asked about education, and Santorum repeated what has to be his standard meme, but it’s a good one. Education is a service business and the PARENTS are the customer. He noted that the way things are set up now, the government is in charge, followed by the local school board, followed by the situation at the specific school, followed by the teacher, followed by the student, and last (and least) the parent. The parents are the customer, and the entire education process should be responsible to the parents, and not the other way around. It was a pretty good response to the education issue. Santorum noted that his wife home schools their children and that, if elected, he would be the first president to home school his kids in the White House. All I could think of was – LOOK OUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. YOU’RE TOAST!
All in all he gave a good talk, took questions adroitly (including several whacky ones). Where DO these people come from? I’d say he spent easily 30-40 minutes handling questions.
To sum it up, I’d have to say that he is certainly a viable alternative to Romney, and he has far less baggage than Newt.
N.B. I’ve read that the Obamanites are already planning to position Nobama as the candidate of the middle class. Given the enormous support he gets from the intellectual elite, the Wall Streeters, the media, and the Hollywood left, I don’t see how he could claim that he’s the guy for the middle class, but Axlerod and the other spinmeisters are very good at what they do. So Obama = “I support the middle class.”
Now Romney as the GOP candidate (and possibly Huntsman as well, but less so) plays right into their hands. They are both filthy rich and have a patrician manner about them. It would be easy for the Obamanites to paint Romney (or Huntsman) as the 1% and play the hell out of the class warfare card. The response for Romney (or Huntsman) to that attack would have to be, “So? Yes, I’m successful. But do you want 4 more years of this crap?” It would be so easy to come right back against the Dem’s middle class targeting with a description of how Nobama’s policies have made it WORSE for the middle class in this country (and everybody else). The pussies who run the GOP probably would be afraid to do that, but that’s another story.
So maybe the middle class thing is not so important. Bottom line, however, is that Santorum is clearly the right guy to appeal honestly and sincerely to Joe the plumber. Whether that’s how the election will (or should) unfold is open to question.
Thanks for the insights. I think one of the admirable traits of Sen. Santorum is that he respects the question. He does not automatically convert the question into a launching point for his talking points. To be sure, he does convey his talking points, but his first knee-jerk reaction is to answer the question.
I suspect that so many people who so wrongly think of Santorum as too plain get this impression from the fact that he does give bona fide answers to the questions asked of him. These don’t often get transformed into soundbytes of awesome. But at the end of the q. and a., the audience has gotten substance, and not rhetoric.