Iowa: Santorum’s day to shine
Commenter Wolla Dalbo points out that the Iowa results indicate that Romney remains not all that popular with voters.
Absolutely true, and increased familiarity hasn’t seemed to change that situation.
But I’m not sure it matters this time round for one reason: none of the other candidates are all that popular, either, and their negatives are (if possible) even stronger.
Take Santorum, who virtually tied Romney in Iowa. He appeals strongly to social conservatives, of whom there are many there. But it’s likely his candidacy will go the way of Huckabee’s before him. Iowa is not a particularly good prognosticator of ultimate victory, and Santorum hasn’t yet fallen under the scrutiny he’ll receive now that he’s in double digits. Part of the strength of his Iowa showing has to do with Iowa demographics, and part of it is his status as the latest candidate du jour.
A problem in this GOP race is that the large number of candidates has made it difficult for a frontrunner to emerge. Difficult, but hardly impossible. If one of them stood head and shoulders above the rest in that desirable combination of experience, policy, intelligence, charisma, and leadership that spells “winner,” he/she would probably have a majority of Republican votes by now despite the size of the field. That hasn’t happened, and the only way it will start happening, IMHO, is when more of the lesser candidates start dropping out of the race for lack of money. I still think that person won’t be Santorum.
There are advantages to this big field. The media doesn’t know yet who to destroy and they look hyper partisan claiming everyone except Obama is not up to being President.
Haven’t even made one lap of the blogs and I already miss Bachmann.
Beware of cattiness.
Electability is in the eye of the voter, not of pseudopundits like us. Long way yet to go.
What, precisely, is wrong with Santorum?
“What, precisely, is wrong with Santorum?”
His website is clumsy compared to Romney’s. 🙂
Otherwise, running through what he contends on his site, he’s quacking like a good modern conservative. I would like some detail about $5T in spending cuts in the next five years. That is at the scale that would make a difference, but how does he get there while still being prepared to bomb Iran?
Neo: The ‘even stronger’ negatives (your words) of Santorum are what, exactly? And, if such exist, which I question, why do they matter?
I am more than a little sick and tired of hearing about GOP ‘negatives’ from our side while the flagrant, nay outrageous, negatives of BHO stare us in the face after Lo! these 3.5 years. We should field a saint against this worm, this American Qaddhafi?
Huntsman will probably dilute what would likely be an otherwise overwhelming victory by Romney in New Hampshire. And Newt, in politician speak, has all but promised to go nuclear on Romney.
Perry is probably the wildcard in the race now. He stands little chance of winning himself but could capture enough votes from conservatives to also deny Santorum the nomination.
It will be interesting to see if Bachmann endorses either Perry or Santorum.
Here’s what will be trumpeted if he gains strength:
Alternet
I read this progressive site to see what they’re saying. I’m sure most of these comments are taken out of context, but…
Don Carlos: Santorum’s negatives are certainly nowhere near as high as Gingrich’s, in my opinion, but I see them as higher than Romney’s (the person to whom I was comparing the other candidates when I made the remark). The first (and perhaps this isn’t exactly a negative but more of a neutral; but in other words, a drawback) is the fact that he engenders virtually no enthusiasm whatsoever except among evangelicals. I’ve read a lot of blogs on the right and very few posters there are pushing Santorum. I’m not sure why, but that’s the case. Among Independents and moderate Democrats (let’s forget liberal Democrats; almost none would never vote for a Republican) he has especially high negatives, I would think, because of his more extreme social conservatism compared to the other candidates.
Also, he was a senator (rather than someone with executive experience), lacks any business or other managerial experience as far as I know, is basically a career politician, and lost his bid for re-election by a mile:
Then there’s his stance on Griswold:
This is a rather extreme position even compared to the other conservatives in the race, and it is certainly a potential negative.
By the way, you can’t say you haven’t heard plenty about Obama’s negatives from me, all nearly-800 posts worth!
Yep, Santorum’s base is made up of the evangelicals – same as Huckabee in 2007. He’s conservative, but his deepest held views are about abortion, gay marriage and other social issues. This election is all about the economy and how we get it back to its potential. Santorum has little experience in that realm. He was an ear marker and not particularly fiscally conservative during his years in the Senate. IMO, he’s not in the same league as Gingrich, Romney, or even Perry.
2006 was a good year for the Dems, and Casey was, IIRC, a very popular Dem governor. Re Griswold, Santorum is a pretty devout Catholic, and his objection to this new “right” was also the Church’s. Unlike other mass-goers like the Kennedys. The articulation of new rights by the Judiciary is a path littered with (?unforseen–maybe not) adverse consequences.
JFK was a jr. Senator with zip business/management experience and that was OK, but now it is not. If GOP candidates were dogs, it might behoove us to study the animals instead of concentrating overmuch on their paper trails (pedigrees). Much as I would like to like Perry, he flunks on both counts.
I respect Santorum.
I’m glad Perry is hanging in there. Here’s hoping he’s the tortoise who wins the race!
Rick Santorum is a Big Government Conservative, but has real hardcore conservative social positions (the opposite of what I’m looking for). See his townhall on Cspan from today.
Been thinking about Rudyard Kipling’s “The Gods of the Copybook Headings.” It’s perfectly apropos; from 1919 to now, you needn’t change a line of it.
And another poem of his:
“The City of Brass”
They said: “Who has hate in his soul? Who has envied his neighbour?
Let him arise and control both that man and his labour.”
They said: “Who is eaten by sloth? Whose unthrift has destroyed him?
He shall levy a tribute from all because none have employed him.”
“The Gods of the Copybook Headings”
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Bev-
All conservatism needs moral roots. It starts with “social” conservatism. The distinction between fiscal and social conservatism is largely artificial, IMO.
Social conservatism is indeed the context which made possible the birth and success of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. A people afraid of and hateful of social conservatism can no more use those documents than a one arm man a hoe. (And there’s got to be a better metaphor since the one arm man has no choice in having only one arm.)
Yet, the Constitution does not give Congress authority to make laws on many socially conservative issues. Morality cannot be commanded.
That’s the philosophical failing of Santorum’s form of government interventionism. It aims to treat us all as children, unable to control our own urges. We trade the nanny state for the nunnery state. The Founders preferred no tyrants, even the virtuous ones.
Or, if you want it in flashier rhetoric, Santorum wants impose Western Sharia.
FOX:
Do us all a favor and cite some specifics as to Santorum’s “form(s) of government interventionism”.
As to morality not being commanded, pray how and whence came yours? They’re not called The Ten Commandments for nothing.
No one wants Western sharia (an apt label). The social conservatism is enforced not through law but through the myriad number of interactions and relationships. If it isn’t there through the free acceptance of the people, that’s it. You can’t force people but the force of consequences will surely provide a message. Our national debt is a moral problem and the left’s solution, make the rich and prosperous pay, is an immoral solution. The solution is not to implement Western sharia but to suffer and, hopefully, repent.
I love Rick Santorum, I respect Rick Santorum. I also don’t think he can be elected President. He excites the same animus that Sarah Palin does. The media will be gunning for him and he will be an easy target. A lot of voters will absolutely hate him. His problem is something like Gingrich’s: he thinks too much and speaks too plainly; not as broadly as Gingrich, but again to his disadvantage, very focused and with bulldog tenacity. He thinks like an old school Catholic– he traces everything back to root causes and moral failings. He’s very much in the tradition of Aquinas and Aristotle, but they never got many votes outside Iowa either.
Don:
Santorum is quoted in his Wiki entry:
A focused government to achieve noble purposes is an expansionist view of the role of government. The Marriage Amendment is a concrete example.
Don’t run away with a strawman. Our Constitution is not the Word of G-d. My personal morality is founded in the Commandments and instructions from G-d. But if man is not allowed to choose, he is no longer a moral agent.
Coercion takes the matter outside morality. The Abrahamic God explicitly allows men to choose and metes out punishment and reward according to His rules. We lost the Innocence of children when cast out of the Garden. Now we have to act like adults. Santorum can’t herd us back to the Garden with cattle prods.
Cattle prods? A focused government is expansionist? Your screws may need a little tightening, foxmarks. Do take your own advice and act adult.
Don:
I guess I have to be more explicit. The Constitution does not empower Congress to focus on compassionate conservatism. There’s no clause which says the FedGov should subsidize prescription drugs for old folks. There’s no clause which puts sexual behavior under Federal control. Do some googling on Santorum’s vision for the role of gov’t as expressed in his book.
His very concept of “focused government” is a farce. He wants to focus on every aspect of daily life. The Founders did not empower the FedGov to be an agent of culture. We have churches for that. Replacing faith with law turns family into hive.
You can’t roll back five decades of Gramscian decay by Executive Order.
I ask you to stop insulting me and think a little to try seeing my perspective. You can disagree. Heck, you might even persuade me. Give it a try.
Fox:
With all respect, I meant to (OK, snippilly!) indicate some of your comments were too oblique. I would prefer you to flesh out your case with quotes and citations rather than referring me to Google to hunt and peck for whatever you’ve already scratched up to stoke your ire.
No one, no one asserts the Constitution mandates compassionate conservatism (a Bushism, IIRC), nor Medicare Part D. Those are straw arguments which you seem to lay at Santorum’s feet. The Constitution also does not grant sexual rights, nor the other “rights” invented by some of SCOTUS. That includes the “right” granted by the Griswold ruling. And the “right” (though she did not use the word) that Juatice O’Conner granted to Blacks for the rest of us to suffer the bias of Affirmative Action for…um…maybe another 25 years.
Let’s get back to the over-riding: ABO!!
Don:
If it isn’t mandated by the Constitution, by what authority does the Federal Government undertake it? Did the Founders conceive a gov’t ruling by whim?
And don’t be so fast…I might be able to dig up a Progressive justification that says the FedGov must do all it can to help people. The General Welfare clause is a primary font of abuse.
I’m not in the ABO camp. Obama is just a symptom.