When this year’s presidential campaign began, Rick Santorum looked like a fringe candidate, consigned permanently to the outside edge of an overcrowded debate stage. But as earlier conservative front-runners sputtered, Santorum plugged away, sticking doggedly to his unfashionable message of uncompromising social conservatism.
And then, suddenly, he got lucky. Republicans started believing the attack ads Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich rained on each other, and both men’s popularity sank. Meanwhile, a battle over contraception coverage in health insurance plans reminded conservatives how strongly they feel about the social issues — and how much they enjoy accusing President Obama of waging a “war on religion.”
Santorum, no longer on the fringe, won two caucuses and a primary in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri.
The resulting shift in the polls has been dramatic — the biggest five-day swing in the primary campaign to date, according to Gallup. Among Republicans nationwide, Santorum is now running neck and neck with Romney; Gingrich and Ron Paul have fallen far behind.
We’ve seen plenty of candidates rise briefly to the top in this GOP race, and so far the surges have come to nothing. But at least for the moment, we have to take Santorum seriously, especially since he’s leading the polls in the two most important primary states immediately ahead, Michigan and Ohio.
This could mean that the contest is, finally, a two-man race: Romney, the candidate of an establishment that no longer holds much sway with the base, and Santorum, the candidate of a conservative insurgency that seems able to draw voters to the polls.
So how has Santorum succeeded in getting this far? And how far is he likely to go?
Much of his rise, to be sure, has come through a process of elimination: At this point, he’s one of the few candidates for the “not Romney” role left standing.
But it hasn’t been only stubbornness and luck. He’s run a pretty good campaign, finding ways to expand his message beyond a narrow social conservative agenda. He still talks plenty about abortion and gay marriage if voters ask, but the core of Santorum’s stump speech these days is economics. Like every Republican candidate, he’s for lower taxes and a balanced budget. But he’s also proposed a set of policies to promote the creation of blue-collar manufacturing jobs, including elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers.
Within those themes, of course, lies an implicit critique of Romney, a Harvard-educated venture capitalist whose equally conservative economic platform is aimed at the financial markets more than the factory floor.
Not surprisingly, a CNN poll released this week found that a bit of class warfare has broken out within the GOP electorate. Republicans who describe themselves as blue collar were backing Santorum, the grandson of an Italian immigrant coal miner, by a wide margin, while those who call themselves white collar were backing Romney.
The CNN poll also pointed out another gap between Santorum and Romney voters: gender. The former senator’s uncompromising social positions — he doesn’t think anyone’s insurance policy should cover contraceptives, for example — haven’t endeared him to many women. The poll found Romney leading by 9 percentage points among Republican women, and Santorum leading by 10 points among GOP men.
Even if it’s now a two-man race, can the former senator actually win his party’s nomination? That will still be tough.
Up to now, Santorum has been spared the full force of a negative campaign, in large part because Romney and Gingrich were focused on slamming each other. But now that Santorum appears to be the biggest threat to Romney’s nomination, he’s starting to be targeted. Last week, Romney supporter and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty denounced Santorum as a “pork-barrel spender” during his Senate terms. And the “super PAC” supporting Romney has already unveiled a television commercial that calls Santorum a “Washington insider” who voted to raise his own pay.
And Santorum doesn’t have nearly the money that Romney does. One GOP fundraiser estimated this week that Santorum has less than $2 million in cash on hand; Romney had $19 million at the end of 2011, although he spent a chunk of it last month.
Both campaigns are likely to spend heavily in Michigan, which votes on Feb. 28, because the stakes for both are high. For Santorum, a win in Michigan would prove that his surge hasn’t been a fluke and that he can beat Romney even in the state where the former Massachusetts governor was born.
Even if Santorum wins in Michigan and shows well on Super Tuesday in early March, the arithmetic will be against him. Romney leads the delegate count now, and he is virtually certain to win in several states on Super Tuesday. Santorum’s own strategist, John Brabender, has conceded that winning an outright majority of delegates may not be possible and that the insurgent’s best chance may lie in a deadlocked convention.
Republican strategists I spoke with still consider Romney the front-runner. For Santorum to keep his surge going, he’ll need to be more than just smart and lucky, the factors that brought him this far. He’ll need Romney to fail.
• McManus is a columnist for The Los Angeles Times.





Comments (10)
Add commentThird party
The only thing holding the republican party together is its hatred of Obama.
Come 2016, when Obama's wrapping up his second term and the field is wide open, there won't be the imperative to toe the party line for unity against a common foe. The cracks in the party will turn into wide open fractures. Should be fun to watch.
And there's every chance that the dems will suffer the same fate.
Secularism cannot be equated with atheism
Today, Santorum's supporters, backtracking from the goofy attack Rick made on Obama's Christianity are now trying to elevate secularism to a theology. You know, like "radical environmentalism" is really a religion too.
