NRO's Rich Lowry on the Santorum Surge


Rich Lowry of National Review Online on a new poll finding Santorum in 3rd place:

This could be huge for Santorum. I’m guessing people in Iowa like what he says, but needed permission to support him in the form of some assurance that their votes wouldn’t be wasted. If he’s trending upwards in the polls, they get that permission. As John McCormack pointed out in his nice piece on Santorum in The Weekly Standard, he’s not perfect; he has the liabilities of a Bush-era member of the Senate Republican leadership. But our friend Quin Hillyer, who’s been banging the drums for Santorum for about a year, had this post in the Corner a few weeks ago that makes the case for his record.
Also, see Lowry's latest column: "Santorum's First Look"


  1. Chris
    Posted December 30, 2011 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    ok, Mike Huckabee won 1st place in Iowa 4yrs ago, and was doing better nationally at this point than santorum, so Santorum winning Iowa will do as much as did for Huckabee = nothing!

  2. Little man
    Posted December 31, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    John McCormack link "in his nice piece" is not functional:

  3. eliasasm
    Posted January 1, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink

  4. Louis E.
    Posted January 1, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Eliasasm,that's a one-sided attempt to justify same-sex relationships that refuses to treat their justifiability as open to question,"refuting" arguments against from the assumption that they have to be wrong.

  5. jim
    Posted January 1, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Nice post, elias. That website makes some excellent points, not the least of which is what marriage is all about: commitment between two adults.

  6. Louis E.
    Posted January 1, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Jim,that just proves the author doesn't understand what justifies legal status for marriages.

  7. Publius
    Posted January 1, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    "what marriage is all about: commitment between two adults."

    As if intergenerational commitments have nothing to do with marriage. The weakening of that commitment follows easily from re-defining marriage.

    And as if men and women were fungible. But they are not. And the feminization of poverty follows from the weakening of traditional marriage.

  8. kieran
    Posted January 1, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Louis E-

    Everything you say is one-sided, saying how gay relationships need to be condemned. And who are you to criticize the assumptions of otherS? You assume gay relationships are wrong (when they are so right)

  9. jim
    Posted January 2, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    Congratulations to gay and lesbian Americans residing in Delaware and Hawai'i, and their newly won right to have their committed relationships legalized with civil unions. And someday soon, marriage!

  10. Ash
    Posted January 2, 2012 at 1:23 am | Permalink that article what you would call a “knock out,” eliasasm? Surely SSMers can do better than that (though, I'll admit, not much better).

    The author knocks down a bunch of straw-man arguments, and the ones with merit, he doesn’t properly represent. He repeats items that have been thoroughly debunked, i.e. "study after study shows children of ss couples...”; “homosexuality is found in many species, so it's normal”; “gays represent 10% of the population,” etc. And it appears that he cites some research from Science Daily to make sweeping claims about sexual orientation that are not consistent with professional opinion.

    Needless to say, the author doesn't believe that marriage is about procreation, but, of course, presents no alternative state interest in marriage, other than what he believes about ssm reducing promiscuity.

    He claims that ssm has been great for some European countries. How? By changing the opinions of clergymen. Interestingly enough, he gives this tidbit in response to questions about how ssm will hurt the institution of marriage. What the attitudes of clergymen have to do with the vitality of the institution is beyond me.

    And I really don't get this "their arguments don't hold water" line you all keep repeating. Do SSMers have a problem understanding that more courts have sided with the pro-marriage group? I don't know, perhaps the author was unaware of this fact; he does seem kind of ignorant, and I'm not saying that to be rude. I guess straw-man and misrepresented arguments don’t hold water.

    But thanks for sharing!

  11. Little man
    Posted January 2, 2012 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    Hawaii has a Constitutional Amendment defining civil marriage as between a man and a woman. Civil unions were instituted for same-sex couples by a largely Democrat (not democratic) Legislature and a new Democrat Governor, with one Republican Rep. voting for it. We also have both Senators from Hawaii spearheading the repeal of DOMA in Congress. A Republican Ex-Governor is running for one Senator seat in US Congress. The Democrats have done a lousy job with the economy here, which is very complex to begin. Increased taxes by Democrats have weakened their 'reign'. There are very strong forces gathering, but the majority have been voting Democrat, up to now.

  12. Publius
    Posted January 2, 2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink


    Civil unions should be all about commitment between two adults. Marriage should not be. That is an important difference.

  13. Louis E.
    Posted January 2, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Kieran,the species having two sexes means those relationships can't be right.

    Publius,committment to do something wrong should never be accommodated by the government.

    Jim,that "right" needs to be permanently abolished.

  14. leo
    Posted January 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Keiran said-Louis E-

    Everything you say is one-sided, saying how gay relationships need to be condemned. And who are you to criticize the assumptions of otherS? You assume gay relationships are wrong (when they are so right

    Keiran-to claim Louis is onesided on the issue, is claim gay relationships have a side that is logical but state none here... Please tell us why less than 3% f the population who participate in sodomy and other abnormal behavior is "so right"? I call it abnormal behavior because 97 plus % of the population are considered haterosexual as mother nature meant to happen. In fact, gays, homosexuality, SS couple are not a species but male/female who are mentally, sexually abnormal, delusional, and self absorbed, their activities offer nothing of necessity. these are people be who need help not further deception to encourage their wrong doing by you or anyone else...

  15. Publius
    Posted January 2, 2012 at 4:03 pm | Permalink


    In any event, two adults always have the right of contract for property rights, etc. as long as their proposed contract is not for criminal intent.

  16. Posted January 2, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Kieran, please explain what self-identifying as "gay" has to do with defining marriage, or regulating marriage eligibility?