In 1980, Ronald Reagan made the case that he was the only true conservative in the race. George H.W. Bush countered that he was the only one suitable to independents and thus the only one electable, given the high negatives that Reagan had garnered. Reagan, remember, had been out of office for almost six years, after failing in presidential bids in 1968 and 1976.
Romney, at least implicitly, is now making the same sort of argument Bush did, that only he can win the coveted middle, while Santorum, by sheer force of personality and political conviction, will have to make the case that he can make those otherwise uncomfortable with some of his positions comfortable enough to go along with him.
While Romney can play Bush, whether 1980 or 1988, can Santorum adopt Reagan’s sunny optimism and flair, which convinced many to ignore what the media said about Reagan’s extremism and trust instead their instincts that he was a good and reasonable man? Santorum is a nice guy, but he must somehow lighten up and stop seeming petulant and irked at the unfairness of it all. I think most are dubious on that count, but we have a long way to go.
Meanwhile, the Obama-ites face a paradox. They have made the case so far that all the non-Romneys have been amusing unhinged extremists. Soon they must flip back and make the argument that it was really Romney, the former flip-flopper, who was all along the true-blue nut.
While the Obama press explains to us the poverty of the Republican candidates, Obama simply plays rope-a-dope, makes unnoticed recess appointments (which he condemned as a senator) and new releases from Guantanamo — while in the Middle East, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and the Strait of Hormuz, bad actors are starting to think they have only one more year to act up.
I agree with your analysis VDH, but why should anyone vote for Santorum or Romney? If our biggest existential threat is the continuous growth and expansion of the Federal government, then these two do not present a solution to this problem. Reducing the rate of growth is not reducing the size and scope of the Federal government. Santorum is right on so many issues, except he's a Big Government guy. It's a shame we have no small government, liberty-minded candidate that also isn't afraid to drop some precision ordinance across Persia.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Our biggest existential threat is the continuous growth and expansion of the Federal government, then these two do not present a solution to this problem. "
Romney has said time and time again that he test for any program is if we should borrow money from China to pay for it. He wants to cut the expansion and cut the existence of many programs.
That he hasn't been out front and center railing against things that would make up unelectable is a wise strategy.
He's focusing on the principle... should we have this program and make a later generation pay later for the consumption now?
RightEveryTime, if you want to live up to your name, you have to realize the best strategy is one that lays out the principles (should we borrow money to do what we can't afford to do) rather than just jumping in and saying we're going to cut medicare by 50%.
You'll get destroyed if you start playing politics by haggling over positions. You win, when you focus on principles and derive positions out of those principles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith respect, I don't think this analogy is especially helpful. It seems obvious to me that Santorum is no Reagan. Further, Romney basically accepts the low-tax GOP formula; I doubt he's ever described supply-side theory as "voodoo economics". Romney's flip-flopped on abortion-so did the Gipper.
Romney's major sin was Romneycare, but he has pledged to repeal Obamacare, and I think we can rely on Congressional Republicans to hold him to that. So what's the big problem?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"by sheer force of his personality.."?? really?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are many video clips of Santorum talking to, say, college students where he is grilled on his social conservatism and he becomes petulent, cranky, and whiny. Expect those clips in heavy rotation next fall if he gets the nod.
Oh, and outside of Iowa, birth control is pretty popular.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy "birth control" I assume you mean "abortion" and by "outside of Iowa" you mean the "Upper west side of Manhattan."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Santorum is against contraception, not just abortion. A very reasonable position, right?
He says he is the only one willing to talk about the issue and how it's "wrong" because it's against God's plan for people.
If you think that's a winning issue, then you're just too far gone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseok, so you believe it's not reasonable for states to have a right to debate availability/types of contraceptives. I imagine you think that about abortion too, right? Can't have people voting on issues like that. - no no no....people just aren't smart enough...if they thought for themselves, Democrats wouldn't get elected.
And, the "too far gone" comment from an Obama supporter is hilarious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, it is not reasonable for a state to debate the availability and types of contraception anymore than it is advisable for states to debate the availability of potato chips. No one has any right to tell me that I don't have the right to have sex without worrying about getting pregnant.
And conservatives say liberals are crazy when we worry that Republicans want to shrink government until it's just big enough to fit into our bedrooms.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFine, Clareita - then you vote for all the liberals you can who'll pass all kinds of laws to allow you to have all the free protected sex and potato chips you want. However, that doesn't mean that the Constitution created a fundamental right for you to do so. That's Santorum's position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't need to vote for anyone one to pass laws allowing states to sells contraceptives. That ship has sailed. You do realize that we are never going back to the days when a woman had very little control over how many children she had, right?
My husband will be glad to hear that we can have all the free and protected sex and potato chips we want, although probably not at the same time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat ship has sailed?!?!? In other words, there's no debating a poorly argued Supreme Court decision with no basis in the Constitution? Thurgood Marshall would be surprised to hear that - if he was still around.
Clareita - great last line! We can agree on that. Cheers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception. "
No....by birth control we mean birth control....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd? Santorum's position, if I understand it correctly (better than you do), is that states should have the right to determine whether birth control - and what types - are avalable and where. Why should the federal government make that decision for anyone? Where does it say "birth control", or abortion for that matter, in the Constitution? Why are you so afraid of such decisions made on the state and local level? He's also against abortion, which the president and his party favor at any time and any place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for an outstanding example of the kind of rhetoric that will re-elect President Obama.
And if you literally believe what you posted...oof.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse...and it's people like you that stuck the entire country with a moron like Obama. Let's hope he's working on his resume - he'll need it by next January.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you suggesting that outside of Iowa, abortion is the only way people limit the size of their families? Despite Santorum's opposition to it, birth control -i.e. the things enable you to have sex without getting pregnant - is quite popular everywhere, not just the upper west side of Manhattan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you suggesting that outside of Iowa, abortion is the only way people limit the size of their families? Despite Santorum's opposition to it, birth control -i.e. the things enable you to have sex without getting pregnant - is quite popular everywhere, not just the upper west side of Manhattan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm suggesting that abortion is often used as a method of family planning by organizations like Planned Parenthood and supported by abortion absolutists. As for Santorum's position on contraceptives, he apparently believes that the Constitution does not create a fundamental right to access to all forms of contraceptives (many times at taxpayer expense) anytime anywhere. You may not like that position as an Obama supporter, which is your right, but the fact Santorum is critical of the Griswald and Roe decisions isn't exactly a radical position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm...being critical of Griswald and thinking that the states have a right to ban the sale of contraceptives is pretty radical. Since there aren't too many Dugar families out there, it looks like just about every family uses some form of birth control.
As for the idea that women treat getting an abortion like a teeth cleaning, well that's pretty silly. Are there some women who have had multiple abortions because they're idiots? Sure. Most women, however, use birth control to control births.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse