Michael, I agree with you: Newt Gingrich blew it because he decided to attack Romney from the left. A bizarre move, both politically and morally. (The new Gingrich photo is also vintage Gingrich. He wants the election to be about himself, transformational hero; only the cape is missing from the photo.)
Rick Santorum, by contrast, is pounding Romney relentlessly from the right, with the confidence that comes from having actual core principles. Rick is a much better campaigner than he’s been in the past.
At the private lunch at CPAC Santorum was asked what he learned from his loss in the last Pennsylvania election. “Humility,” he said, and “not to preach.”
He now speaks for the voter, not at the voter, and people like him for it.
The ongoing HHS mandate drama also helps Santorum, because, while Romney did not want Romneycare to interfere with religious liberty, it did. That’s what happens when you turn huge sectors of the economy over to government control.
Santorum may be our darling, but he cannot win the general election. That photo in the Washington Post gave away the game: he would be portrayed as a religious zealot, come to take away not just your free abortion pills, but your access to any kind of contraception.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is a good post and it is spot on. Of course Mitt Romney could learn a bit about campaigning from Rick Santorum too. Romney has a tendency to attack from the left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaggie - how can you discount the money factor with a straight face and attribute it to Gingrich's tactics? Romney dumped 13,000 negative ads on him in Florida ... 65:1 as I recall. No one survives that. After all that Gingrich is polling well in Ohio. But if Romney comes in with a huge negative ad buy it's all over. Don't kid yourself about what's going on here.
Santorum hasn't faced the Romney destruction machine yet. From what I read not much money was spent in the three contests last week? What will Mitt do in Michigan?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI didn't know much about Santorum before this primary, but to my mind, his biggest problems have been a lack of humility, and the tendency to preach. Makes me wonder how bad it was before, if this is an improvement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the bottom line is that Romney is just not a good campaigner. Every politician has strengths and weaknesses and not connecting with the voters is a pretty devastating weakness. For Romney's sake, there better be some polls showing him beating Obama out soon, because the electability argument was his whole rationale for running.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe public is pro-Santorum right now because they haven't paid attention to him yet. Just like they were pro-Gingrich until they learned about him. Santorum is a big government conservative who will grow the government in order to impose his personal moral judgements on us at a time when we need smaller government. He doesn't have the experience necessary to shrink goverment and reduce the deficit enough to save us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRick Santorum is hardly a conservative. He's a pro-life statist.
External Link
Catholic version of Dubya Bush. A disaster in waiting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBingo.
The idea that Santorum is somehow a conservative has always made me laugh. That video clip, though, was just... lord.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSanto is Pat Buchanan in a sweater vest, minus the antisemitism. He's a disaster.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Newt Gingrich blew it because he decided to attack Romney from the left."
Not quite accurate I think. Newter is variously, and almost randomly, on the left, the right, the center and back again. He just happened to be on the left during one of his attack modes on Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree. To Gingrich's credit, at least he figured out that pounding Romney from the Right was not going to get him elected in the General Election. Santorum is making himself unelectable. Gingrich took the only plausible path and failed because of his personal qualities not bad left/right strategy IMHO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYep, Newt totally lost me with the left wing attack on Romney. I was very iffy about him to begin with, but he put a nail in that coffin with that line of attack.
Santorum is doing himself a lot of favors by doing well in the states we need to win in the fall. IE the midwest. Let's see how he does in Ohio.
Romney...good lord how has he not been able to figure this thing out. He did so well in the debates for the most part, and yet he can't seal the deal. Now his polling numbers against Obama are looking bad. I just don't get how he blew his defense of capitalism in those debates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Both Romney and Newt attacked each other from the left...Santorum didn't (to his great credit) but Jonah has some serious concerns about Rick's big government social conservative agenda.
If Rick Santorum embraced a tea party position in promoting smaller government, libertarian ideals, and liberty: he would be a far stronger candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn fact, Santorum is a self-identified "compassionate conservative" who has dissed the Tea Party for trying to "re-define conservatism".
Santorum on small government types, quote--
"That re-definition..forgets certain societal obligations that are written into us as human beings and that have to be meet in one way or another."
"They have this idea people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want, government should keep our taxes low down & regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or cultural issues. That is not the traditional conservative view of the world."
"I'm not saying earmarks are bad. I have had lots of earmarks. In fact, I'm very proud of all the earmarks I've put into bills. I'll defend earmarks."
Hence, Santorum's senate vote to raise the debt ceiling 5 times, to increase in the minimum wage 6 times, to pass gun control laws, to double the size of the Department of Education, to massively expand the size of the federal government with Medicare--D (16 trillion in unfunded liabilities), No Child Left Behind, Transportation Bill boondoggle--2005, a Bridge To Nowhere (over Katrina relief), 15 billion in African Aids relief, & his aggressive promotion of Fannie & Freddie Mac GSEs from 2001-2005,....... etc.
Santorum's opposition to small government might also explain his endorsement of pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-right to work Arlen Specter & Christine Todd Whitman over GOP conservatives. In fact, Santorum's aggressive efforts to rescue Specter from certain defeat to provide him with a razer slim victory in 2004 would later provide Obama with his key 60th vote for Obamacare.
Never mind. Given that Santorum is currently flipping on all in sundry during this GOP primary there's not one reason why he can't flip expediently on "small government" too--if he hasn't already. That should at least put to rest doubts about his core principles & will appease the "can't trust a flip flopper" GOP grass roots brigades no end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"At the private lunch at CPAC Santorum was asked what he learned from his loss in the last Pennsylvania election. 'Humility,' he said, and 'not to preach.'"
No. After Santorum supposedly learned that lesson, he stated that, as President, he would speak out against contraception, telling people that "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." He's clearly still interested in preaching; he's just being quiet about it for the moment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt attacked Romney from the left because he wanted to win South Carolina and it worked. What so many of us forget is that, in the South, many Republicans are still FDR Dems at heart - Newt understands this and will do it again if it helps more than it hurts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy take is that Santorum cannot win. While I lean pro-life, I think the hard core pro-lifers have won about all they will for now (look at Mississippi) and that Santorum as candidate could end up moving the pro-life cause backward.
I do think that Romney will hurt himself if he attempts to go negative on Santorum. Truth about Santorum being big government is okay. Saying Santorum is too hard core on the social issues will not work in the primaries - I do think locals can do some of the work for Romney - but it needs to be done quietly.
Although he more war-inclined than I, I do not worry about Santorum's finger on the button triggering a war while he is in a fit of pique. What worries me about Santorum is Obama in office for four more years.
Given that core "compassionate conservative" Santorum never saw a safety-net, earmark, lobbyist, or big spending federal program he didn't like it should be a cake walk for Romney to launch a sustained attack on Santorum from the right.
Red State (Erick Erickson): "Santorum is a pro-life statist...Santorum is the expansion of the welfare state..the nanny state...Santorum is a rejection of small government."
CATO Institute: "Santorum declared himself against individualism, against libertarianism against the idea of personal autonomy"..."Santorum is sometimes referred to as the conscience of senate Republicans. Really? By whom? Surely, not by Reaganites, or by people who believe in limited government"..."Economics, not Santorum's strong suit."
Club For Growth: "In 2003-04 Santorum sponsored or co-sponsored 51 bills to increase spending and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last congress (2005-06) Santorum had one of the biggest spending agendas by any Republican in the senate, sponsoring more spending bills than Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chaffe...or Democrats Evan Bayh...." etc.
Summing up, Club For Growth stipulated that Santorum was strong on tax cuts, voted against NAFTA, voted against Right To Work, and that he had a clear record of Big Gov't expansion, earmarks/pork, & massive federal spending.
(Some of the wrords Club For Growth uses to describe Santorum are "expedient" "duplicitious"--& pointed out "the aggresive heights he would go to mislead Republican voters" when it suited his political purposes.)
After exposing Santorum's debter Big Gov't agenda, Romney needs to hit Santorum hard on his $73,000 PA/VA residency scam, his lobbyist K-Street Project connections, and his $400,000 salary as a board of director responsible for oversight of Universal Health Services during the period that child health facility is now being forced to settle law suits & is currently under investigation by the DOJ for systemic fraud & abuse.
Romney needs to point out to GOP voters that Santorum is a career politician & Beltway influence peddling hack with no executive experience in the private or public sectors who was named one-of-three "most corrupt" senators in 2006 less that two months before he was eviscerated in his re-election bid by nearly 20 points. Ditto, how Santorum has weirdly thought himself presidential fodder ever since. Mindboggling.
Romney needn't bother to out Santorum's stated rejection of "Pursuit of Happiness" as defined by the Declaration of Independence, his distinctly unpopular Shiavo crusade, his dead baby rituals, his 2012 "So everybody has the right to be happy?" opposition to Gay marriage, his women too "emotional" to be in combat--ditto, his October 2011 pledge that, "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is contrary to how things are supposed to be."
i.e., Romney needn't expend the energy to expose to women & independents Santorum's retrograde sexism & creepy extremist mantras because the MSM will get that "Palinization" job done for him.
Romney might ridicule that the same Santorum now playing the victim card, "Romney is about serially tearing down opponents"--is the same weasel Santorum who habitually tears down opponent Romney "The worst candidate, ever", "Disqualified to be president", & "Exactly Like Obama"--ditto the same Santorum who endorsed Romney for president in 2008 over McCain & Huckabee arbitrating that "Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for conservative priciples." How core conservative principled is that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWithout going down all the items on ardis's list, I'll just comment that the Club for Growth actually gives Santorum a pretty good overall appraisal.
This is from the WSJ yesterday:
The evidence from Rasmussen clearly suggests that, at least for the moment, Mr. Santorum is the most electable Republican.
Perhaps this is because, while he certainly excites social conservatives, Mr. Santorum has also been making the case for more freedom in health care, less business regulation and reduced government spending and taxes. Voters are still waiting for Mr. Romney to make a persuasive case for economic liberty.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Fox poll indicates otherwise, but in any event the problem with Santo is his social issue comments will destroy him in the general. Maybe like Allahpundit says, we need just to go ahead and nominate and let him effectively get the third leg of the stool chopped off. If the GOP becomes the Catholic theocracy party I don't want any part of it. Neither will a lot of relatively secular, educated people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is okay with social cons like Maggie G., who will throw everything else overboard if you're sufficiently anti- gay, single woman, abortion, contraception, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse