The contretemps over the HHS mandate can do nothing but help the candidacy of Rick Santorum. For months, Mitt Romney has been lamely defending Romneycare, hiding behind the shriveled fig leaf of the Tenth Amendment to obscure what everyone now acknowledges — that the Massachusetts program is the forebear of and inspiration for Obamacare.
That simple fact ought to be instantly disqualifying in a 2012 GOP presidential candidate — especially after the 2010 landslide, from which the party bosses clearly learned nothing — and it’s a tribute to Romney’s talent, drive, organization and cash that he’s managed to come this far. It also helped that, all by himself, he was fully one-half of the establishment/Tea Party divide, and thus benefited from a split vote for his opponents as long as a divide-and-conquer strategy could work.
But with the field now down to Romney and Santorum (sorry, Newt: I showed you a path to the nomination based on Romney’s inherent weaknesses and you promptly blew it) — and as Santorum’s recent triple victory indicates — the Romney/not-Romney structural balance is starting to come into clear focus, and Mitt’s decisive win in Florida now looks like the outlier. Future results, of course, may vary.
Santorum, a Catholic ethnic with strong blue-collar appeal, should grab the reins of Obamacare and ride it right up Romneycare. Because now that the coercive evil of Obamacare is visible even to E.J. Dionne Jr., Romney’s “signature achievement” during his one term as governor ought to finish him as the GOP standard-bearer.
Meanwhile, Romney’s only chance is to retrain his super PAC Big Berthas on Santorum and pound away. Making the rubble bounce worked against Gingrich, who cheerfully supplied his own rubble. But most voters are just getting to know Rick Santorum, and I suspect it will be far less effective against him.
Thanks to Obama’s inability to control his Punahou-bred playground-bully persona — the in-your-face nature of the mandate was too much even for some of his supporters to stomach — he’s put the Patient Ejection and Unaffordable “Care” Act on the front-burner. In the general election, which Republican candidate is in a better position to exploit it?
Santorum will get precious little help from the sniveling apparatchiks, time-servers, and collaborationists in the “GOP leadership,” but he should pound this issue home at every opportunity and position himself as the champion of the real little guy: not the entitlement loafer whose kids are too dumb to peel their own grapes but the lunch-pail worker who pays for those grapes. This is a fight we’re going to have to have sooner or later, so why not have it now, before the Party of Take completely overwhelms the Party of Give?
Walsh is right that this contraception flap can only benefit Santorum. Which begs the question: was it part of Obama's strategy all along to focus attention on an issue that would be a winner for Santorum, and a relative loser for Romney?
It makes perfect sense if you believe, as the White House almost certainly believes, that Santorum is no threat to Obama, and that the only way Obama loses this year is if the economy does not rebound, and Romney is the opponent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah..that lucky Rick.
So lucky to spend you whole life actually passionate about the issue of life, and not just a wink and a nod to the GOP base.
To actually spend years in the trenches fighting the likes of Barbara Boxer on behalf of those little ones killed through legalized infanticide (aka partial birth abortion) - while the rest of the GOP joins the left and thinks you are an embarrassment and accuses you of wanting to observe their bedrooms
All of you guys who whine and complain that Santorum is "only known as a social conservative" - well how do you think he got that way? By Luck?
Or does he have grounded beliefs in something greater than his own self interest. And has he fought for those beliefs year in and year out.
Liberalism has been trampling on religious freedom for years and most in the GOP could care less. Finally, the liberals take it to this level and people are waking up (besides us religious right nutjobs like Rick that have been awake and screaming for years about these things)
But yeah...it's all luck. Great analysis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, the GOP could care less about social issues, and it desperately *needs* to, because they are a loser. Big time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNominating Santorum will be the salvation of the GOP---if salvation is to be had.
Liberals cannot stand him---that used to be a feature, not a bug, in selecting a standard bearer.
It will be a sign that there is stil fight in the party and that we intend to man the frontlines in reversing---not just ameliorating but reversing---the disastrous left wing policies which have ruined our finances and if unaddressed will ruin our nation.
The jig is up for the RINOs. It is time to stand up and be counted. Either you fight for America or you go stand in the dwindling ranks of those who despise her and yet call her home.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Liberals cannot stand him---that used to be a feature, not a bug, in selecting a standard bearer."
Except small-government conservatives can't stand him, either. A pox to all statists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept small-government conservatives can't stand him, either. A pox to all statists.
Conservatism, as it's currently understood, entails a form of statism -- namely, the notion that an individual's privacy rights are trumped by certain religious/cultural considerations. Remove these considerations and one is left with classical liberalism/libertarianism, not small-government conservatism. With respect to the fiscal stances of the latter, Rick Santorum's sins are no more severe than those of the vast majority of Republicans who served in Congress between 2001 and 2009; If that makes Santorum unacceptable as a fiscal conservative, then Paul Ryan is unacceptable as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo . . . you're pointing to the congressional GOP of 2001-2009 as a *positive* example of conservatism? No wonder I feel so distant from the GOP right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour notion of conservative orthodoxy vis-a-vis individual rights is just about the stupidest statement I've read all week.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Keith. Your argument against Santorum is pointless hyperbole. We have only one conservative candidate standing (sorry Newt but you're no longer a contender). And he is certainly a conservative by any measure that is reasonable. You say "statist". [said in best Inigo Montoya voice:] You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The man who coined the term and wrote the book on "statism", Mark Levin, is a fan of Santorum so are we to believe you know something about statism that Levin doesn't know?