Religions across the spectrum from Scientology to Anglicanism (and including people of no faith whatsoever), are precisely protected in a liberal, secular nation. Secularism is Santorum's friend unless he longs for a theocracy in the US, like at the Vatican. Secularism is one thing: separation of Church and State. And his supporters don't know this? Does Rick?
As a friend on another board said recently, "all they have to do is equate secularism with atheism, atheism with the Democratic Party and presto, their work is done. They can go home and wash their KKK outfits and call it a day."
Mike
Goofy attack
Mr. Santorum's attack on the validity of Mr. Obama's christianity was definitely not goofy because Mr. Obama is definitely not a Christian. He can (when he feels he needs the votes) call himself a Christian all day long but that doesn't make him one. Many, many of Mr. Obama's policies and pretty much every one of his judicial nominations are indeed anti-Christian.
@charleylarson: indeed! You
@charleylarson: indeed! You are correct on all counts, even though you have no evidence for any of it. You have "faith" that Obama is out to swindle all you poor Christians, and that's good enough. Right?
Obama is clearly Christian. He's not a hardcore Christian and tries to include and serve people of all faiths, which is what irks people like you.
If we were to take the actual teachings of Jesus Christ and remove all of the fluff, it would be obvious that you and most like you are not Christians at all, but spiritual bullies who pick and choose passages from a book in order to exclude everyone you don't like.
@PP
This i one of your better comments!
Romney, Paul, Newt, Santorum
Of the four players left, Santorum scares me the most.
First of all, he's the dumbest of the four. I mean, like, Sarah Palin dumb. Seriously.
His gay bashing is over the top and so ignorant of science his comments make you go "huh? Did he REALLY say something that stupid?" His frothy mix of stupid plus gay bashing really earns him the disgusting definition that Google will give you if you simply google his last name (snicker). (And thanks to Stephen Colbert for making it known).
At first, you think he's just pandering to his base. But his tone is such, like Michelle Bachmann, that they really believe the absurdity they spew, and that scares me.
Newt is laughable. But he's at least intelligent as are Romney and Paul. But Newt's power trip/ego, marital infidelity and propensity for lying will be his undoing.
Honestly, I wouldn't like it, but I could handle Romney or Paul being POTUS. But not Newt.
And certainly not the frothy Santorum.
Mr. Persimmon
You can always tell a tree by its fruit. Look at Mr. Obama's fruit and then tell me he is a Christian. As POTUS he swore to defend the laws of the USA but he refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act because he is for same-sex marriage. If you think God is for same-sex marriage please read the first chapter of the book of Romans. I do not pick and choose passages from the Bible to exclude anyone I don't like. I do not dislike anyone I have never met. Plus God's Word is totally unified so that one passage will not contradict another. I have no predjudice against anyone. I personally have nothing against homosexuals but I do care enough about them and where they spend eternity to tell them that they are on an extremely dangerous path. Mr. Obama is pro-abortion and I definitely believe my God is not. So I believe Mr. Obama, by the fruit of his presidency so far, is definitely not a Christian. In today's USA, when someone who believes in absolute truth and a bible-based morality disagrees with the more liberal beliefs or agenda of another person, I guess the latest politically correct thing to do is name call and label them a 'bully' and also to label their discourse as 'hate speech'.
The question of who will be
The question of who will be president starts and ends with money. Bankers have already chosen the president and it will be Obama because he is more polarizing than Romney would be and will serve to better divide the serfs and divert their attention from their corruption. We're pretty much doomed and probably deserve what we get.
terrible title = terrible pun
Really?? The title is "Santorum's Surge??"
< vomit in own mouth >
@charleylarson: you obviously
@charleylarson: you obviously do pick and choose passages, because the Bible certainly does contradict itself. Right in the beginning, in fact. Genesis contains two creation stories that are not identical. In the first story, God creates everything and then humans last. In the second story, God creates Adam and then creates plants and animals (and then Eve). There are many more, but you'd think you'd be aware of this one, since it's in the very beginning.
Furthermore, it is not the president's job to inflict his religious beliefs on other people. Are homosexuals hurting you by getting married? No? Then leave them alone. Denying them the same rights as other people is called discrimination, and if you're truly worried about where they're going (doubtful), you might try asking your god why he created gay people in the first place.
In the immortal words of Butters, "if I'm bi-curious, and I'm somehow made from God, then I guess God must be a little bi-curious himself!"
Also, the Bible: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9. In simple terms, it's not your job, as a Christian, to spread your religion. Doing so is unchristian.
So really, you believe in the "absolute truth" of the passages you like, but not all those icky ones that don't fit your worldview. Doesn't sound like Christianity to me, but a pick-and-choose religion of your own making.