OUR OWN RICK Santorum's a hit in the initial test of 2012. What can it mean?
Does it mean Pennsylvania's positioned to get its first White House resident since James Buchanan (1857-61), a regular on lists of worst presidents?
Uh, no.
It means that some lily-white Iowa evangelical farmers think that the problems of the country can be solved by outlawing abortion and gay marriage and bombing Islamic nations.
It means that the heretofore-ignored Santorum gets a turn in the Mixmaster of presidential-campaign coverage.
It means that his campaign momentarily rises before sinking like the lead balloons of former "front-running" campaigns of Bachmann, Perry and Cain.
And for three reasons: He has no money; he has no general appeal, and, nationally, nobody knows much about him.
Remember, this year in the GOP, the fresh, new, not-Mitt face looks good for only so long. I figure we already can start saying "so long" to Santorum.
Yes, he finished in the top tier of last night's Iowa caucuses (he was narrowly leading at press time). But this is the most overcovered nonevent in modern American politics and predictive of nothing. Past top-tier finishers were Mike Huckabee, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson.
Santorum's of that ilk - which is to say, headed nowhere.
The question of what particular piece of Santorum baggage drags him down is an open one. But, as on most airlines these days, very few bags fly free.
Will it be his messianic ego, which, when pressed, manifests itself as red-rooster rage? Ask anyone who's covered him. Yesterday, he called Ron Paul "disgusting."
Will it be his general I'm-smarter-holier-and-better-than-thou demeanor?
Or will it be one of many specific Santorumisms that help define him?
Perhaps the national news media will look at his 2001 charity, the Good Neighbor Foundation: unregistered, run by lobbyists, spent just 36 percent of what it raised (less than half the norm) on charity and 57 percent on salaries, travel and such.
Maybe fellow Catholics will recall his 2002 contention that the church's child-sex scandals were the fault of Boston liberalism, whatever that means.
His 2003 Associated Press interview, during which he famously compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia, drew national attention. It's ripe for a rerun.
And I feel certain his fellow conservatives and anti-abortion backers will love being reminded that in 2004 he endorsed pro-choice moderate Arlen Specter.
