The Detroit News editorial page is a reliable voice of conservatism in Michigan. (It’s also the first media entity that ever paid me to write something, more than two decades ago.) In the Michigan GOP primary, it has endorsed Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney stands alone among the Republican primary field as the candidate capable of winning the White House, and more importantly, of leading the nation to a prosperous future.
I was disappointed that the CAPTCHA for this one wasn't "There you go again.*" That would sum up the Detroit News' comparison of the candidates. Santorum is too beholden to the Religious Right. Gingrich is too divisive. Both were complaints I remember being lobbed against Reagan. Now, just in case anyone is considering using Lloyd Bentsen's old line, admittedly Santorum and Gingrich are certainly no Reagan, but then neither is Romney.
The most disappointing thing about the editorial is how the News spends a fair amount of space echoing the conventional MSM wisdom on the candidates. Romney turns businesses around! Well, not all of them. If the US doesn't do well, he can't close up shop and open up a new country.
Santorum is criticized for his 2008 defeat (but it was actually in 2006). As was pointed out on these pages, it was a perfect storm. I can't think of many current GOP figures in that environment who would have done better against a Casey in a state with uncertain economics. It might have been worse in 2008, given the economic meltdown.
So, the News' case for Romney boils down to the same old, "electability and business sense" argument that has been the Romney mantra for this entire campaign. It would have been nice if the News had at least acknowledge the fact that many voters are proving skeptical of these arguments, and that Santorum is polling about as well as Romney against Obama, right now.
(*Something to think about adding, in-between fixing the iPhone app so one can make comments from there.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is the case for Santorum? There simply isn't one... Yes, Romney has a checkered past, but so does Santorum. It's a choice between a supposedly reformed liberal and a Washington bureaucrat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgain, that's the conventional wisdom talking. Santorum has talked about cutting $5 trillion from the budget, reducing government spending without hurting the middle or working classes (a point on which, as NRO's editorial today points out, Romney views have deficiencies), and a strong foreign policy. Temperamentally, his social agenda opponents have tried to paint him as a "scold" or "sanctimonious," but this hasn't come out in his public appearances in the way they have painted it (one reason that he has remained a strong alternative to Romney - the other is that the remaining candidates are weaker, in general).
To be sure, both men are flawed and were say Marco Rubio or even Bobby Jindal or Mitch Daniels in the race, we'd be looking at a different scenario altogether. However, Santorum is going to win an actual comprehensive retrospective on each man's conservative values. Romney is simply more moderate in more areas. The conventional wisdom is that Santorum's "too outspoken" on social issues, and that's what the News relied on in their editorial. I'd have had a lot more respect for them if they'd criticized his views on labor or "Compassionate Conservatism" which have real weaknesses. But the former doesn't fit the agenda of a Detroit daily, and the latter doesn't separate him much from a candidate who passed comprehensive health care legislation in Mass.
Now, both guys would be a vast improvement on Obama, and I intend to support the winner in the general, but the fact is that when people start to make the case for Romney, they have to reach for some pretty big intangibles, such as "electability."
Romney's vaunted business sense hasn't manage to crowd out the suspicion that he doesn't mind compromising with the left on spending and deficits, and the polls don't support the electability argument. Santorum is right there with Mitt when matched with Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow hold on, I thought only RINOs and Democrats were supporting Romney?? Ah, I kid, please pardon my sarcasm. All the candidates have their strengths and weaknesses, however when you look at them it is clear Romney is the best of the bunch. I direct my sarcasm to those who are rabidly anti-Romney beyond the point of reason. Honestly I really like Santorum, I love that he fights for issues that are near and dear to me. However, Santorum does not have a way with words and gets bogged down arguing technicalities too often. He also doesn't do a good enough job of trying to build a big tent that unites people and rather sometimes seems so stuck on making his point that he excludes people, like his speech where he writes off mainline Protestants. I see his point, certain churches have gone off the deep end (looking at you Episcopalians), however there are many Protestants who have not done so. Going back to the Episcopalians, they experienced a church split over the issue with many leaving for other churches. So while I see his point, he just doesn't frame it the best way and we need a President who will bring people together right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEpiscopal church member here. Leaning Catholic if I were moving to a new area. However, our community is Christ-centered and active in the community and exactly what I think a church should be. Be careful about mass condemnations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt Ash Wednesday service yesterday, I realized that our prayer book and liturgy help keep us on the right road.
At some point, the idea of a Romney-Santorum or Santorum-Romney ticket may be on the table, especially if Santorum picks up some big wins on Super Tuesday. The scuttlebutt about a Romney-Paul alliance might just be a way to clear some ground about that (by forcing both parties to deny such a thing exists - although it also paints Romney as a bit of an opportunist - given that he and Paul are miles apart on many issues).
In many ways, Romney and Santorum together would cancel out each others' perceived weaknesses. Santorum's passion versus Romney's robotic approach, Romney's steadiness versus Santorum's occasional veering off into the weeds, etc. However, as long as the contest is open, the likelihood of this happening decreases in my opinion, because they will necessarily hammer one another as they try to win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYawn. And who the heck cares what darn newspapers have to say about whom I'll vote for. reading their baloney it's a wonder anyone would. Conservative indeed....sounded like a Democrat memo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Detroit News is a shadow of its once conservative self. It hasn't been the same since the JOA/merger with the Free Press. Their endorsement of Romney is about a surprising as the sun rising in the east.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse