It’s been a wild ride, but the storyline of the Republican race remains remarkably simple and constant: It’s Mitt Romney and the perishable pretenders.
Five have come and gone, if you count the Donald’s aborted proto-candidacy. And now the sixth and most plausibly presidential challenger just had his moment — and blew it in Michigan.
It’s no use arguing that Rick Santorum won nearly as many Michigan delegates as Romney. He lost the state. Wasn’t Santorum claiming a great victory just three weeks ago when he shockingly swept Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado — without a single convention delegate being selected?
Advertisement
He was right. It was a great victory. Delegate counts were beside the point. These three wins instantly propelled him to the front of the field nationally and to a double-digit lead in Romney’s Michigan backyard.
Then Santorum went ahead and lost it. Rather than sticking to his considerable working-class, Reagan-Democrat appeal, he kept wandering back to his austere social conservatism. Rather than placing himself in “grandpa’s hands,” his moving tribute to his immigrant, coal-miner grandfather as representative of the America Santorum pledges to restore, he insisted on launching himself into culture-war thickets: Kennedy, college, and contraception.
He averred that John Kennedy’s 1960 Houston speech on separation of church and state makes him “throw up.” Whatever the virtues of Santorum’s expansive view of the role of religion, the insulting tone toward Kennedy who, living at a time of frank anti-Catholic bigotry, understandably offered a more attenuated view of religion in the public square, was jarring, intemperate, and utterly unnecessary.
As was his sneering at President Obama’s wanting to open college to all. Santorum called that snobbery and an attempt at liberal indoctrination. Sure, there’s a point to be made about ideological imbalance in higher education and about the dignity of manual labor. But to do so by disdaining the most important instrument of social mobility — one that millions of parents devoutly desire for their children — is simply bizarre.
Finally, the less said about contraception the better, a lesson Santorum refused to learn. It’s a settled question. The country has no real desire for cringe-inducing admonitions from politicians about libertinism and procreative (versus pleasurable) sex.
The result of these unforced errors was Santorum’s Michigan slide. His post-trifecta lead vanished. He forfeited a victory that would have shattered the Romney candidacy.
Krauthammer: You did not mention Santorum's mistake in trying to recruit Democrats through robocalls, inviting them to pile onto Romney in a Republican primary. Although his intention was to fish for Reagan Democrats, it was a huge mistake.
In so doing, Santorum unwittingly exposed himself as the candidate whom the Democrats would love to pummel in the fall. In so doing, Santorum unwittingly unveiled Romney as the candidate most feared by the left. And this was after Daily Kos, the liberal blog, was encouraging a crossover to prop Santorum up for a fall defeat.
Maybe immediate effects were not evident in the aftermath of Michigan, but the backlash might show up on Super Tuesday, especially in closed primary states.
Empirically, all of Romney's challengers have launched, risen, and fallen away.
I live in a Super Tuesday state, and have been ruminating about who should get my vote. Never Ron Paul. Considered Newt and Santorum, as either -- in a perfect world -- would be more "ideal" to my way of thinking than Romney on many issues.
But it's NOT a "perfect world". And the gap between Newt and Santorum and Romney in political idealogy is really not all that large. Neither is as conservative as they like to posture. And Romney is not as "moderate" as many like to portray him.
The practical side of my political sensibilities is bugging me to pull the lever [or is it tap the screen?] for Romney, and get this over with, so that a concerted and unified movement to remove Obama can commence.
Romney as a candidate looks he has been designed in a lab by Obama’s campaign consultants who have decided to run a campaign of class warfare on the super rich:
- Super rich Wall Street guy
- Supports bailouts for Wall Street – but not for US automakers
- Worth hundreds of millions of dollars mostly made by managing money and dismantling companies (Bain used US crony capitalism, international crony capitalism - the Italian job – used government bailouts, medicare fraud etc.)
- $100M (a hundred million $) in a tax-free (government-sponsored) IRA using tax loopholes designed exactly for super rich people like him
- transferred $100M (a hundred million $) to his sons using tax loopholes designed exactly for super rich people like him
- Pays a much smaller tax rate than his secretary, driver, and house help – not only on his investment income, but also on his salary/compensation as a money manager at Bain.
- Uses Caiman Island accounts and Swiss bank accounts to shelter his money
Also – since Obamacare looks like the most important issue for Republicans, the designed candidate should not be able to attack Obama on it – ideally you want someone who has devised and implemented the individual health care mandates (Romneycare) that Obama based his on! Thus Obamacare is off the table!
Throw in as an added bonus complete disconnect with the regular people. Make the designed candidate says things like:
- “We should discuss tax policy in quiet rooms, outside of public view”
- “$370,000/year is a small amount of money”
- “Let’s bet $10,000” on trivial things
- “I come from the real streets of America”
- “I like to be able to fire people”
- “I have worried several times about getting a pink slip”
- “Like you, I am also currently unemployed”
- “Yes, I transport my dog in a cage strapped to the top of my car – but the dog does not mind”
- “I had no idea that I did have $3+ million in just one Swiss Bank and $10+ million in the Caymans” (as though these are really small amounts – who cares)
- “I don’t care about the poor – they have safety nets”
- “Don’t try to interfere with foreclosures – lets reach the bottom”
- “I do not follow NSCAR closely, but have some friends who own NASCAR teams”
If you really, really want to make a perfect candidate – make him also a flip-flopper who does not seem to have any core beliefs, and will say anything and will take any position to be elected for whatever he is running.
Romney is the absolute perfect candidate for Obama to run against. Also Romney as a candidate 100% ensures that carried interest (the way Romney made his money) will be taxed at regular income rates next year, the capital gains and divident tax rates will go up next year, and the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed. Not only Romney will lose to Obama, but there surely are large tax increases coming if he is the candidate!
alan borrows will doubtless soon be getting offers from the Obama campaign to serve as a consultant. Or perhaps he's already done their work for them. Well done.
The important idea is that out of all the republican candidates, the one who would receive the most votes from all the votes to be cast, is Romney. Independents wouldn't vote for Santorum and Gingrich was a very bad personal history.
JaneB, I'm sorry, but Romney has no chance of beating Obama. In fact, none of the current candidates has a chance. When 'team Obama' gets rolling (which includes the mainstream media), they will so demonize the Republican candidate that most independents will vote (D) or stay home. If Mitt was less of a gentlemen, and a bit more nasty, he might have some chance of fighting back against the Chicago style politics soon to be levied against him. As it is, he's going to get steamrolled. There will be four more years of King Obama, and things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
So tell us, which candidate wouldn't Obama be able to demonize with his billion dollar war chest?
The serial adulterer and angry partisan bomb-thrower whom the media will contrast against Obama's long happy marriage?
Or the one who pledged that as President he's going to lecture Americans against using birth control to enjoy sex for its own sake instead of for making babies?
Or the reactionary isolationist who is so dovish on foreign policy that Obama could actually run as the hawk in the race?
sinz54, thanks for helping make my point (evidently I was less than completely clear earlier). This election was over before the first Republican debate.
Or maybe not. Some of the "demonization" moves may be seen by the general public as tired or overreaching. They're not in the same bubble the left is in; bearing the brunt of bad policy can lead people to question what they've been told. But we have to make sure we are prepared to take proper advantage, as in martial arts where you use your opponent's weight or posture against him. And we must put up a candidate whose targeted "weaknesses" will let us pivot to our economic freedom case.
The thing not to do this year is be led off into the weeds of debating values vs. values, which should be politically beside the point--and that's really all we ought to say about it. When anyone even feels the need to say "contraception is bad" the left has already done their work too well, getting us to argue it as an issue on their ground, instead of pointing out "X is your own business, not the public's to facilitate or not."' But what do we keep hearing not just from candidates but also vaunted spokespeople? C'mon, were you born yesterday? It's a trap. Let's get far away from there while there's still time.
Charles,
Your comments, with the other pundits have been pretty critical of Romney. If we're wise enough to see through the "wooden" personality, you'll see how strong a candidate Romney is.
We probably have one of the most qualified candidates we have ever had and Krauthammer, Limbaugh, and many of the other talking heads have been blind to Romney's capacity as a conservative leader. Yet, in 2008, Limbaugh, Santorum and many of the other conservative talking heads said Romney was the best candidate.
I guess, such is politics . . . and short memories.
Krauthammer is onto something when he says that Romney's awkwardness is "almost endearing." Romney seems genuine in a different way than Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul. Rather than being genuine in his passion for conservatism (as the others generally do, with exceptions of course), Romney seems like a genuinely nice guy with a pretty good commitment to conservativism.
Yeah, he's made a lot of money, but when his dad left him a huge inheritance, Romney gave it all away to charity--every cent. And he won't talk about it on his own except reluctantly. (I watched O'Reilly drag it out of him in last night's show.) He also doesn't trumpet the fact that he's pledged not to take the president's salary if he wins the election. He doesn't brag that he paid 14% of his income to charity. I like that.
He's a pretty humble guy--watch him on any of these long interviews, and you'll probably agree. He's very different than the picture the media (including conservative commentators) are drawing.
Anyway, Charles is right. Romney is a little bit endearing--at least I know I'm starting to genuinely like the guy. And maybe his new 16-point lead in the latest polls proves that I'm not alone.
It's amazing how people see what they want to see.
Romney's awkwardness is endearing, why it just so darn cute.
Anyone else show even the slightest stumble, and it's proof beyond doubting that they aren't up to the task of being president.
Yeah, your predisposition makes a big difference in what you see. I don't deny it. But the same principle applies to everybody (including you). One person sees Romney's work over the last four years and sees a constant campaign for the presidency, while another looks at Romney criss-crossing the country campaigning for other Republicans and and sees a genuine effort to help other conservative candidates get elected. (Remember, Romney and his team made Scott Brown's victory possible. They also supported other Tea Party conservatives early enough to make a difference, including Marco Rubio.)
One person looks at Romney's volunteer work for the Olympic and sees nothing but a cynical attempt by Romney to build his personal resume, while another looks at the same thing and sees an honest effort by Romney to use his skills to turn around a critical part of our nation's image.
One person looks at his contributions to charity and sees Romney trying to cynically buy favor with the "underclasses", while another looks at that and sees a guy who was successful trying to share the blessings he's received.
It's all in your perception, and that's why it's so important to take a look at these personal interviews and ask yourself whether Romney is honest. Is he really doing this because he loves America, as he says, or is he just so hell-bent on being the president that he'll do all these things for the chance of being in the Oval Office.
I for one am coming to the conclusion that he really is a good guy who has been successful and wants to help his country. I don't blame you for seeing the other side, but I'm not so cynical that I discard the fact that Romney has spent years of his life and millions of his own money putting his money where his mouth is.
Rick Santorum campaigns on the fact that his Grandfather was a coal miner. Is that because people won't "relate" to him if he campaigned on the fact that his Father was a Psychologist? Not such meager beginnings....
People also say he is the only "true conservative", because of his social conservatism. Before going into politics, he was fully pro-choice. Not so conservative.... He decided to run for office and became pro-life. I guess it's ok for him to change his position (flip-flop, but it's really just a flip if you're being accurate) on life. But it's not ok for Mitt Romney to change his position (flip).
This entire campaign season has been about nothing but double standards.
Great post as always, Charles. One of the other things that may have stopped Santorum's momentum was reported in the Daily Rash yesterday. Apparently, after Rick Santorum gave a speech in the parking lot of a Chicago area Super Walmart, he performed an exorcism on a possessed woman in the back of a van. Story here: External Link
Santorum's stumbles are indicative of something more to me: lack of personal fortitude. His stupid comments were driven the Liberal establishment's driving the conversation away from the economy and Santorum took the bait.
I don't want someone that easily influenced in the White House. Yes, he may be the most ideologically pure conservative in the race (hence the endorsements from conservative icons like Michelle Malkin) but I still have my 2008 Mitt campaign sign, and it has been on my front door for over a month.
We don't need to swing the White House that far to the right. We just need Obama out. Our best chance for that is Mitt.
Follow
