Charles has a good column today about the process elevating, in Rick Santorum, the best possible challenger to Romney. I agree with that. One of my peeves throughout this primary season has been the assumption that Republicans are irrational and they just want mindless bomb-throwing. Frank Rich on MSNBC last night said something like all Republicans care about is combativeness and cited Bachmann and Gingrich. Well, where are they now? Bachmann is out of the race and Gingrich is much diminished. It was understandable that Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich all surged, and understandable that once Republican voters focused on what made them unsuitable or dubious as general election candidates or presidents, they fell. Santorum now has a good chance to be the anti-Romney and he’s notably experienced and knowledgeable — in fact, one of the emerging tropes about him is that his answers in town-hall meetings are too long and detailed.
I agree with Rich's analysis. There's no way to prove it, but I suspect the clowns that turned out for the GOP primary are a big reason why Obama has stayed viable. Had this been a primary of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Pawlenty, Chris Christie, Romney, etc, I think Obama would look much smaller as a President.
Instead, it's been names like Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Herman Cain, etc. with other only slightly more serious candidates that are sure losers in a general election that have imploded and put he worst of the GOP on display. It looks like we're not a serious Party that actually wants to govern, and suddenly, even though Obama's policies are disasterous, he looks like a serious statesman in comparison.
Santorum vs Romney is a primary I'm fine with, even though I personally think Santorum would be easily beat by Obama because of his outside-the-mainstream views on certain social issues. Regardless, he's a serious and sober candidate that's not just looking to become a celebrity. I also think he's wise enough to not make himself a kamikaze candidate (unlike Gingrich) and understands the stakes involved.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust a reminder Trump and Palin never entered the race; just like your A-Team of perfect candidates Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Mitch.
I can't believe the amount of disrespect Gingrich gets from so-called conservatives when he balanced the budget in the 90s and actually held the Clinton administration in check pretty well. Gingrich is not simply some dumb bomb thrower or Marvin the Martian. Just because NRO creates a caricature of someone doesn't mean that it is 100% true. Mark Steyn's humorous exagerations are actually not true, and Mark knows that and expects his readers to know that too. But I guess you're just another person who thinks that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't it funny that all of analysis waited for Iowa to finish before NRO choose to write it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am so sick and tired of people who describe themselves as conservatives criticizing Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Paul, etc. If Ryan, Pawlenty, Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Christie were such great presidential candidates they would have run. Each one of these men has something that disqualifies him from running for president in 2012.
I think the GOP primaries and caucuses are going well and we owe the people who have the guts to run a debt of gratitude. Please cut out the stupid talk about the A Team of candidates not running and describing our current batch of candidates as "clowns."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith the notable exception of Barack Obama, there is no precedent in American history for the election of a president who has never held a real job or served as a high-level government executive (VPOTUS, governor, general, cabinet secretary). As far as I can tell, Santorum has less managerial experience than your average 7-11 clerk, and has never had occasion to make an important decision that he could be held personally accountable for. The only real data point we have as to the quality of his judgment is his endorsement of Spector over Toomey. Santorum knows how to say all the things that conservatives want to hear, but how hard is that for a career politician? What matters is whether he has the skill and backbone to get a conservative agenda through a hostile (or at best, indifferent) Congress. That was a tall order for Reagan, and other than blind hope, there is no evidence to suggest that Santorum is up to the job. As we have painfully learned over the past three years, the presidency is not an entry-level position. It is ridiculous to anoint Santorum as the best alternative to Romney over Gingrich, Perry, and Huntsman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is much diminished because of hitherto much esteemed conservative venues preemptively destroying his chances without any good reason, in complicity with Romney's cowardly asking his PAC minions to slander Gingrich to his benefit.
Gingrich's past baggage (inseparable from his past accomplishemnts) apart, what exactly bothered you so much about Gingrich? Perhaps the fact that his IQ is the sum of "brilliant" Obama's IQ and of that of the other GOP candidates, combined?
The price for us, simple citizens, will be paid in Nov. 2012. I guess the caption - "total shamble" - is prescient, once again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed, Rich: Dr. K had it right in today's column. The results in Iowa have reaffirmed my faith in GOP voters' ability to choose the best candidate(s) and separate the wheat from the chaff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Frank Rich on MSNBC last night said something like all Republicans care about is combativeness and cited Bachmann and Gingrich. Well, where are they now? Bachmann is out of the race and Gingrich is much diminished." This is the type of comment that is driving people like me crazy. The comment agrees with Rich - Gingrich and Bachman are combative and that must be bad. And they are gone. Geez. You would think National Review could take Rich to task instead of Gingrich, who singlehandedly lead the Republican House to leadership after 40 years of being OK with being in a minority - kind of like current day Republicans. And yes Michelle Bachman had fight, and that might be a good thing when we have a President and an opposing party who daily trash our Constitution. I suppose National Review, with its appreciation of the non-combative, is fine with the fact no action has taken place against MF Global, after the Democrat CEO stole $1.2 billion. And I suppose NR would counsel against combativeness by Congress against the President who appoints agency heads without bothering to get Senate confirmation. It is no wonder we are in the mess we are in when National Review applauds the idea that aggressive candidates, and ones who have actually done big conservative things, are not suited for the job. Shame on you National Review. You are officially now part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, yes & yes to Rich & the first 2 commenters. The thing that's been peeving me to no end for months was to see the scarcity of seriousness of purpose in so many of the NonSantorum NotRomneys which betrayed in turn - well, to me at least - a disconcerting lack of respect for the Office of the Presidency of the United States and a disturbing lack of appreciation for the horrifically challenging responsibilities with which any future occupant of that office will have to contend.
That so many of these NonSantorum NotRomneys didn't seem to think it was worth their time to prep for debates in a way that they could turn in a creditable appearance, nor to take the trouble to read their own supposedly self-authored books or newsletters or their own campaign's oppo-research on themselves and become familiar enough with the contents that they could credibly respond to legitimate questions about topics addressed therein was not only cringe-inducing, it was quite unconservative, even kinda Democrat-ish, frankly.
It's liberals who are supposed to have the cavalier disregard for our nation's most hallowed institutions. It's Dems who approach their nominees as though they were contestants in American Idol or the Gong Show whose past records and qualifications don't count and who won't really have to know the intricacies of the job they're seeking but merely be able convincingly spout off a few trite bromides like "Hope and Change" or when the occasion calls for more solemnity, persuasively furrow their brow when they utter "It's Bush's fault" as they saunter out the door to go practice their golf swings.
If these Republican candidates were not even willing to show the tenacious focus and self-discipline and determination even during their audition for the job, well, how the heck did they expect that primary voters out here would be able to conclude that they'd be any less loosey-goosey laissez-faire when preparing themselves for the battle to dislodge the current occupant of the oval as the nominee or serving effectively as POTUS were they ever to actually land the position?
Iowa caucus goers may have given us a virtual tie with Romney & Santorum who appeal to quite different voters with quite different voting priorities this cycle, but in selecting the two most serious & committed guys in the field and taking a pass on the others, Iowans ensured that the dignity and honor of the Office of the Presidency won out in the end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like Rick though I don't think a long time politician is going to replace Obama, nor one so closely tied to social issues.
Perry has been in government for 26 years
Paul has been in government for 23 years
Gingrich has been in government for 20 years, plus all his lobbying years of late
Huntsman has been in government for 14 years
Santorum has been in government for 12 years, plus doing some lobbying as well in Washington.
Ugh!
Mitt Romney was only in government for 4 years. As a fiscal conservative I want a private sector champion to go to Washington and fix it.
For 25 years Romney has been fixing ailing enterprises, most of them to the good. And he turns them around fast too!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou do know that Bain Capital doesn't actually run any of the companies that get turned around don't you ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey buy them and install their own managers. One of those managers has the qualifications you are talking about not Mitt.
True Mitt wasn't a manager, he was a leader of managers.
I worked for a managment consulting firm similar to Bain for 8 years (not as a consultant) so I know the industry pretty well.
Ailing companies hire companies like Bain to fix what's wrong it.
The industry attracts the best and brightest from the top universities. Our firm didn't recruit anyone unless they were in the top 5%.
The fact that Mitt rose to become a leader in such a field is very impressive.
Bain is highly respected company in the US if not the world for the good work it does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSheryl, to be fair Mitt Romney would have had more political experience if he could have convinced more people in Massachusetts to vote for him.