From the totalitarian statists like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama on the Left to Demint and Bachmann on the right, there is an ideological continuum. With an 88.1 ACU rating, Santorum is well to the right on that continuum. Not Bachman perfect but he is solid.
If 88.1 is a "statist", then we've lost the language.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
—C. S. Lewis
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShrill partisanship, but at least you aren't shrilling about Mormons this time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"hiding behind the shriveled fig leaf of the Tenth Amendment "
It's stunning that a man writing for America's premier conservative magazine has just described the 10th Amendment as a "fig leaf".
Remember when conservatives used to value the preeminent concept of Federalism? That is apparently a passé notion.
Just to be clear, Walsh is saying: $7T Medicare Part D, good. Romneycare, bad.
Good luck with that Michael.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNothing at all shriveled about the Tenth Amendment, just Romney's use of it as a fig leaf, trying to conceal an indefensible position -- as is clear from the context of the statement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm glad he's using it as a fig leaf, because that's better than having it go completely unused, as is normally the case. The GOP should be encouraging liberals to try out whatever wacky schemes they want at the state level, because they'll stop trying to meddle so much at the federal level.
If those schemes are good, other states will naturally start adopting them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's not using it as a fig leaf, you are attacking its use because the outcome is simply unpalatable to you. In your mind, Federalism is only good when a State's exercise of its rights and powers under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution suits your narrowly-tailored ideological boundaries.
To attack Federalism because the outcome of an essentially liberal State's actions under the Tenth may be deemed too "liberal" for conservatives, is to attack the ability of a conservative State to discharge the very same rights and powers under the Tenth Amendment, because liberals elsewhere may deem it equally distasteful.
You can't narrowly attack Federalism, or dismiss the CORRECT argument that Romney is making here: like it or not, Romneycare is a wholly Constitutional act under the Tenth Amendment, and in perfect tune with the ideals of Federalism, and there is no comparison between a Constitutional action by a State government, and an unconstitutional action by the Federal government.
Attempts to use Romneycare as a bludgeon to attack Obamacare, is to add a degree of legitimacy to Obamacare by displaying contempt for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principles of Federalism, while accusing Obama of being contemptuous of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principles of Federalism.
That is at best foolish, and at worst disingenuous.
You should be embarrassed to put your name on this drivel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFine tuning:
"In your mind, Federalism is only Federalism when a State's exercise of its rights and powers under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution suits your narrowly-tailored ideological boundaries."
That's better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you think the assertion of the 10th Amendment with respect to MA crafting a solution that is right for MA is a "fig leaf", then you don't have even a passing understanding of the 10th Amendment. Pick up a copy of a history book and educate yourself about the what the Founders thought about the primacy and breadth of state power. The same guys who authored the phrase, "Congress shall make no law...", went home to their states and - in many instances - enacted state religions and crafted mandates - there's that word - that required men tithe to their church.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum looks strong, sane and focused. He’ll lose, but he’ll lose well.
I find it really funny that the Romneyites who accuse Evangelicals like me of religious bigotry when I don't back him are PO'd that I'd vote for Santorum. Oops, did I forget my bigotry? Or do I really believe what I believe...and those "social issues" that are so dispensable to folks like Keith G. are, to me, inseparable from the economic and regulatory. It's all about human nature and what we can expect people to do. A Biblical "renewing of the mind" results in a realistic attitude about Government and in the context of Romans 13 and 1 Pet 2:13 evaluate the best options and exercise what rights we have.
Let's face it, Obama will have to continue to screw up to lose...and it may sound paranoid but who can doubt that he'd "wag the dog" against Iran if necessary in October? A willing media covers a multitude of sins (feel free to use that if it's original, Mr. Walsh).
The thesis that Romney is our Champion -- a winner of only 1 election in his life, and the author of RomneyCare -- is a joke that only NYC and D.C. 'taters can fail to laugh at. Even Ann Coulter, with whom I mostly agree and never fails to entertain, is hopped up on diet pills in the peaceful Romneyite eye while the rest of us feel the storm of the hurricane tear apart our culture. The editors of NRO finally have admitted in their Romney minimum wage editorial that Obama Lite is only enough to slow our downward descent. We'd like a turnaround, Mr. Bain capital, if you don't mind.
So my conclusion (do I have one, based on the scattershot commentary above?) is that a vote for Romney is a "vote to lose" even if he "wins" in November, and it's far more likely that someone like Santorum can draw Obama into social issues that cut into his base and make him look mean-spirited and un-Presidential. Perhaps all we can hope for is a composed, strong Santorum to represent the Republican party...and when he loses, bloody Obama enough that he is a very weak, lame duck who can go back to bookwriting in 2016. One final note: I doubt he'll "return" to Illinois -- taxes are too high here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"those 'social issues' that are so dispensable to folks like Keith G. are, to me, inseparable from the economic and regulatory."
Social issues are enormously important to me, which is why I want the federal government to stay very far away from them. The federal government is inefficient, impersonal, unrepresentative, and oppressive, and I want them to stay out of the "culture war" for these reasons, the exact same reasons I want them to stay out of Wall St., the housing market, and the medical industry.
Keep government local and representative, and you limit its power and strengthen the power of the church and the citizen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStay out of the culture war, huh?
Well, since Obamacare is the law of the land - I guess we all should just shut up about this Catholic institution controversy as part of its execution. Just wait until after the next election and dismantle the legislation. That's all it is about. We need to stay out of the larger 1st Amendment 'culture war' attack.
And over the years, as the left has continued to take away little by little my freedoms of speech, assembly, commerce in contexts of Christianity, no politician should have said a word. Just let the liberal maching steamroll liberty.
No thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse