February 22, 2012 10:58pm ? Comments
A debate full of lowlights
byDavid Freddoso Online Opinion Editor
Follow on Twitter:

Tonight's was an ugly debate. It wasn't especially negative compared to the others, but it showcased some of the worst issues for the GOP candidates competing for the nomination.

It was also a debate in which Rick Santorum stumbled in his challenge to Mitt Romney, blunting his post-Colorado momentum -- although the extent of the damage remains to be seen.

The first lowlight was a colloquy about earmarks, the legislative line-items that politicians use to bring home the bacon. They are often wasteful, and quite commonly used to buy votes in Congress and thus grease the skids for terrible legislation. Three candidates came out in favor of earmarks, and one against. (And yes, I am describing a Republican debate in the post-Tea Party era, in case you're confusedly looking up at the timestamp.)

The one person on the stage opposed to earmarks -- Mitt Romney -- demonstrated that he knows nothing about the topic. He described the way spending ought to be done instead of through earmarking and -- suprise! -- what he described was exactly the way earmarks are actually made.

The others -- Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul -- had plenty of earmarks to defend, and they did. (One of the ones Santorum backed had been requested for the Salt Lake Olympics by...citizen Romney.) It was a dismal spectacle, especially after the lonely but successful crusade by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., to abolish earmarks in the new GOP House. (Gingrich's defense of earmarks was the most successful -- a Republican Congress might have to impose funding requirements on a second-term Obama administration.)

Then there was contraception. After browbeating moderator John King for what was really a silly question (the wording was roughly, "Do you believe in contraception?" -- as in, "Yes, it exists") the candidates proceeded to dignify the question for what seemed an eternity. Only Romney was wise enough to divert his answer into the broader question of religious freedom, including a recent court case not related to contraception.

Santorum at least made the point that he didn't want a government program to deal with it just because he thought it was a bad thing. "Just because I'm talking about it, doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it." But Romney then called him out on stage for trying to have it both ways on Title X birth control subsidies. Santorum said in the debate that he only voted for them because they were in a larger package, but he had used that same vote for another audience as evidence that he was perfectly comfortable making taxpayers fund contraception. Santorum had no convincing defense to this. 

Santorum also made this unforced error with respect to his yes vote on the No Child Left Behind law:

"I supported it. It was the principal priority of President Bush....I have to admit, I voted for that. It was against the principles I believed in. But, you know, when you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team for the leader, and I made a mistake. You know, politics is a team sport, folks. Sometimes you've got to rally together and do something."

This was the gaffe of the night, and you can bet it will show up in numerous negative super PAC ads on the topic of leadership. When Santorum said "folks," he was responding to the crowd's light booing. Note that he said this shortly after choosing the word "courage" as his one-word self-description.

Mitt Romney did not dominate this debate, but he did much better than Santorum. He battered the former senator with a mention of his old colleage, liberal Sen. Arlen Specter, whom Santorum backed in 2004 over conservative primary challenger Pat Toomey. To attacks on Romneycare, Romney responded by pointing out that Specter (who switched parties in 2009) provided the decisive vote on Obamacare.

This is typical of Romney's method for dismantling opponents. He is like the fabled man who talked Saint Peter into letting him into heaven, simply by proving that the Apostle's own sins were as great as his own. If he is bad on an issue himself, Romney simply aims to demonstrate that his principal opponent of the moment is equally or nearly as bad. 

With his adequate debate performance, Romney showed once again how he can win the nomination -- by turning off voters to everyone else. And tonight, Republican voters were certainly turned off.

February 22, 2012 10:49pm ? Comments
The surprising CNN Arizona debate
byMichael Barone
Follow on Twitter:

This was a debate full of surprises, at least for me. The first: CNN’s John King showed some forebearance in not leading off with a question to Rick Santorum on his statements on contraception and other cultural issues. Instead, we had an audience question on how to bring down the national debt. The second surprise was that when King did pose such a question, after the first break, Santorum gave a first-rate reply, declining to speak about his personal feelings about contraception, but instead focusing on the fact that 40% of children are now born out of wedlock, and citing the concern expressed about this fact by Charles Murray in his new book Coming Apart and by a New York Times reporter in a front page story—both of which matter of factly note the undeniable fact that children born out of wedlock and raised with a single parent tend to have huge disadvantages in life.  Interestingly, Mitt Romney, who had responded before Santorum with a strong attack on Barack Obama for what he said was his attack on religious tolerance and conscience, was called on again and made a point of agreeing with Santorum. In my Examiner column today I argued that Santorum’s comments on cultural issues could hurt his candidacy; in his response he avoided the negative downside and made a good case for himself. But Romney also came off strongly from this interchange.

 

In some other interchanges, however, Mitt Romney seemed  to have the upper hand. On the first questions on spending and earmarks, he found himself under attack from Romney and Ron Paul (who’s been running an ad calling Santorum a “fake” conservative) and failed, it seemed to me, to do much to undercut Romney’s claim to have been a fiscal conservative as governor of Massachusetts. Then there ensued a long back-and-forth on earmarks, in which Santorum made a good case that the Constitution encourages them and that Romney in his work on the Salt Lake City Olympics requested them—but which left Santorum defending a practice that today’s conservatives consider anathema. There followed an argument between Romney and Santorum on “bailouts.” Here Santorum had the advantage of the purist position, as an opponent of both TARP and the auto company bailouts, but Romney took advantage of the opportunity to make his case for managed bankruptcy for the Detroit auto companies and to tell Michigan Republican primary voters that the Obama administration had bailed out the United Auto Workers—a popular stand for Michigan Republicans.

 

Santorum was also on the defensive for his votes for appropriations that included money for Planned Parenthood under Title X; he made the point that he introduced Title XX, providing for abstinence education.

 

Romney also undercut Santorum’s predictable attack that his Massachusetts health care plan (Romney made a concession by calling it “Romneycare”) by arguing that Santorum was responsible for passing Obamcare because he supported Arlen Specter in his 2004 primary race against Pat Toomey and then Specter, having switched to the Democratic party, provided the crucial 60th vote for Obamacare at a couple of junctures. Santorum responded by correctly pointing out that Specter as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee provided crucial support for the nominations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. It’s true that Specter provided stalwart support for Roberts and Alito. But is it so clear that their nominations (or even just Alito’s) might have been defeated if Specter had not supported them?

 

Another issue where Romney put Santorum on the defensive was women in combat. Romney said he’d look to the military for judgement and cited the experienced of the daughter of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell—a Romney supporter—as an officer in Iraq. Romney then made a stalwart denunciation of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons; Santorum, who as he pointed out has a long history of warning against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, was reduced to agreeing and saying that Romney’s answer was “right on” and “well spoken,” before delivering his strong statement on the issue. Then came a question on education, and Santorum was defensive in his self-criticism for having supported the No Child Left Behind law. Santorum’s statement that sometimes you have to play team ball in politics was obviously unpopular with this audience, which cheered Romney loudly at any appropriate (and some inappropriate) junctures and was positive toward Gingrich and Ron Paul but which on occasion booed Santorum. One advantage of a well-organized campaign is that you can pack a hall (and it may not have hurt that Mesa, a huge suburb of Phoenix, has a large Mormon community) and one disadvantage of a not-well-organized campaign is that you can’t.

 

Another surprise: we didn’t see Newt Gingrich oozing with anger toward Mitt Romney, or anyone else except perhaps mainstream media. Instead he was grandfatherly, taking the long view on issues, agreeing congenially with other candidates quite often, making his own (probably quixotic) case for repealing the “130-year-old” civil service laws to make the federal government more efficient and manageable. He came out on Romney’s side by pointing out that women in the military, and even civilian women, are in danger in the kinds of conflicts we face.

 

The final question, asking candidates to address voters’ misconceptions about them, showed neither Romney nor Santorum at his best. Romney launched into his rote speech about his success as a leader in business and the Olympics and, when King interjected to ask him again about misconceptions, he replied that King could ask the questions but he could give the answers. Sounds a bit robotic to me. Santorum’s statement immediately following was not more inspiring; citing his experience running an underfinanced, underorganized campaign against higher-spending opponents, he said he had shown he could “do a lot with a little”—an appealing reply, perhaps, but not one that establishes that you have presidential stature.

 

Bottom line. A good night for Romney. A mixed night for Santorum, who came off well on the issue where I thought he was vulnerable but too often seemed defensive on other issues. An enjoyable evening for Grandpa Newt, who invited viewers to watch his 30-minute ad of American energy policy, and a pleasant evening for Ron Paul, who got to spread his message further around the country.