I prefer Mitt Romney over Rick Santorum, but I would vote for any one of the Republican candidates including Ron Paul to defeat Obama. The problem is convincing enough other voters to pick our guy. I believe that Mitt Romney has the best shot at winning the election and being a competent manager when he gets there. It's somewhat unfair, but Santorum fits the "Republicans want to outlaw sex" stereotype that can fire up the opposition with video to support the premise.
The value of Rick Santorum is that he helps make the choice of individual liberty/personal responsibility over government control and redistribution more relevant and personal to average voters. His near victory speech in Iowa was excellent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know it's popular for some to denigrate a candidate because they've been in government *too* long. However, I'm less interested in how long someone has been in government and much more interested in their principles and values.
There are many principled conservatives, especially at the state level, who work year after year standing against efforts to grow government. We need these people. We need them to stay true. We shouldn't diminish their service because they've been in government *too* long.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is much diminished because of hitherto much esteemed conservative venues preemptively destroying his chances without any good reason, in complicity with Romney's cowardly asking his PAC minions to slander Gingrich to his benefit.
Gingrich's past baggage (inseparable from his past accomplishments) apart, what exactly bothered you so much about Gingrich? Perhaps the fact that his IQ is the sum of "brilliant" Obama's IQ and of that of the other GOP candidates, combined?
The price for us, simple citizens, will be paid in Nov. 2012. I guess the caption - "total shamble" - is prescient, once again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Santorum now has a good chance to be the anti-Romney and he’s notably experienced and knowledgeable."
Let's pick this one apart...
1) "Experienced"? Santorum is a life-long sleazy Washington politico who, when soundly given a drubbing by his own constituents (not as though he'd lived amongst them for years -- he was collecting tens of thousands in money from PA for "education" while his kids were homeschooled in VA!), stayed on in the Washington Swamp as a ... (wait for it) ... lobbyist! And what did he do during his 17 years between college and becoming a lobbyist? Well, he did lots of earmarking, he picked up the Left's economic policies (protectionism and industrial policy), caught the class-warfare bug, and expanded the federal education apparatus and entitlement state while worrying lots about gays, abortion and birth control... That's not exactly the experience we need.
2) "Knowledgeable"? With all due respect, I've watched Santorum on Fox News the last few years, and I always find it difficult to sit through his appearances. It's always pulling teeth to make him sound good ... he sorta seems to be a few forks short of being able to eat dinner. One of the less-informed Fox News politicos-turned-commentators, I've got to say, and "knowledgeable" is a word that comes to mind less for Santorum than for any of the other GOP candidates, including Rick Perry.
In summation, Rich, many of us are looking not so much for an "anti-Romney" as an "anti-Santorum." We're conservatives who didn't like the statist, big-government "compassionate conservatism" of the last Republican admin and Congress, and of which Santorum is a central element. You may have heard of us -- we're called the Tea Party. Honestly, Romney is a much better, more conservative pick ... unless, of course, you think that gays and condoms are really the biggest problems the country faces and that it can all be fixed via bigger government with more of a say in citizens' lives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNeither Santorum nor Romney are capitalists.
They are worthless as Americans. This amounts to nothing more than re-branding the Democrats as there exists no substantial difference between the two parties.
The GOP is a fraud. This country is going to fail. You parasites that vote yourselves favors from government are the ones who are destroying. It really does not matter who you vote for now as there is no one running worth the trip to the polls in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVote for Mitt or Rick - they're noncombative.
What a great recommendation. Although Rich Lowry's instinct that selecting a noncombative Republican nominee would probably placate Frank Rich somewhat is undoubtedly correct. And after all, that is our main goal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is much diminished because of hitherto much esteemed conservative venues preemptively destroying his chances without any good reason, in complicity with Romney's asking his PAC minions to slander Gingrich to his benefit.
Gingrich's past baggage (inseparable from his past accomplishments) apart, what exactly bothered you so much about Gingrich? Perhaps the fact that his IQ is the sum of "brilliant" Obama's IQ and of that of the other GOP candidates, combined?
The price for us, simple citizens, will be paid in Nov. 2012. I guess the caption - "total shamble" - is prescient, once again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse