Santorum takes Jacksonville debate; Paul close behind
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 10:02AM 
Republican presidential candidates debated in Jacksonville on January 26. (Photo used with permission; David S. Holloway / CNN)
Could anyone really watch the CNN debate in Jacksonville on Thursday and overlook the fact that the two strongest performers in the evening’s exchanges were former Sen. Rick Santorum (Penn.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Texas)?
Paul came off as the small government, free market proponent that he is. On healthcare—he’s a physician, so he brings more expertise to the table than anyone—he has witnessed the deterioration of healthcare over the years as government has gradually assumed control of the market. Here’s what Paul said in an exchange about healthcare:
“When I started medicine, there was no Medicare or Medicaid. And nobody was out in the streets without it. Now, now people are suffering, all the complaints going on. So the government isn't our solution.
So, I'm not too happy with this type of debate, trying to blame one versus the other, so, but -- most likely we're going to continue to have this problem unless we straighten out the economy. And that means... cut the spending.”
On Cuba and Latin America in general
When Paul talks about big government, the Federal Reserve, federal spending and hard money, he is at his best. However, when he talks about foreign policy and other matters, he alienates many of us. Trade with Cuba as it now stands? Most conservatives are not going to accept the idea.
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich addressed that issue best:
“Well, let me start with where the governor correctly pointed out. I was very proud as Speaker to be able to make sure that the Helms-Burton Act passed, and I'm delighted that Congressman Dan Burton is here tonight and is campaigning with me, because it was a very important step towards isolating the Castro regime.
I think it's amazing that Barack Obama is worried about an Arab Spring, he's worried about Tunisia, he's worried about Libya, he's worried about Egypt, he's worried about Syria, and he cannot bring himself to look south and imagine a Cuban Spring. And I would argue that we should have, as a stated explicit policy, that we want to facilitate the transition from the dictatorship to freedom. We want to bring together every non-military asset we have, exactly as President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher and Pope John Paul II did in Poland and in Eastern Europe.
They broke up the Soviet empire without a general war by using a wide range of things, one of which is just psychological, saying to the next generation of people in Cuba, the dictatorship is not going to survive. You need to be moving to freedom in order to have prosperity in Cuba, and we will help you get to that freedom. “
Santorum also seized an opportunity, saying he would oppose liberalization of policy with Cuba—the policy President Barack Obama supports.
Santorum said:
“I would oppose it. I've been 100 percent in support of the Cuban people and their right to have a free Cuba and the United States should stand on the side of the Cuban people against these despots who are not just reigning terror, continuing reign of terror in Cuba. But now have their -- their -- their puppet, Chavez in -- in Venezuela and Noriega and Morales and it keeps -- it keeps like a cancer growing. So the idea that a president of the United States would take the heart of the cancer that is in Central and South America, and begin to reward behavior that has spread this cancer because of our dilly-dallying and our inattentiveness to the problems in Central and South America.
Now, we're going to reward the secret police. We're going to (inaudible) president of Venezuela as they are in Cuba. We're going to reward this type of thuggery, this type of Marxism in our region. We're going to reward a country that is now working with these other countries to harbor and bring in Iran and the terrorist -- the Jihadists who want to set up missile sites and to set up training camps. And so we're going to reward this behavior by opening up and liberalizing. This is the exact wrong message at the exact wrong time.”
Healthcare Smackdown
Where Santorum scored the biggest points—these were actually the biggest points in the entire debate in my opinion—related to the Massachusetts healthcare plan Romney stubbornly touts as ideal for the people of his state. Romney has said approximately 92 percent of the state’s residents had healthcare—the bill was passed to address the 8 percent that don’t.
The plan contains a mandate, exactly like the federal healthcare plan.
Romney relies on the states’ rights pillar to justify the program and most of us believe this will effectively neutralize any argument against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commonly called ObamaCare.
Should Romney attempt to follow through on repeal of that act, the Left will have a valid argument—it’s good enough for the people of Massachusetts, but not the rest of us?
Santorum rose to the occasion, battering Romney even as the governor attempted to deflect the blows:
“What Governor Romney just said is that government-run top-down medicine is working pretty well in Massachusetts and he supports it. Now, think about what that means -- going up against Barack Obama, who you are going to claim, well, top-down government-run medicine on the federal level doesn't work and we should repeal it. And he's going to say, wait a minute, Governor. You just said that top-down government-run medicine in Massachusetts works well.
Folks, we can't give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom. Whether the United States government or even a state government -- you have Amendment 1 (ph) here offered by Scott Pleitgen (ph), who, by the way, endorsed me today, and it's going to be on your ballot as to whether there should be a government mandate here in Florida.
According to Governor Romney, that's OK. If the state does it, that's OK. If the state wants to enforce it, that's OK. Those are not the clear contrasts we need if we're going to defeat Barack Obama and a …”
Moderator Wolf Blitzer attempted to move on, but Santorum wouldn’t let it go. After asking Romney about the mandate—Romney confirmed that yes, you have to buy insurance—Santorum continued:
“Just so I understand this, in Massachusetts, everybody is mandated as a condition of breathing in Massachusetts, to buy health insurance, and if you don't, and if you don't, you have to pay a fine.
What has happened in Massachusetts is that people are now paying the fine because health insurance is so expensive. And you have a pre-existing condition clause in yours, just like Barack Obama.
So what is happening in Massachusetts, the people that Governor Romney said he wanted to go after, the people that were free-riding, free ridership has gone up five-fold in Massachusetts. Five times the rate it was before. Why? Because...”
Romney attempted to cut him off. Santorum kept the blows raining down:
“I'll be happy to give you the study. Five times the rate it has gone up. Why? Because people are ready to pay a cheaper fine and then be able to sign up to insurance, which are now guaranteed under ‘Romney-care,’ than pay high cost insurance, which is what has happened as a result of "Romney-care."
Romney’s response to that sounded like a schoolmarm admonishing a student: “First of all, it's not worth getting angry about. Secondly, the...”
The applause for that flustered line suggested a large number of supporters for Romney in the audience. It struck me as contradictory—the audience comprised activist Republicans who oppose ObamaCare. However, you cannot oppose that and rationalize support for what many call RomneyCare.
Fact is Romney cannot mount a successful attack against ObamaCare because the Massachusetts plan was a major influence in the composition of ObamaCare.
Romney’s supporters ignore that fact but it will surely be a factor in any debate with Obama.
Santorum and Gingrich
Santorum won the Jacksonville debate. Whether that translates into momentum when Floridians vote on Tuesday I can’t say.
The problem with the senator is his voting record. He pleases social conservatives and I respect that. However, a number of his votes suggest a big government approach. A legislator who refuses to cut arts funding by a meager 10 percent and backed $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea, among other matters documented by Erick Erickson at Red State, is going to have a hard time swinging fiscal conservatives.
“He sees government as the means to conservative ends. But in using government to get conservative ends he has expanded government and set precedents for liberals to use government in the same ways for more liberal government. Rick Santorum was complicit in making Americans more dependent on government and justified it under the rubric of compassion.”
Going into the debate, Gingrich supporters—I am one—believed this was his opportunity to consolidate a base in Florida ahead of the Primary. He is on the ground in Florida and has broad grassroots support most in media appear to be unaware of. However, this debate was his to lose and he did in some ways although not in all.
Gingrich should have delivered a stellar debate and he didn’t.
Romney’s Leftwing Policy as governor on climate change/global warming
As for Romney, those supporting him probably feel he had a good night. I beg to differ. It was painfully obvious to me GOP power brokers are unaware of a pending train wreck in November if Romney is our nominee.
Little was said about climate change and Cap and Trade taxation. Romney has significant issues with that as well. Claiming coal-fired plants “kill people” won’t win votes in the South.
Obama's "skyrocketing" policy on utility bills parallels Romney's policy as governor. Policy based on political science has wreaked havoc on the US economy and on the middle class in particular.
Big government pointed out something no one speaks about. Romney’s policy as government influenced a Supreme Court ruling in the case Massachusetts et al v. the Environmental Protection Agency. The case paved the way for unprecedented power in the hands of government bureaucrats. Big Government wrote:
“For his part, Romney continually states his opposition to cap-and-trade policies, the kind of policies Obama pursues to punish us for owning SUVs or to tax us to infinity over emissions. Yet in 2005, when Romney was Gov. of Massachusetts, he boasted about the stringent emissions limits he’d put in place: “[Massachusetts is] the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.”
(Analysis by Kay B. Day/Jan. 27, 2012)
Ed. Note: I’ll be writing commentary about this debate today in a series of columns posted here and at Examiner.com.
Kay B. Day, Editor
Other conservatives agree with me on the issue of Romney's electability. RiehlWorldView.com explains:
“When the GOP nominee formulated and implemented the model for ObamaCare, there's not enough distance between those two dogs to fight for much of anything come the general election. If nothing else, at least we can then finally be rid of Mitt Romney, who has been little more than a blight upon GOP presidential politics for two election cycles, now. The media structure enabling him may remain, but that too will be increasingly undersiege by grassroots-based new media. What we lack in money, we make up for in numbers. And we have the GOP's number thanks to the primary season, as well as several previous recent events.”
Reader Comments (2)