February 22, 2012 10:48pm ? Comments
Santorum stumbles in Arizona debate
byPhilip Klein Senior Editorial Writer
Follow on Twitter:

None of the candidates really shined in tonight's Republican debate, but Rick Santorum, in his first debate as a co-frontrunner, badly stumbled. So by default, that helps Mitt Romney.

From the get go and throughout the debate, Santorum was on defensive on issues including earmarks, his backing of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate race, and his vote for No Child Left Behind. The biggest problem is that in defending himself in all of these cases, he got bogged down in Senate procedure and elaborate political machinations. All of that made him come across as a Washington insider and establishment figure, which directly undercut his appeal as the "anti-Romney."

Santorum's biggest blunder on this front came in how he described his vote for Bush's expansion of the federal role in education, saying "It was against the principles I believed in. But when you're part of a team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader." This gets at the heart of the problem with Santorum, which I wrote about the day he announced he was running for president -- he was the quintessential Bush era Republican. As the number three Republican in the Senate, he was a loyal soldier and went along with Bush's big government policies, from NCLB to the Medicare prescription drug law. The very problem with the Bush era was precisely that too many Republicans decided to be team players rather than push back against the president when he was violating conservative principles. It's this very "team player" mentality that the Tea Party movement, in part, was created to combat. Santorum spent the early part of his debate touting his opposition to the Wall Street bailout, but his argument tonight about taking one for the team leaves little doubt that he would have voted for the bailout had he still been in the Senate in 2008. It was much easier for him to sit back and criticize the policy when he was out of office. Santorum's comment about his unwillingness to stand up for his principles when they clashed with Bush on NCLB was especially ironic, because it came moments after he used the word "courage" when he was asked to describe himself with one word.

So Santorum bombed, and Romney facilitated that process by staying on the attack, but he didn't particularly distinguish himself during the debate. In many previous debates he was able to stay above the fray and look presidential. But in this debate, having to scrap with Santorum and sit at a table with his rivals, made him look a lot smaller than in the past -- just another one of the candidates.

Newt Gingrich, by nature of his place in the polls, wasn't as much on attack or defense as he had been in past debates. He had some strong answers, but it's unlikely that he did anything tonight to vault him back into contention. Interestingly, Ron Paul may have had his strongest debate yet. He was tough on the attack against Santorum as a big government Republican and brought a lot of the questions back to fundamental principles -- such as arguing that the federal government had no role in education. Even when it came to foreign policy, Paul had a slightly more nuanced take on Iran than he usually does. He started out by trying to argue that Iran was merely responding to the threat posed by U.S. military presence in the Middle East, neglecting its own saber rattling with repeated calls for "death to America" and wiping Israel off the map. But he eventually made the argument that if Republicans were to take action against Iran, they should at least go through Congress. It's a more limited critique, and perhaps evidence that he's taking pointers from his more politically savvy son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

But as I said up front, tonight was about Rick Santorum, and he had a lousy showing at a time when he needed to bring his game to the next level.

February 22, 2012 10:05pm ? Comments
Santorum blows it: 'I took one for the team'
byCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:
Republican presidential candidates Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, left, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, second from right, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, right, watch as former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks during a Republican presidential debate Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012, in Mesa, Ariz. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

When asked about education reform and the "No Child Left Behind" act, Rick Santorum admitted that he voted for the Bush legislation even though he didn't agree with it.

"I supported it. It was the principal priority of President Bush....I have to admit, I voted for that. It was against the principles I believed in. But, you know, when you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team for the leader, and I made a mistake. You know, politics is a team sport, folks. Sometimes you've got to rally together and do something."

Santorum said that today he believes that the federal government doesn't have a role in federal education.

"What was a bad idea was putting all the money out there and that in fact was a huge problem," Santorum said. "I admit the mistake and I will not make that mistake again."

Mitt Romney quickly took notes during Santorum's answer, but didn't bring it up when it was his turn to speak. It was an easy opportunity for any of the candidates to paint Santorum as an establishment Republican and a Washington insider.

February 22, 2012 9:41pm ? Comments
Obama signs payroll tax bill in solitary photo-op
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:
Photo courtesy of White House

President Obama held a special event to tout the payroll tax deal, but he signed the bill quietly this evening without congressional bystanders.

The White House press office announced the bill's signing earlier this evening, noting that the legislation:

extends through December 31, 2012: (1) a reduction in employment tax rates for employees and the self-employed: (2) an initial eligibility for emergency unemployment compensation and 100 percent Federal funding for extended unemployment insurance benefits: and (3) a Medicare physician payment update delaying a rate reduction for physician services. Also extends assistance for needy families through September 30, 2012.

When Congress first agreed to the payroll tax deal, Obama touted the concord. "As soon as Congress sends this bipartisan agreement to my desk, I will sign it into law right away," Obama said in a statement, adding that 'this must be the only start of what we do this year."

It's possible that Republicans wouldn't want to appear in the photo-op, given that the bill as passed amounted to a total surrender.

 

February 22, 2012 9:10pm ? Comments
Santorum: I won't mandate social issues
byCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:

When asked about his vocal stance on social issues, including his comments on contraception, Rick Santorum vowed he would continue to talk about these controversial issues in spite of discord from the left.

"Here's the difference between me and the left," said Santorum, "Just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean that I want a government program to fix it. That's what they do."

February 22, 2012 8:36pm ? Comments
Paul defends 'fake' ad during debate
byCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:

During this evening's CNN debate, John King asked Ron Paul why he ran an ad calling Rick Santorum, "fake."

"Because he's fake." answered a grinning Ron Paul.

Santorum insisted, however, that he was in fact "real."

February 22, 2012 8:32pm ? Comments
WH defends Warren Buffett from Chris Christie
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney defended Warren Buffett from the criticism against the Buffett Rule levelled by Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., praising Buffett's philanthropy and defending his "right" to engage in political advocacy.

"I think Mr. Buffett, who is widely regarded for his success in business as well as in philanthropy, has been quite outspoken, as is his right, on what he believes is an issue of tax fairness," Carney said during today's press briefing. "He simply believes, as one of the wealthiest men in the world, that he should not be paying an effective tax rate lower than his secretary."

Christie said Wednesday that Buffett should "cut a check and shut up" rather than advocate a tax increase for all the wealthy.

Carney dismissed Christie's comment as a joke. "[T]hat’s a quip that tries to draw attention away from what is a very serious issue, which is the need to have a tax code that’s fair and that helps the American people as they recover from this recession," he responded when asked if he agrees with Christie's suggestion.  "So, quips aside, we think the Buffett Rule is absolutely an important principle to apply to individual tax reform."

February 22, 2012 8:02pm ? Comments
If Examiner political writers were debate hosts
byTimothy P. Carney Senior Political Columnist
Follow on Twitter:

While we're waiting for Dave Freddoso to return from CNBC and make our TV work here in the Examiner war room, we have come up with the questions we would ask the candidates, but that we don't think the CNN moderators will ask.

Here's my rewording of the questions we came up with.

Phil Klein: Sen. Santorum, as a Senator, you opposed right-to-work laws, supported dairy subsidies and steel tariffs, and made earmarks. You defend these policies now on the grounds that they served the interests of your state. But if this is a valid defense, how would you, as a conservative President, convince lawmakers to look beyond their own parochial interests.

Tim Carney: Dr. Paul, you have consistently defended the practice of congressional earmarking as the prerogative of the legislative branch. What do you say to the conservative argument that earmarks are a "gateway drug to a spending problem," and that they fuel corruption of elected officials?

 

Phil Klein: Gov. Romney, you justified your individual mandate in part because it would save the state money by stopping the uninsured from freeloading off of emergency rooms. But Massachusetts has spent much more subsidizing individuals' health insurance than it has saved by reducing freeloading. So was the mandate a failure under your own plan.

Charlie Spiering: Dr. Paul, you recently said that Republicans' talking about social issues is a losing strategy. But you distinguish yourself in large part by staking out minority and unpopular viewpoints, such as letting the housing crash and not targeting Osama bin Laden. How much should the Republican presidential nominee worry about what's popular and what's not?  

Tim Carney: Sen. Santorum, you have spoken recently about many social issues, giving your opinions both on policy and on personal morals. What do you think is the federal government's role in fostering and enforcing morality.

Tim Carney: Speaker Gingrich, would you support the U.S. military intervening to aid the Syrian rebels?

February 22, 2012 7:53pm ? Comments
Gingrich: No effort in MI, expecting Santorum win
byByron York Chief Political Correspondent
Follow on Twitter:

MESA, Ariz. -- With just minutes to go before the last Republican debate, a spokesman for Newt Gingrich says the former House speaker will not make any effort to compete in the critical Michigan primary next Tuesday.

"Rick Santorum is going to win the state of Michigan," Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond told reporters shortly before the debate.  The Gingrich campaign sees a Santorum victory over Romney in Michigan as a critical step in damaging the Romney effort, and therefore ultimately a good thing for Gingrich.  "Whatever means we can use that are to our advantage to get rid of Mitt Romney, if that means Rick Santorum is the one who exposes him as a flawed candidate, we're happy to have that happen," Hammond said.

If there is a Santorum victory in Michigan, Hammond added, "Mitt Romney has to show up the day after Michigan and explain why he can't win his home state…We will have a shift in the media narrative when people all of a sudden realize that Mitt Romney really isn't the inevitable nominee."

Hammond was asked whether Gingrich would do anything to help Santorum win Michigan.  No, Hammond said, Gingrich would not actively help Santorum.  Instead, Hammond said Gingrich will continue to work in states that hold primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday and afterward.

February 22, 2012 7:21pm ? Comments
Corporate welfare and conservative credibility
byTimothy P. Carney Senior Political Columnist
Follow on Twitter:
Ex-Im Chairman Fred Hochberg and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. (AP Photo)

The Export-Import Bank is a federal agency that exists to subsidize U.S. exporters at taxpayer risk, with most of the money subsidizing one company, Boeing. I've been criticizing Ex-Im in print since 2001, and every time the agency comes up for renewal, a handful of conservative lawmakers vote to kill it.

Ex-Im is up for renewal again this year, and many free-market types are calling for its abolition, including Sallie James at Cato, and the Club for Growth. Defenders of Ex-Im are almost entirely industry lobbies like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, rather than conservatives.

So conservative radio host and columnist Hugh Hewitt has stepped into the breach, penning a defense of Ex-Im that exhorts the Right to support its reauthorization. I disagree with much of Hewitt's substantive case for Ex-Im, but I wanted to focus on his political case for its reauthorization:

 

There are scores of arguments to make against the president's disastrous interventions in the marketplace.  Conservatives weaken their credibility when they shoot at successes and destroy jobs in the process.

Ex-Im is a success, one which conservatives can support proudly and from which they can draw lessons on the right functioning of the federal power with which to argue against the abuses and distortions of that power.

I see this exactly the opposite way. If conservatives, arguing against Obama's interventions in government, want to strengthen their credibility, the best course of action is oppose Obama's corporate welfare as well as anti-business measures.

Many liberals portray free-market arguments as being apologies for Big Business. Much of the media mostly buy this. If conservatives cry "Free Markets! And subsidies too!" that confirms the liberal line.

Alternatively, imagine conservatives wage war on Obama's beloved Ex-Im. Picture an election year fight in which President Obama is on the side of the Chamber of Commerce, Boeing, and GE, while simultaneously trying to attack Republicans as shills for Big Business. Not only would this depress Obama's liberal base, but it would expose, at last, what fluff his scourge-of-the-special-interests talk has been.

February 22, 2012 4:57pm ? Comments
Campaign Roundup: Tonight's Ash Wednesday debate
byCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:

Rick Santorum:

 

National Poll: Santorum 35, Romney 26, Gingrich 14, Paul 11

 

CNN: Will presidential candidates wear ashes at Wednesday debate?

 

Santorum campaigns with ashes on his head

 

Team Santorum: U.S. is with Rick on devil belief

 

Rush Limbaugh: Rick Santorum gave good answer on Satan

 

Will a Santorum nomination open Soros' wallet?

 

Has Rick Santorum always been pro-life?

 

Santorum 2010: Kennedy's religion speech was a mistake

 

Santorum camp draws attention to Romney's abortion record

 

Mitt Romney:

 

Romney calls for 20 percent cut in marginal taxes

 

Romney doesn't need Michigan to win

 

Did Mitt Romney just join Occupy Wall Street?

 

Romney avoiding reporters on campaign trail

 

Exclusive Video: Romney supporters take down hundreds of Santorum signs at Michigan event

 

Newt Gingrich:

 

Newt Gingrich: Ash Wednesday ‘not a day of obligation,’ giving up sweets for Lent

 

Watch Newt Gingrich's 30 min energy infomercial

 

Gingrich taps Rick Perry on campaign trail in Arizona

 

Ron Paul:

 

"Party Crasher" Ron Paul gets the New Yorker treatment

 

Mark Levin: What is Romney promising Ron Paul?

