There has hardly ever been a campaigner who hasn’t exaggerated, demonized, scarified, and all the rest of it. It goes with the territory. But there’s a line, I think — and I also think that Rick Santorum, in his battle against Mitt Romney, has crossed it.
Here are some greatest hits from recent days: “Mitt Romney is in bed with Barack Obama.” Romney “passed socialized medicine.” “Mitt’s whole career, he’s been working for liberals.” Romney is “a liberal governor of Massachusetts.” He is “an Occupy Wall Street adherent.”
Advertisement
Not only are these not truthful comments, they’re not even sane. And you want sanity in your nominee, as a bare minimum. Newt Gingrich has dubbed Romney a “Massachusetts moderate.” Who could have guessed that, between the two main not-Romney candidates, Newt would be the more temperate in his rhetoric?
Although Santorum has not, thus far, accused Romney of forcing Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher food for the first time in their lives, in their dying days. That was a Newt special.
Another Santorum beauty: Romney “doesn’t understand how America works any more than Barack Obama understands how America works.” Well, growing up with George, starting businesses, running the Olympics, serving as governor — Romney has a halfway decent understanding of how America works, I would say. Maybe even close to Rick Santorum’s understanding.
As for Obama, he managed to understand America well enough to get himself elected president, alas.
Santorum said that Romney and Ron Paul are in cahoots, teaming up against him. “The coordination that I felt at that debate that night was pretty clear — it was like they were passing messages behind my chair.”
If Romney can pull off such a tricky, crafty feat in a campaign, imagine what he could do in American foreign policy . . .
He was supposed to have stepped in it by telling a Detroit audience, “I drive a Mustang and Chevy pickup truck. Ann [Mrs. Romney] drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually. I used to have a Dodge truck, so I used to have all three covered [the three Detroit automakers].”
What was the problem? You see, he revealed himself to be — cover the children’s ears — rich. All those cars. And two Cadillacs! Holy smokes, what will the yokels say?
Actually, the yokels, in my home state of Michigan, tend to have a lot of cars. Maybe even more than the Romneys. There might even be a Caddy or two among those cars. Besides, I think everyone pretty much knows that Romney has made a lot of money. And I have a feeling the public might be a little less resentful than some suppose.
A few weeks ago, a Santorum campaigner-blogger on this site said that Romney was “pretending he’s not rich.” Well, for a guy who’s pretending he’s not rich, he’s pretty loose with the Cadillac talk.
This article begins, “President Barack Obama is telling Latino voters their choice in the election ‘will not be that difficult’ because he’s the only one who backs comprehensive immigration reform.”
I couldn’t help thinking what Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, said during the 2010 campaign: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay? Do I need to say more?” This was before a Hispanic Republican, Brian Sandoval, won the governorship of Reid’s state, Nevada — beating Reid’s own son, Rory.
How sweet it was, and is.
Franklin Graham, Billy’s son, was roundly criticized for not coming out and saying, forthrightly, “Of course Barack Obama is a Christian. Who could question it? Christian as they come.” Instead, he said things like, “I accept him as what he says. If he says he’s a Christian, I accept that. I’m not going to say he’s not. . . . He is a nice man. And his wife is a class act and their kids are class — you can’t help but like them.”
Graham was pilloried. But I thought of this: Bill Maher said flat-out that he didn’t believe Obama was a Christian. He said he thought Obama was lying about that. He said that, as he saw it, Obama was a secular humanist, pure and simple.
Yet few pounced on Maher for that, as I recall.
Also, Franklin Graham, at the same time he was making his remarks about Obama, would not call Mitt Romney a Christian. And nobody, but nobody, cared about that.
Has anyone ever read "The Coming of Gowf" in P.G. Wodehouse's Golf Stories? Great story -- although it does seem to perpetuate the myth that golf has always been for the "ruling classes." Very time consuming, golf is...
For heaven's sake, Jay, if you're going to be so in the tank for a nominee that your spin is indistinguishable from an official spokesman for the campaign, couldn't you at least pick a candidate who is a little more plausibly conservative, someone who couldn't, given his record, just as easily run as a triangulating, Clintonesque, DNC-style Democrat? Or couldn't you wait for an election that's a tiny bit less consequential?
I don't remember and a quick search hasn't produced any evidence that you were the least bit concerned that Romney attacked Perry FROM THE LEFT by trying to scare senior citizens about entitlements. You haven't seemed concerned that Romney and his PAC's spending on negative advertising -- in Iowa, in Florida, in Michigan, now pretty much everywhere -- probably eclipses everything else combined. I don't remember your objecting to NR's despicable "Against Gingrich" editorial (was Andrew McCarthy overreacting?), I don't think you caught the fact that Romney lied in the last debate, that Romneycare did indeed require Catholic hospitals to provide abortifacients...
