Rick Santorum Rips Fox News Over ‘Arbitrary’ Debate Rules

“The idea that a national poll has any relationship to the viability of a candidate—ask Rudy Giuliani that. Ask Phil Gramm that.”

Former Sen. Rick Santorum at the 2015 NRA Annual Meeting & Exhibits in Nashville, Tennessee on April 10, 2015. 
National Journal
May 21, 2015, 1:07 p.m.

OKLAHOMA CITY—Rick Santorum on Thursday ripped Fox News’ newly-announced criteria for qualifying in the network’s Aug. 6 Republican presidential debate, calling the guidelines “arbitrary” and “not legitimate.”

His comments came less than 24 hours after Fox News announced it would limit participation to those GOP candidates who rank in the top 10 of five national polls in the months leading up to the debate in Cleveland.

If the first debate were held right now, under those rules, Santorum would be left out—a reality that was not lost on him when asked by National Journal about the situation after his speech to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference here.

(RELATED: Rick Santorum, Reincarnated

“I’m probably the best person to comment on this. In January of 2012 I was at 4 percent in the national polls, and I won the Iowa caucuses. I don’t know if I was last in the polls, but I was pretty close to last,” Santorum said. “And so the idea that a national poll has any relationship to the viability of a candidate—ask Rudy Giuliani that. Ask Phil Gramm that. You can go on down the list of folks who were doing real well in national polls and didn’t win a single state and were not a viable candidate.”

Based on the average of the past five national, methodologically-sound polls of the Republican field, Santorum would be left out of a debate held today—as would Carly Fiorina, the only woman in the field, Bobby Jindal, the first Indian-American to run for president, and other experienced politicians such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich, former New York Gov. George Pataki, and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Santorum said the GOP debates should be “inclusive” and welcome to all “legitimate” candidates.

“If you’re a United States senator, if you’re a governor, if you’re a woman who ran a Fortune 500 company, and you’re running a legitimate campaign for president, then you should have a right to be on stage with everybody else,” Santorum said. “So the idea that we’re going to arbitrarily—and it’s arbitrary, someone at 1.15 is in, someone at 1.14 is out—that to me is not a rational way.”

(RELATED: How One TV Channel Is Positioning Itself To Be the Next Fox News

Santorum, who started the 2012 race a rounding-error away from zero in the polls to finish as the runner-up to Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, was particularly upset about the network’s decision to use national polls, “which is not legitimate, in my opinion, to determine viability of a candidate,” he said.

“It’s like saying ‘Is it hot outside? Well, let’s go inside and measure temperatures.’ That has nothing to do with how hot it is outside,” he said. You have to go to the place where the temperature matters, and it matters in the early primary states. “

Some of the later debates held in Iowa and New Hampshire will, in all likelihood, use statewide polling as part of its qualification criteria.

There are nine debates scheduled, with the possibility of three late-season debates being added later on. Only the first two—hosted by Fox News in August, and CNN in September—have released their qualification criteria. CNN also is using national polling as its standard, but has announced that it will hold a second-tier debate for candidates who finish outside of the top ten.

(RELATED: Where the 2016 Republicans Stand on NSA Spying

Santorum pointed out that he has argued publicly for that latter approach, and sounded confident that Fox News will reconsider its decision.

“I’m hopeful that people will listen to the comments—I mean, I’m sure they put this out there to get comments,” he said. “And I’m not criticizing or condemning them. I’m really not. Hopefully they put it out there and they’re going to listen to what the comments are, and factor those in, and determine what is the right way.”

Santorum has a complicated history with Fox News. He was a contributor to the network prior to his 2012 run, but during that race he accused Fox of giving flattering coverage to his primary opponent, Romney.

What We're Following See More »
PICTURE IS CLOUDIER ON OBSTRUCTION
Mueller: No Evidence of Collusion
16 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr. The summary also said that the special counsel’s team lacked sufficient evidence to establish that President Trump illegally obstructed justice, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump." Read Barr's summary here.

Source:
MUELLER "DOES NOT EXONERATE" TRUMP OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FINDS NO CONCRETE COLLUSION
Barr Releases Mueller Summary Letter to Congrees
16 hours ago
THE LATEST
BARR MAY BRIEF CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS THIS WEEKEND
Mueller Reports
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has delivered a report on his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election to Attorney General William P. Barr ... Barr told congressional leaders in a letter late Friday that he may brief them within days on the special counsel’s findings. 'I may be in a position to advise you of the special counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend,' he wrote in a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Judiciary committees. It is up to Mr. Barr how much of the report to share with Congress and, by extension, the American public. The House voted unanimously in March on a nonbinding resolution to make public the report’s findings, an indication of the deep support within both parties to air whatever evidence prosecutors uncovered."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login