 

Poll: Ron Paul ties Obama in Virginia

 

 

February 22, 2012 4:27pm ? Comments
Federal court upholds conscientious objection
byBarbara Hollingsworth Local Opinion Editor

A federal judge in Tacoma, Washington cited the First Amendment to strike down a law requiring licensed pharmacists to dispense the controversial “morning-after” pill even if doing so violated their religious beliefs.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represented two pro-life pharmacists who worked at Ralph’s Thriftway, a family-own drug store in Olympia. The fund's deputy national litigation director, Luke Goodrich, hailed the ruling as a victory for religious rights.

Becket attorneys recently won a landmark decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld a religious institution’s right to choose its own ministers, and is currently challenging the Obama administration’s birth control mandate on behalf of Ave Maria University.

Thriftway customers who requested Plan B or similar drugs were referred to nearby pharmacies until a new state regulation passed in 2007 made such referrals illegal for reasons of conscience – even though referrals for other reasons were still allowed. Pharmacist Margo Thelen lost her job, Rhonda Mesler was told she had to transfer to another state, and the pharmacy’s owner was repeatedly investigated.

The ruling in the four-year-old case coincided with national outrage over the Obama administration's attempt to force religious institutions to pay for the same types of drugs in their employee insurance plans

“Today’s decision sends a very clear message: No individual can be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” Goodrich said. “If the state allows pharmacies to refer patients elsewhere for economic, business, and convenience reasons, it has to allow them to refer for reasons of conscience.”

In 2006, Gov. Christine Gregoire replaced several State Board of Pharmacy members with Planned Parenthood-approved candidates after the board unanimously voted to protect pharmacists’ right of conscience. The new board revised the regulations, making Washington State one of a handful in the nation that required pharmacists to stock emergency contraceptives.

 “The Board’s regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objections from their inception,” U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton explained in his ruling. “Indeed, Plaintiffs have presented reams of [internal government documents] demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse [for religious reasons].”

February 22, 2012 4:17pm ? Comments
Will a Santorum nomination open Soros' wallet?
byCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:

The New Yorker reports today that liberal billionaire George Soros, who famously donated over $23 million to groups supporting John Kerry's failed bid for president has yet to open his wallet and donate to Obama.

There is plenty of political intrigue in the piece that cites, "a source familiar with Soros' thinking," who suggests that he will not donate in the 2012 cycle, unless perhaps Rick Santorum should get the nomination.

While not ruling it out, the source said that Soros is caught in an uncomfortable dilemma. He is deeply worried about the growing role of secret money in American politics—and while he supports Obama, and doesn’t want to discourage others from giving, he doesn’t want to participate in or exacerbate a troubled election process.

In 2004, when Soros gave heavily to Kerry, he did so because he regarded George W. Bush as a threat to world peace; those who have spoken to him suggest that, so far at least, he sees the 2012 election as less dire. Indeed, Soros said recently that there is little difference between the President and Romney. Should Santorum get the Republican nomination, Soros might become more motivated, a source said.

But at the moment, “he’s not all that focussed on American politics,” said the source, who suggested Soros had spent more energy thinking about how to stabilize the euro and democratize Burma.

 

February 22, 2012 3:30pm ? Comments
The Santorums' faith
byMichael Barone
Follow on Twitter:

In my Examiner column today on Rick Santorum, I noted how his espousal of his strong religious beliefs threatens to get him into political trouble. But this Huffington Post piece by Sam Stein indicates that Santorum did not always have such strong beliefs, and that when he first ran for Congress in 1990, the year he turned 32, he was not as strong an abortion opponent as  he is today. Stein quotes the 1992 Santorum campaign’s response to a questionnaire and a 1995 Philadelphia Magazine article quoting Santorum as saying, “I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress.”

 

Does this mean Santorum is some kind of hypocrite? I don’t think so. It does suggest he changed his mind on this and perhaps many other issues around the time of his marriage to his wife Karen in 1990. Whatever their previous lifestyles and practices, they embraced a strong Catholicism, gave birth to eight children (one of whom died shortly after being born) and home-schooled their children. Many people change their beliefs and lifestyles in young adulthood, often around the time of marriage; there is nothing necessarily hypocritical about this. Another example is Senator Harry Reid and his wife. He grew up in an irreligious household and she in a Jewish family; when they married they decided to join the Mormon Church and, from all outward evidence, have been faithful adherents ever since. 

 

I don’t see any reason to criticize the Reids or the Santorums as hypocrites. From what I can see, each couple found a way that worked for them and pursued it faithfully.