Rick Santorum tries to muscle past Mitt Romney, Ron Paul
Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks during a campaign stop at the Rising Sun Cafe in Polk City, Iowa. AP/Eric Gay
PERRY, Iowa — A confident Rick Santorum, surging in the polls, challenged Republican conservatives to rally to his side on Monday, as he took shots at the two men ahead of him – former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
Santorum, the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, is out to rewrite the final chapter of a topsy-turvy Iowa caucus campaign, by summoning enough evangelical conservatives to Tuesday’s evening caucuses to topple the pair.
Said Santorum to a packed lobby of voters and journalists in the Hotel Patee, in the center of the small town:
”You can’t buy Iowa. You’ve got to earn it. You’ve got to earn it by meeting with Iowans and giving them the opportunity to test and see who you are. They want to see what’s really going on between those ears.”
Consider that a slap at Romney, whose personal investment in Iowa has been limited – but who has finished with a barrage of local appearances and TV ads. Former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich – Santorum’s rise is coming at the expense of the former congressman from Georgia – made a similar accusation on Sunday. “Romney would buy this election if he could,” Gingrich said. (In Walford today, Gingrich conceded that he won’t win Tuesday’s balloting because of the negative advertising poured into the state.)
But Santorum saved his harshest words for the foreign policies of Paul, who questions the use of U.S. forces around the world. Said Santorum:
”Congressman Paul would be able to actually do what he’s been talking about doing – which is really out of the Dennis Kucinich wing of the Democratic party. Which is complete isolationism.”
Santorum specifically focused on Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz on that country’s coast, shutting off the world’s supply of oil. Said Santorum:
”[If elected, Paul] can withdraw all of our ships, he can close all of our bases, he can bring all of that back to the United States and create this huge vacuum around the world. Who’s going to fill in that vacuum to make sure those shipping lanes are open? If Congressman Paul were president, the answer would be – I guess – France. Maybe Belgium, maybe Italy will help. What do you think?
“According to Congressman Paul, he wouldn’t have his finger on the button. He’d get rid of the button. That’s not protecting our country. That’s abandoning our national security.”
Voters posed a pair of uncomfortable questions for Santorum. First, he was asked to explain his embarrassing 2006 loss of his U.S. Senate seat. Santorum explained that he had been caught up in “what was about as big a meltdown in the Republican base as we’ve ever seen in the state.”
But Santorum had this message for voters here who might be considering a candidate – such as Romney or Gingrich – considered more capable of taking on President Barack Obama in November: “I learned there’s one thing worse than losing an election – and that’s losing your principles.”
The more sensitive question for Santorum was his 2008 endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2008 GOP presidential nomination contest. Part of Santorum’s formula for success on Tuesday is his wooing of supporters of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who carried the state four years ago.
Huckabee hasn’t made an endorsement this year. But Santorum’s literature includes this line attributed to Huckabee: “I adore Rick Santorum’s conviction.”
Santorum told voters on Monday that his 2008 decision – made when Huckabee was still an active candidate — was a calculated one, aimed at stopping the nomination of U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Said Santorum:
”My mission, and what I set out to do, was to make that case. It reached the point that – as the primaries labored on – I made the political judgment, correct or not, that it was down to one or two candidates that had the best chance of stopping McCain’s momentum after Florida, before Super Tuesday. Again, I could have been wrong about that. There were candidates I liked better.”
At my elbow was the Rev. Chris Tjapkes, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Perry, an independent congregation of about 100 souls. He liked what he saw of Santorum.
Tjapkes and his wife had both been supporters of U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota – until her political strategist abandoned her last week and moved to the Paul campaign.
“That was really low,” Tjapkes admitted. But he wasn’t thrilled with Bachmann’s reaction – which was to accuse her former staffer of being bought off.
“She could have addressed that betrayal with poise and class. But she didn’t – she threw mud,” he said.
Updated at 4:30 p.m. Central: Like Bachmann and Gingrich, Rick Perry knows a Santorum surge would hurt. Here’s a Monday attack by the Texas governor:
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
111 comments Add your comment
Diehard
January 2nd, 2012
6:38 pm
Looks like that turncoat St. Sen. John Douglas has picked another winner!
MrLiberty
January 2nd, 2012
6:41 pm
Nice try Jim, but it looks like your readers actually support Ron Paul over the candidate your bosses have been telling you to promote in your blogs. Not that surprising to see that you are part of the media tools that seek to control the electorate and their decisions. I guess being a media puppet must be somewhat rewarding, but what about your soul?
Louis Nardozi
January 2nd, 2012
6:43 pm
Santorum was apparently taking bribes from Accuweather to introduce legislation that prevents the NWS from giving out free weather reports – now that information is given to AccuWeather to sell to us. But it gets better – he sold us out for a lousy $2000.
Hm. He also sold us out on a $10 billion bailout of tobacco farmers – for $9,000. Nice work if you’re a tobacco farmer I guess.
He took $6,000 to reduce the federal tax on a keg of beer by 1/2. Nice work if you can get it.
Hey I could do this all day but why don’t YOU take a look at http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Reports/CREW_Beyond_Delay_Report_20060920.pdf?nocdn=1
Double
January 2nd, 2012
6:54 pm
PLease mr centrist don’t forsake us for a lousy ball game.Where will we go for wisdom?But if you must go, please take TD with you.and during halftime keep him away from all keyboards.
Corey
January 2nd, 2012
7:02 pm
@Obama Sucks
January 2nd, 2012
5:16 pm
I see your ODS(Obama Derangement Syndrome) is on full display. The topic is Santorum, but as usual people who suffer from ODS go to Obama regardless of the topic at hand. Also, I did not know you slept with the president.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
7:09 pm
@ Double – TWO lousy ball games. Tech lost the same way trying to run out the clock with too much time remaining. I’m not going anywhere, and enjoy td being here too.
Funny AJC headline: Gingrich surrendering Iowa? I wonder if Custer surrendered as he was being scalped.
Double
January 2nd, 2012
7:11 pm
Obama sucks.Reed should be ok now.Remember the trip to DC?Remember the trip to the woodshed with speaker Ralston. If those two can’t turn a good dem.to your way of thinking.There is no hopes.How would you like the big A to be redistricted?Write or call Obama,tell him.
Double
January 2nd, 2012
7:14 pm
Please Mr.Custer,I don’t wanna go.
td
January 2nd, 2012
7:36 pm
I can not wait until the primary season is over to see if Jim will post a negative article about Obama or will they all still be negative towards the Republican nominee.
td
January 2nd, 2012
7:40 pm
Double
January 2nd, 2012
6:54 pm
Sorry to disappoint you Double but I will be on these blogs almost everyday from now until the day after election day. If the Republican nominee beats Obama then I may consider my mission accomplished and retire from the blog world.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
7:45 pm
td posted “I can not wait until the primary season is over to see if Jim will post a negative article about Obama or will they all still be negative towards the Republican nominee.”
You’re being facetious, right?
Mr. Jim Galloway may not be as rabidly frothing at the mouth as Bookman, but he is certainly a very biased leftist.
td
January 2nd, 2012
7:50 pm
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
7:45 pm
Just hoping for some unbiased opinion. Probably will never happen but since Obama has crushed all Hope for the economy then I have to have some hope for something.
Michael H. Smith
January 2nd, 2012
7:59 pm
Santorum is, has been, and will always be a big government interventionist.
e.g. Terri Shivo case
Folks we have had 5 Big Government presidents in a row. It is time for a change.
Undeniably correct.
Unfortunately like the cornfield conservatives in Iowa too many followers of the Christian faith have yet to learn what is meant by the adage: Too heavenly minded to serve of any earthly good.
Perhaps if obumer is re-elected and they lose everything they claim to “VALUE” then these dear brother saints shall finally have a revelation.
td
January 2nd, 2012
8:07 pm
ABO: Anyone but Obama. They are all (except maybe Ron Paul) are 100 times better for this country then the current occupant of the WH and Paul is 50% better.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
8:12 pm
Michael H. Smith posted “Unfortunately like the cornfield conservatives in Iowa too many followers of the Christian faith have yet to learn what is meant by the adage: Too heavenly minded to serve of any earthly good.
Perhaps if obumer is re-elected and they lose everything they claim to “VALUE” then these dear brother saints shall finally have a revelation.”
New Hampshire and most of the rest of the primary states will get past the religious right. Romney is not being blocked by Huckabee this year, and thankfully there is no geriatric McCain for the media and moderate Republican’s to turn to.
Michael H. Smith
January 2nd, 2012
8:28 pm
I wish I could share your confidence centrist.
Romney is the only person in this GOP field that realistically has a chance to win the general election.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
8:44 pm
Michael H. Smith posted “I wish I could share your confidence centrist.”
Just to be clear, my “confidence” is that the GOP will nominate Romney. I usually vote Libertarian and will wait to see how Romney stacks up against the Libertarian nominee. I do prefer Romney to Obama. My vote won’t matter in Georgia, anyhow – so am free to vote my conscience. Right now, I see Obama as a 2:1 favorite to win re-election.
MrLiberty
January 2nd, 2012
8:53 pm
Ron Paul supports ending the wars (as Obama said he would do but lied), supports repeal of the Patriot act(which Obama said he would do but lied), supports closing Gitmo, restoring Civil liberties, repealing all the surveilance state (again, all of which Obama lied about supporting), ending the racist drug war, etc.
Ron Paul is drawing so much support from independents and Democrats that were stabbed in the back by Obama it is surprising that anyone would think that Romney or any other candidate would stand any chance up against Obama. Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate that can appeal to the common sense that remains in the republican, democratic, and independent minds of america.
If he is not nominated, we can be certain that Obama will win. Frankly, even democrats who still care about civil liberties, peace, human rights, etc. should be terrified of that possibilty.
MrLiberty
January 2nd, 2012
8:55 pm
Centrist – if you are even considering Romney your libertarian leanings must be pretty hollow. He is as mainstream, liberal, big government, anti-freedom, pro-police state, pro-war as you can get. Even Michelle Bachmann is a more libertarian candidate than Romney and that is not saying much.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
9:03 pm
MrLiberty – I am not a pure Libertarian. If I were, I’d probably like Ron Paul. I have big problems with the Republican Party platform.
I reject your description of Romney’s stances. Here is how I see what he says he will (attempt) to do:
* Tackle the annual deficit and long term debt.
* Downsize and impose far greater productivity and efficiency inside the federal government.
* Eliminate and cut programs, return numerous federal programs to the states.
* Revamp the tax, Social Security and Medicare systems.
* Repeal/revamp Obamacare.
* Expand energy exploration.
* Confront Iranian nuclear acquisition.
* Restrict Illegal immigration.
* Appoint constitutional conservatives to the Supreme Court.
Double
January 2nd, 2012
9:35 pm
I want a president who will stop all abortions.-One that will continue to encourage pregnancy with prenatal care,all DR.Med/Hospital bills paid.Then feed,clothe.house,provide all financial support for the mommy and baby and all others born. until maturity.Then the cycle can start all over again.We got the cart in front of horse.Enact strict law.Stop pregnancies then abortion will stop.No law stopping conception could equal abortion in cruelty.
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
9:39 pm
Santorum is pushing a socially conservative platform during a time when the economy is overwhelmingly what voters are concerned with. He’s a dimwitted buffoon, and has no qualms with selling his own votes to lobbyists.
The guy’s a nut job, even amongst other social conservatives.
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
9:42 pm
Double
January 2nd, 2012
9:35 pm
I want a president who will stop all abortions.-One that will continue to encourage pregnancy with prenatal care,all DR.Med/Hospital bills paid.Then feed,clothe.house,provide all financial support for the mommy and baby and all others born. until maturity.Then the cycle can start all over again.We got the cart in front of horse.Enact strict law.Stop pregnancies then abortion will stop.No law stopping conception could equal abortion in cruelty.
Isn’t that the irony of the Christian right and social conservatives, though? They will stop at nothing to “protect the unborn,” but once that baby pops out they’re on their own–ardent opposition to healthcare programs for the uninsured and they want to eliminate welfare entirely.
Question Man
January 2nd, 2012
9:46 pm
How is it possible that the Republican field is so bizarre?
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
9:47 pm
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
9:03 pm
…I reject your description of Romney’s stances. Here is how I see what he says he will (attempt) to do:
* Expand energy exploration.
lol, great, can’t wait for him to open up ANWR only to find out what the DoE and DoI already know–there’s not much oil there, certainly not enough to cause a change in gas prices. Plus, more dirty coal! The Republicans have some really great ideas–if you happen to own an energy company!
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
10:11 pm
Darvoset spending posted “ardent opposition to healthcare programs for the uninsured and they want to eliminate welfare entirely.”
Those two positions you outlined are entirely wrong concerning already offered legislation by Republicans, and such a purposeful partisan misstatement belies your bias.
Furthermore Anwar, the Gulf of Mexico, offshore East coast oil, Canadian oil sands, Midwest Bakkan fields have shale oil available via fracking along with Texas, and good old coal with cleaner technology is necessary for our economic well being. Alternative energy other than nuclear which has too long a lead time to get online is not yet technically or economically feasible. Restricting these domestic/regional sources in favor of unfriendly cartels or restricted industry, jobs, and standards of living for pie in the sky leftist ideals is not my agenda.
Double
January 2nd, 2012
10:15 pm
Darvocet I disagree with abortions.When you make conditions so good,so inviting,some cases profitable for being pregnant.What’s to be expected?Sure knock them in head,throw into incnerator.most economical.I can’t guess at cost of prenatal through maturity,along with upkeep for mother.As I said stop before,not after.Sure would bring on legal rights questions.Babys have rights,can’t be responsible.As said many times on here for every freedom ther is responsibility.
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
10:17 pm
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
10:11 pm
Darvoset spending posted “ardent opposition to healthcare programs for the uninsured and they want to eliminate welfare entirely.”
Those two positions you outlined are entirely wrong concerning already offered legislation by Republicans, and such a purposeful partisan misstatement belies your bias.
Bias? I thought it this was pretty clear, but I’ll spell it out for you: I’m a liberal.
Anyway, no, Republicans overwhelmingly oppose welfare reform (unless it involved significant cuts to the system) and certainly don’t want any form of universal healthcare system. Romney is really the exception rather than the norm.
Double
January 2nd, 2012
10:20 pm
e-i There–incinerator
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
10:24 pm
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
10:11 pm
Furthermore Anwar, the Gulf of Mexico, offshore East coast oil, Canadian oil sands, Midwest Bakkan fields have shale oil available via fracking along with Texas…
There isn’t enough oil in ANWR to make any impact on global oil prices. If we tapped it at 100% of capacity tomorrow and used it only for domestic needs, it would give us roughly 18 months worth of energy (that’s per the Dept. of Energy). The other locations you named have more, but oil shale is more expensive to recover than crude reserves, plus fracking is horrible for the environment (I know you don’t care, I’m just pointing it out).
td
January 2nd, 2012
10:26 pm
Double
January 2nd, 2012
10:15 pm
We actually agree on an issue. You do not have to force people to not have unprotected sex. You could probably end half the unwanted children by changing the custody laws so that both parents have equal rights and the child will spend as close to 50/50 time with both parents. I can guarantee you women would think twice before for they had unprotected sex with a man if they thought they would have to communicate and share a child with the man for 18 years without being in control.
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
10:27 pm
BTW, there’s no such thing as clean coal. “Clean coal” is a marketing buzzword invented by the coal industry to make it sound less horrible than it really is.
td
January 2nd, 2012
10:31 pm
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
10:24 pm
“There isn’t enough oil in ANWR to make any impact on global oil prices. If we tapped it at 100% of capacity tomorrow and used it only for domestic needs, it would give us roughly 18 months worth of energy”
That old study has been refuted by several other studies (US geological survey for one). The environmentalist keep throwing out the number to try to stop the drilling debate from even being considered again.
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
10:33 pm
Link?
td
January 2nd, 2012
10:36 pm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
Double
January 2nd, 2012
10:39 pm
Centrist The hydraulic fracturing could have some long term side effects.The pipeline as laid out goes over an aqfier in one or two states.I prefere clean water to cheap oil.We could be flooded with oil,would not mean cheap energy for us.Coal will be around a long time,hope it gets cleaned up.Soot & acid rain.In Ohio earthquake tremors blamed on injection,frackin wells.
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
10:39 pm
lol TD, you’re relying on a 1998 assessment and I’ve been talking about recent data.
The best part is that the old estimate was revised downward by the USGS in 2010:
“The U.S. Geological Survey estimates 896 million barrels of conventional, undiscovered oil and 53 trillion cubic feet of conventional, undiscovered non-associated gas within NPRA and adjacent state waters. The estimated volume of undiscovered oil is significantly lower than in 2002, when the USGS estimated there was 10.6 billion barrels of oil. The new result, roughly 10% of the 2002 estimate, is due primarily to recent exploration drilling indicating gas occurrence rather than oil in much of NPRA.”
The new assessment also indicates 8 trillion cubic feet less gas than the 2002 USGS estimate of 61 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, conventional, non-associated gas.”
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2622
Run along now.
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
10:42 pm
Double
January 2nd, 2012
10:39 pm
Centrist The hydraulic fracturing could have some long term side effects.The pipeline as laid out goes over an aqfier in one or two states.I prefere clean water to cheap oil.We could be flooded with oil,would not mean cheap energy for us.Coal will be around a long time,hope it gets cleaned up.Soot & acid rain.In Ohio earthquake tremors blamed on injection,frackin wells.
The best part about fracking is how people living nearby can now ignite their well water because it’s so contaminated with gases. There are videos online of people igniting the water that comes out of their kitchen sink. The energy industry denies that this ever happens.
Don’t worry about the aquifers. We’re tapping them more than they replenish themselves, so they’ll be dried up in the future anyways.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
10:47 pm
“Cleaner” coal burning is already a technological fact. We have been burning coal for more than a century, and will likely do it for another century.
Pipelines crisscross the U.S. already. The false argument is just that. Same for fracking. Small localized tremors from fracking is a false threat. It’s greater expense is slight in comparison to government subsidies for wind, solar, or biofuels. All these roadblocks are meant to stop/slow industry, energy companies that don’t support leftist politics, and standards of living under the guise and alarmist scare of environmental issues.
td
January 2nd, 2012
10:48 pm
Double
January 2nd, 2012
10:39 pm
If green technology was viable and profitable then private industry and private capital would be available in the billions to produce it. The technology is not yet there(just look at the Chevy volt) so we must depend on oil, coal and other energy sources to keep the country running. I say drill for oil and gas, more wind, more hydroelectric and more nuclear until the technology is available.
td
January 2nd, 2012
10:58 pm
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
10:42 pm
Let me see if I have this right, get out of the middle east, no drilling in the gulf, no drilling in Alaska, no coal and no fracking. Green technology is not a viable option yet. What is the plan? What do we do for energy? Come with some answers and not just we can not do anything.
Darvocet spending
January 2nd, 2012
11:01 pm
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
10:47 pm
“Cleaner” coal burning is already a technological fact. We have been burning coal for more than a century, and will likely do it for another century.
lol, there has been no demonstration CO2 captured by carbon sequestration will stay in the ground indefinitely, and one of the DoE’s integrated gasification combined cycle test plants failed. The other two only exist because they were part of the DoE’s IGCC test project. Every other coal plant in America (and the world) is of the “dirty” variety. Did I mention that IGCC results in increased water pollution and is significantly more expensive than current coal power generation schemes?
The result is that you get something that really sounds great (”Clean Coal!”) but for all practical matters does not exist in commercial energy generation.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
11:04 pm
“Cleaner” is the operative word. CO2 is not a pollutant – it is the main and essential element for plant life. The U.S. is not going to ban the burning of coal for electricity. Switching to natural gas would be economic, but a large investment that won’t be made until fracking is a settled way of obtaining the vast known reserves.
Darvoset spending
January 2nd, 2012
11:08 pm
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
11:04 pm
“Cleaner” is the operative word. CO2 is not a pollutant – it is the main and essential element for plant life
Couldn’t help notice that you completely forgot that it’s a greenhouse gas. Anyone who was awake in 5th grade science class knows plants absorb CO2. Don’t be pedantic about it.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
11:14 pm
Water vapor is a much greater greenhouse gas than the very relative small amounts of CO2 that mankind emits.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/exposure_of_global_warming_deception_goes_viral/
Political Climate
Dec 30, 2011
Exposure of global warming deception goes viral
Darvoset spending
January 2nd, 2012
11:20 pm
A link to ICECAP? Are you for real?
Peer reviewed sources, please.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
11:24 pm
“Peer reviewed sources” like those closed political government grantees who were exposed via two loads of pilfered Climategate emails?
Darvoset spending
January 2nd, 2012
11:34 pm
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
11:24 pm
“Peer reviewed sources” like those closed political government grantees who were exposed via two loads of pilfered Climategate emails?
Obviously if climate change wasn’t real, you’d have no trouble locating boatloads peer-reviewed articles and experiments by scientists who could disprove it, rather than posting a link to a global warming skeptic’s blog.
If the concept and value of “peer reviewed articles” has to be explained to you, then don’t bother posting about anything remotely scientific in nature in the future. Stick to politics. You’re way out of your league here.
Centrist
January 2nd, 2012
11:42 pm
Climate change has been real since the first day earth became into existence. The Sahara desert was once a forest, and mankind was not responsible. What you are really referring to is what the politically and economically motivated United Nations IPPC, leftist media and Democrats previously referred to as the unproven and widely refuted theory of Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
Here is one source for you – but I tire of this back and forth which is not going to change either of our minds:
http://sepp.org/science_papers.cfm?whichyear=2011
Darvoset spending
January 2nd, 2012
11:55 pm
lol yes it’s all a UN/leftist/media/Democrat/communist/midget conspiracy, of course. Their insidious goal? Reducing pollution! MUWAHAHAHA! It’s so clear now! I have to admit the UN bit is a nice touch, I haven’t heard right-wing grumbling about them in a while.
BTW, although your links to SEPP and ICECAP have comic value to me, it’s worth pointing out to all others that they are both one-sided sources of information and they cannot be considered objective.