From your perspective, what are 2-3 positive things about Rick Santorum as a candidate?
- solid conservative, articulate, and the left hates him with a passion

What are 2-3 things that give you pause about Rick Santorum as a candidate?
- the left’s hatred for him will make the campaign ugly and makes him less electable. Yes, its all about his social conservatism being to the left beyond the pale.
- too much of a big spender in Bush years.

Why do you think he is not getting traction among the base thus far?
- he lost in 2006, and as an experienced politician, he’s let us down in the past.
- senators dont make the best presidents (look at the current one).

Is there anything he could/should do to address this?
- No. He is doing his best, but a guy who lost his last senate election doesnt get a ‘promotion’ to president. He is a good man, but he would be better off considering a rematch in PA vs Casey … and if he’s not popular enough to do that, why would he be popular enough to become President?

I’ll throw in my thoughts down here now:

From your perspective, what are 2-3 positive things about Rick Santorum as a candidate?
Best collection of issues that respect all aspects of the conservative coalition. Knows how to work through the legislative system.
No personal baggage.

What are 2-3 things that give you pause about Rick Santorum as a candidate?
Being on the wrong side of Specter-Toomey 2004.
The resulting lack of competitiveness in 2006 due to conservative disillusion with him in what was already going to be a tough election year.

Why do you think he is not getting traction among the base thus far?
Specter 2004 made such a negative impression among some committed conservatives who should be his base that they keep looking elsewhere and not giving him much consideration.
Is there anything he could/should do to address this?
Step one… “I understand that frustration. I have learned from that experience. As President, I will not get involved in any Republican primaries. I will respect the people and the office.”

he is actually the candidate that is closest to ronald reagan’s definition of a true conservative(the three legged stool),

but i do not think he has a realistic chance of winning the nomination. and oddly enough…the fact he is not considered a top tier candidate is the main reason that he is not getting traction with the base.

Rick is my candidate, and I think he has a real chance at the nomination. You may think I am crazy, but let me explain.

First, he, along with Newt, are the two best debaters on the stage. He understands better than anyone else the inextricable link between fiscal and social conservatism. He is also well schooled in foreign affairs. No candidate (save Newt) argues as persuasively as Santorum. Consider that Santorum’s exchange with Perry on immigration pretty much ended the Perry boomlet, and I surmise that Rick’s critique of Cain’s consumption tax may similarly harm Cain.

That said, Santorum is not getting any traction. But that will change, and it will change because all of the other candidates (except Newt) have DISQUALIFYING flaws. Rick has flaws, but they are not disqualifying.

Let’s run down the list:

1. Romney. This one is obvious – Romneycare. The R party cannot nominate someone who enacted the template for Obamacare and still have a reason to exist.

2. Perry. Disqualifying flaw: The Republican party, let alone the country, has no patience for another inarticulate Texan.

3. Bachman. DQ’ing flaw: Never won a statewide race; has no executive experience; has no legislative accomplishments, and has a penchance for making outlandish statements that make her look foolish.

4. Cain. DQ’ing flaw: Has absolutely no experience as a political executive and has no experience with foreign affairs. I really like Herman Cain, but Obama proves that the Presidency requires more than personality. Passing a bill through Congress and devising a sound foreign policy are not skills that can be learned on the job.

5. Huntsman: Does not really have a disqualifying flaw, but at the same time, there is no rationale for his candidacy. If you are attracted to the Hunt, you might as well back Romney.

6. Paul: DQ’ing flaw: Lunatic on foreign policy.

7. Johnson: See above.

This leaves Gingrich and Santorum. I predict that one of the two will emerge as the conservative challenger to Romney.

Gingrich does not have a real disqualifying flaw, but he does have personal baggage that will serve as an albatross. But he can overcome that baggage.

Santorum, on the other hand, gives you all the benefits of Gingrich without the baggage. This is not to say he has no flaws, but they are not disqualifying.

Santorum’s weaknesses:

1. Likeability problem. He seems angry/snarky when he debates. He can fix this if he just smiles more.

2. Lost in 2006 by 18 points. Although this occurred in an awful R year and he lost to a favorite son candidate, people hold it against him.

3. Supported Specter in 2004. Some Conservatives haven’t forgiven Santorum for this, but those conservatives need to grow up. How is Sharron Angle working out for you? (By the way – Santorum explained that he supported Specter because Arlen promised to do everything to get GWB’s judical nominees confirmed. As a result, Roberts and Alito are on the Court).

4. No executive experience. Although this would normally be disqualifying, Santorum’s distinguished legislative career makes up for this. Santorum served for 12 years in the Senate, served as the third ranking Republican in leadership, was instrumental in welfare reform, served on the Armed services committee, and shephered the partial birth abortion ban through Congress. Effective legislators (think LBJ) can accomplish a lot as a President.

Santorum’s Strengths:

1. Well versed on foreign affairs as well as economic policy.

2. Strong advocate for family values and traditional marriage.

3. Outstanding debater.

4. From PA. Beat three democratic incumbents (two D congressman, one D Senator). When in Congress, represented a heavily Democratic/poor district. Won two statewide races in PA–a crucial swing state. In 2000, Santorum was the only blue-state Republican Senator to win re-election. In every other state that Bush lost which had an incumbent R senator, that senator lost. Speaks the language of the mid-west the best and this is crucial since the election will be decided in WI, IA, PA, and MI.

So, in the end, Santorum is my guy. I just wish more conservatives realized that he gives them EVERYTHING that they want and can beat Obama.

(P.S. If you like this comment, let me know and I will post it as a separate diary)