"Santorum Slams Romney's Wall St. Ties" is the headline the Boston Globe put on its Republican presidential campaign story this morning, and it is more or less accurate. From the article:
"I heard Governor Romney here called me an economic lightweight because I wasn't a Wall Street financier like he was," Santorum told several hundred supporters in Rockford, Ill. "Do you think that's the experience we need? Someone who's going to take and look after, as he did, his friends on Wall Street and bail them out at the expense of Main Street America?"
And, later:
Later, Santorum downplayed the economic concerns that Romney has made the central theme of his campaign.
"I don't care what the unemployment rate's going to be," Santorum said. "Doesn't matter to me. My campaign doesn't hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates. It's something more foundational that's going on."
As I said when Newt Gingrich tried this approach unsuccessfully in Florida, if voters are looking for a politician who is good at bashing Wall Street, and at dividing Americans with artificial distinctions between Wall Street and Main Street, they don't need to look any farther than President Obama. It's not a unique selling proposition for a Republican presidential candidate. In addition, there's an accuracy problem. Mr. Romney wasn't "a Wall Street financier." He was a Boston-based management consulting and private equity guy. I am sympathetic to Mr. Santorum criticizing Mr. Romney for supporting TARP, but this is a really clumsy way of making that point.
And for Senator Santorum to profess indifference to the unemployment rate is just political malpractice. I'm sympathetic, or at least open, to his argument that there are some underlying cultural issues that need to be addressed and that relate to the economy. And I also would welcome a politician who is humble enough to confess that the president can't entirely control the unemployment rate, if that is what Mr. Santorum was getting at. But again, if voters are looking for a candidate who is dismissive of the importance of economic growth, they might as well vote for President Obama. (But Slate's David Weigel claims reporting these quotes out of context are a "cheap shot.")