...and I missed where you suggested that their recent editorial was a little over the top in criticizing Santorum for saying things that are frequently heard within theologically conservative Christian circles.
On the subject of religion, you write, "Franklin Graham, at the same time he was making his remarks about Obama, would not call Mitt Romney a Christian. And nobody, but nobody, cared about that."
Glenn Beck, for one, griped about that.
Personally, I think one can judge a tree by its fruit, and Jeremiah Wright basically hijacked the pulpit, not only to advance his own political agenda while dishonestly invoking Christ's name, but also to slander political enemies in the process, even accusing the U.S. government of inventing AIDS as an act of attempted genocide. I doubt any mature and faithful Christian would do that or choose to be mentored by those who do, but Wright's church is nominally part of a Christian denomination (Church of Christ), so I can understand why Franklin might give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
But one can believe that Mitt Romney is a sincere and devout member of his church while declining to embrace him as a Christian because that church is Mormon. Even beyond the question of whether Mormonism is Christian (it isn't), there's a long-standing Christian consensus that it's not, the small-o orthodox have never embraced Mormonism, Mormonism's own claims about its origins clearly point to a significant chasm that probably cannot be bridged -- a chasm either between a universal apostasy and a restored church, or between orthodoxy and heresy -- and there ARE strong arguments that Mormon doctrine is contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture.
Just what do you want, Jay? Do you really want (or expect) a prominent, theologically conservative, evangelical pastor like FRANKLIN GRAHAM to set all this aside and say that Mormonism is Christian just because that's what is expected among a media elite that is, AT BEST, ambivalent to any serious expression of religious devotion that is more controversial than declaring that we ought to care for the poor?
That's just bizarre. The next thing I know, you're gonna start defending Romney's comment about his motorcade by suggesting that it's common to see a Michigan yokel with six or more automobiles.
--
I hate that this primary season has seriously weakened my respect for NR/NRO and even some of its strongest writers. There are writers I never did highly esteem, but I still wonder why guys like Steorts and Potemra would be given space here in the first place.
But it's depressing to see such an enjoyable writer like Jay Nordlinger not only support Romney as the least-bad option (a position I don't share but could at least respect), but go all-in for a politician whose record and personality simply don't merit that kind of loyalty.
Ramesh Ponnuru did great work with his book, Party of Death, but now he's openly endorsing a candidate whose wanderings on abortion hardly seem to be the couragous stands resulting from a genuine change of heart: as a layman leader in the Mormon church, he mentored women not to have abortions, he then ran in Massachusetts as staunchly pro-choice, and he claims that it is only later that he saw the light. Ponnuru also argued that Catholics should think twice about supporting Gingrich because of his adulterous behavior -- supporting him might muddy the waters on Christian ethics -- but he failed to recognize the parallel argument that supporting a Mormon might likewise muddy the waters on Christian doctrine.
And, along with Steyn and McCarthy, Jonah Goldberg has long been one of my favorite writers, but his recent argument for Romney turned out to be a repudiation of the Buckley rule. It used to be that conservatives should support the most electable conservative (or the most conservative among those who are electable, not always the same thing), but Jonah insists that the "instrumental" case for Romney is that "It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you."
In other words, support the LEAST conservative candidate, and he'll be on a short leash.
What in the world is going on at National Review?
I'd love to see the flagship magazine live up to its mission statement and be that "vigorous and incorruptible journal of conservative opinion," and it's frankly distressing that it isn't.
But it's also clarifying.
Far too often we find ideas and positions that are conservative only in comparison to The New York Times. Compared to the rank-and-file of the conservative base, and especially considered in light of the very serious circumstances we're now in, National Review is coming up very short indeed. And it's a sad commentary on NR that the weekend one-two punch of Steyn and McCarthy is a breath of fresh air compared, not just to the mainstream media, but to the majority of what's published under the familiar blue banner.
Lawrence, I agree with the substance of your post and not with the conclusion. Jay (and most on NR) is in the tank for Mitt. I believe it's because they're scared of losing to BHO and truly don't believe Newt or Rick can win (despite polls to the contrary). That being said, it's only their election opinion writing that has gone so far down hill. Planet Gore and Critical Condition still give good insight on those respective causes. Even campaign spot remains slightly above the fray, mainly commenting on polls and delegate counts. You just need to read election stuff knowing that the editorial board has a huge Mitt slant and focus on the other news NR provides.
Buzzman, I think that editorial cautioning Santorum about his language was written precisely because they like him. Some of the editors want him to get 1st, some 2nd, and all of them want him to be focused. He's not always.
As far as "polls to the contrary," some polls show that both Romney and Santorum have a decent shot against Obama, but none, I repeat NONE are showing Newt to have a shot.
I see what you're saying, but elections are where the rubber meets the road, and if NR/NRO is willing to risk its credibility to stump for a questionable candidate, then the resulting harm isn't and shouldn't be limited to their election coverage.
I think Romney's electibility is way overblown, but even so, this sort of worrying behavior wasn't limited to this election. The editors endorsed McCain over Hayworth in the 2010 Arizona primary...
I humbly suggest you've completely misinterpreted Jay's Graham reference. The point is not that Graham should have referred to Romney as a Christian, it's that the left media didn't make a big deal out of it because he was referring to Romney (who they could care less about).
And about those Mormons: your argument perfectly encapsulates why Santorum will lose if nominated. That 10-20% in the middle that the Republican candidate *must* convince if he is to have a snowball's chance in Yuma of winning the general election don't like having hard ideological lines in the sand drawn for them. Actually, "don't like" is far too charitable. "Will run screaming in the other direction" is far more accurate. I'm not here to debate theology with you. You probably are correct in your interpretation of Scripture and its application to Mormon doctrine. If Santorum is smart he will openly embrace Romney as a fellow Christian, honestly explain his moral beliefs and then spend the other 99.99999999% of his time ripping apart Obama. If that isn't sufficiently doctrinaire for the Lawrence's of the world...well...don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I'll take this point-by-point style with a bit of wandering in a nod to Jay Norldinger
--If you've read Jay's post debate bullets, you've seen him hit everybody, Romney included.
--Perry used dumb language to talk about Social Security's problems. Saying so isn't unfair.
--Why should we be "concerned" about Romney spending money in his campaign? I think it's silly that the candidates who aren't any good at fundraising are trying to spin it as a badge of honor. Santorum's line about how Obama will have so much money in the General just reminds me that we need a candidate who can fundraise too.
--Romneycare didn't require Catholic hospitals to dispense birth control. The article that you are referencing is about an entirely different bill with an entirely different history of its own. A part of that history is Romney trying to stop that bill with a veto but getting overridden. The legal advice to him at the time was that he could not read a carve out into that bill for Catholic hospitals. It's unfortunate that his veto was overriden, but I think the legal advice was correct.
--The editorial's criticism of Santorum often getting himself off topic has nothing to do with his theology. Yes, he's saying things that are "frequently heard" from mainstream conservative ministers. I too believe some of those things. They also have nothing to do with winning this election, and the editorial board is correct to say that he needs to stay on topic. (BTW, the editors like Santorum and Romney both which is why that editorial which you hate is titled Not Newt).
--I didn't read Jay's observations about the outrage at Franklin Graham as being a criticism of what Graham said about Romney. He was just noting the difference. He didn't say he was outraged about what Graham said.
--I understand that you think Romney isn't the best candidate. You might even be right. But you shouldn't be outraged at National Review for being friendly towards a candidate who just four years ago was supported by Santorum, Limbaugh and conservatives all over this country. In the last four years, Romney hasn't gotten less conservative.
To Buzzman and 270: Unlike most of the columnists here, Nordlinger simply despises Santorum -- sticks in a jab when it's almost entirely irrelevant to the rest of his column. Nordlinger's attitude toward the man isn't explicable by reference to his assessment of Santorum's chances in the general or any such thing. Meanwhile, he repeatedly and boringly pushes Bolton, of all people -- Bolton, who is basically a pro-choice libertarian on abortion and a liberal on redefinition of marriage. So I guess I shouldn't care what Nordlinger thinks, but I've always liked him, so it's a shame he is so annoying in this area. He never owns up to being a social liberal, and he often seems to care about abortion, but he never identifies any reason for hating Santorum so much, so I suppose it must be his positions on social issues.
1) I misspoke about Romneycare; it was a different Massachusetts law. Nevertheless, it seems that Romney did more than what his legal counsel suggested, stating, "In my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape."
2) My problem isn't with the spending, per se, of Romney's campaign and PAC. It's the spending to fund an overwhelmingly negative campaign, one that seeks to tear down his opponents rather than encourage anyone to support him. Worse, the mudslinging is hypocritical; in an attempt to discourage his opponents' conservative supporters, the ads point out the opponents' numerous deviations from conservative orthodoxy, but by ANY standard Romney is at least as to the left as Gingrich and Santorum.
If Romney were a stalwart conservative pointing out the others' flaws, that would be one thing, but he's not. AT BEST, it's the pot calling the kettle black. It's not just hypocrtical, it's flagrant.
3) If NR's editorial was about Santorum staying on-topic during the campaign, it should never have mentioned comments made in 2008, to a Catholic school, when Santorum was neither in office nor seeking office.
4) Romney may well have seemed conservative in comparison to McCain, but if he hasn't become "less conservative" in the past four years -- and it's about time that a man of his age settle down in his political beliefs -- the context has entirely changed. The Dems shoved Obamacare down our throats, the Tea Party has emerged demanding smaller government and fiscal responsibility, and Romney is running against the more conservative (albeit imperfect) leaders of the Contract with America, not the "maverick" who supported amnesty but opposed free speech in the crucially important political arena.
Look, if Romeny really were the conservative standard bearer, David Frum wouldn't have implied that he would leave the party unless Romney or Huntsman were nominated. If anyone is being supported by the Rockefeller GOP establishment in an effort to neutralize the Tea Party and the values voters and (in Frum's words) the "radical congressional wing," it's Mitt Romney.
1) Yes, that was his personal view that it ought to be generally available for victims of rape. It was also though his personal view that the law compelling hospitals to provide it was wrong which is why he vetoed it. He then decided he couldn't read a carve out into the law that wasn't there. I'm pro-life, but I think he was right on that.
2) I don't think it's hypocritical for a Republican with flaws to point out that the other Republicans have flaws.
3) I understand your point here. But these are the dangers of going back in forth between a life in politics and a life in commentary like so many are doing now. It's especially a problem for Santorum who has commented about anything and everything. So it's all the more important for him to be disciplined now.
4) I don't think Newt's as conservative as you think he is or as conservative as he was in the 90s. He's to the left of Romney on immigration, the environment, housing / Freddie Mac reform, and entitlement reform.
I share your distaste for Frum. Voting to have him leave the party is tempting. But I don't think there are that many Rockefeller types left. He's the exception. I think Coulter is right on that point.
I know that Newt would be a bad choice. If I decide that Santorum would be too, it won't be because he's too conservative.
"I understand that you think Romney isn't the best candidate. You might even be right. But you shouldn't be outraged at National Review for being friendly towards a candidate who just four years ago was supported by Santorum, Limbaugh and conservatives all over this country. In the last four years, Romney hasn't gotten less conservative."
The point wasn't that Romney is the best candidate, the point was that there is a line and Rick Santorum crossed it. Of course you're too biased to read any press that doesn't fully support your candidate as just press. Your accusations are simply baseless and untrue.
What you see here are honest responses to the notion that Santorum crossed some kind of line. All Nordlinger's examples seem like ordinary campaigning to me. I think it' apparent to nearly everyone that something besides line-crossing has inspired Nordlinger to excoriate Santorum.
What specific accusations are "baseless and untrue"? It's easy to avoid defending your own claims when you keep them that vague, paladin.
I can handle negative press about Santorum, but what gets me is the inconsistency. By any measure, Romney has run an extremely negative and in some respects dirty campaign, but I genuinely don't remember Nordlinger showing half the outrage he does at Santorum.
In fact, he's ripping Santorum's comments out of context to make them appear worse than they are, but at least some of them have some degree of merit.
Romney “passed socialized medicine.” HE DID, or if he didn't, then Obamacare isn't socialized medicine either, and so what's the big deal?
Romney is “a liberal governor of Massachusetts.” HE WAS, on health care, on energy, and at least arguably in the way he did more than was legally required in implementing the court's ruling on gay marriage AND in the way his administration overruled the law to require Catholic hospitals to provide abortifacients.
He is “an Occupy Wall Street adherent.” In context -- such as in the Santorum-penned piece the WSJ published yesterday -- the comment makes some kind of sense: Romney IS coopting the class-warfare rhetoric of the OWS crowd by insisting that, in his tax plan, the rich must still pay "their fair share."
You can disagree about some of these, but Nordlinger's reaction...
"Not only are these not truthful comments, they’re not even sane."
...is so excessive that it makes HIM seem unhinged, not Santorum.
What in the world is going on at National Review? I keep asking that every day.
Many good comments here, Lawrence.
Each candidate has done some wrong things this time, but so far, for me it is Gingrich who seems the best for us out of this field.
They are trying to educate people on the reality of this election. The fact that you believe Gingrich is electable explains alot. He is intelligent and preferable to Santorum, but the reality is...he is not electable in a general. He just isn't. The time has come to get this rediculous primary over.
"Tiger beat"...not sure where you came up with that sophisticated, yet intellectual response. Reagan and Newt are not the same. In fact, they are opposite in many ways.
Plus, I don't recall Reagan focusing on moon colonies. Your thoughts are just not very convicing...sorry:-)
Another Santorum beauty: Romney “doesn’t understand how America works any more than Barack Obama understands how America works.” Well, growing up with George, starting businesses, running the Olympics, serving as governor — Romney has a halfway decent understanding of how America works, I would say. Maybe even close to Rick Santorum’s understanding.
