A Worthy Challenger

· Friday, January 6, 2012

WASHINGTON -- After every other conservative alternative to Mitt Romney crashed and burned (libertarian Ron Paul is in a category of his own), from the rubble emerges Rick Santorum. But he isn't just the last man standing. He is the first challenger to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology.

He'd been ignored largely because he appeared unelectable -- out of office for five years, having lost his Senate seat in Pennsylvania by a staggering 17 points in 2006.

However, with his virtual tie for first in Iowa, he sheds the loser label and seizes the momentum, meaning millions of dollars' worth of free media to make up for his lack of money. He's got the stage to make his case, plus the luck of a scheduling quirk: If he can make it through the next three harrowing primaries, the (relative) February lull would allow him to build a national campaign structure before Super Tuesday on March 6.

Santorum's electoral advantage is sociological: His common-man, working-class sensibility would be highly appealing to battleground-state Reagan Democrats. His fundamental problem is ideological: He's a deeply committed social conservative in a year when the country is obsessed with the economy and when conservatism is obsessed with limited government. Republicans, after all, swept the 2010 election on economic concerns and opposition to big government. The tea party revolution was not about gay marriage. Which is why so much tea party fervor attaches to Paul.

Santorum did win the tea party vote in Iowa. But because he was such a long shot, his record did not receive much scrutiny. It will now. He is no austere limited-government constitutionalist. He participated in George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism, which largely made peace with big government. Santorum, for example, defends earmarks and supported No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. It's a perfectly defensible philosophy -- but now he'll be called upon to actually defend it.

Moreover, Iowa is anomalous. It's not just that the Republican electorate is disproportionately evangelical and thus highly receptive to Santorum's social conservatism (as to Mike Huckabee's in 2008). It's that Iowa's economy is unusually healthy with only 5.7 percent unemployment, high agricultural prices and strong real estate values. Although the economy did rate as a major issue in the entrance poll, in such relative prosperity it registers more as a concern for the nation than as a visceral personal issue -- diminishing the impact of Romney's calling card, economic competence.

For his part, Romney remains preternaturally inert. His numbers, his demeanor, his campaign are flat-line steady: no highs, no lows, no euphoria, no panic.

With one minor exception. Romney wasn't expected to do very well in Iowa. A top-three finish would have been good; a first or second, a surprising success. But feeling his Iowa prospects rise, he let fly a last-minute high. (Two hairs were seen dangling over his forehead.) He began touting his chance of winning, thus gratuitously raising expectations.

That turned a hairline victory into something of a setback, accentuating his inability to break out of his flat-line 25 or so percent support. How flat? His final 2012 Iowa vote count deviated from his 2008 total of 30,021 by six votes. (Not six percent. But a party of six.)

For a front-runner who can't seem to expand his base, he’s been fortunate that the opposition has been so split. But the luck stops here. Michele Bachmann is gone. Rick Perry will skip New Hampshire, then dead man walk through South Carolina. And then there is Newt.

Gingrich is staying in. This should be good news for Romney. It's not. In his Iowa non-concession speech, Gingrich was seething. He could not conceal his fury with Paul and Romney for burying him in negative ads. After singling out Santorum for praise, Gingrich launched into them both, most especially Romney.

Gingrich speaks of aligning himself with Santorum against Romney. For Newt's campaign, this makes absolutely no strategic sense. Except that Gingrich is after vengeance, not victory. Ahab is loose in New Hampshire, stalking his great white Mitt.

What a lineup. Santorum and Gingrich go after Romney, whose unspoken ally is Paul, who needs to fight off Santorum in order to emerge as both No. 1 challenger and Republican kingmaker, leader of a movement demanding respect, attention and concessions. And Jon Huntsman goes after everybody.

Is this any way to pick a president? Absolutely. It works. It winnows. And it has produced, after just one contest, an admirably worthy conservative alternative to Romney.

(c) 2012, The Washington Post Writers Group


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

veritaseequitas

What about Rick Perry? He is more conservative than Santorum, has many years of governing experience, has military service and has the pro-life message. Why is it he is being written off as a non-candidate? Rick Santorum couldn't find his butt with both hands all through the debates. All of a sudden he is the golden boy? Because of Iowa? Really? Don't think so.

Rick Santorum has the same big flaw that Michele Bachmann had - he thinks REALLY highly of himself and it is all he talks about. He is convinced that he alone has campaigned for all the right things, was the first to go to war for all the right things, is the only conservative with a pro-life message, etc., etc. He blows his own horn just as much as The Communist blows his. No thanks.

Posted January 6, 2012 at 10:20:30 AM


RudyT

I live in Pennsylvania and remember Santorum well. He's very strong on the social conservative values, but not so much with the fiscal.

What we need now is a fiscal conservative.

Discussion of the hot-topic social issues is guaranteed to alienate voters (like my wife, who is socially liberal, but fiscally conservative) when we need to generate a consensus regarding solutions to our fiscal matters.

As far as I'm concerned, the US will still exist after 4 more years of Obama's social agenda (gay "rights", etc.), but fiscal collapse will likely occur if Obama gets 4 more years of left-wing fiscal engineering.

Santorum only gets my vote IF he's the nominee. He'll get my $$$ if he's the nominee. Until then, I'm hoping that Perry can pull himself together.

Posted January 6, 2012 at 12:33:24 PM


Daylo

At one point, I was very much enamored of you, Mr. Krauthammer. After watching your relentless comments concerning Newt Gingrich on Fox News Special Report...not so much. It appears that you have a very personal vendetta against Newt Gingrich. I read your biography and know that you are a psychiatrist. Why can't you let the anger go?

There is purse blood lust in your comments when it comes to Newt Gingrich. Brit Hume is the same way. You have never spoken this ill of anyone during my entire years of watching you and listening to you. Brit Hume, usually mild mannered as well, has been unable to hold back his most animated hatred. He clearly sees Newt in a different light than most people, as do you.

I watched Newt after the Iowa Caucus. I saw no seething. Someone on Fox, Brit or you complained about the fact that Gingrich had no tie on. For the love of Pete! Get off his bazooka, how about it and leave the man alone. He is the ONLY one who can logically beat Obama. You were in Romney's corner until you realized you and Fox could not sway the voter...now it seems it is ANYONE buy Gingrich. I am disappointed in Brit Hume and also you, Mr. Krauthammer. Very disappointed. There was nothing fair, balanced or unbiased about your writing or your comments on Fox. I would hardly call Newt a psychotic such as Ahab had become in search of the white whale. Not by any stretch of the harpoon rope. It must have been a very bad feud.

Posted January 6, 2012 at 2:10:43 PM


Daylo

Yes, I know I made a few errors, but being as intelligent as everyone claims to be...perhaps they can figure it out. I will count on your intelligence. The comment box is too small to prevent typos!

Posted January 6, 2012 at 2:13:31 PM


Jeremy

Why do I get the impression that Santorum is deemed "worthy" because he's almost certain to be crushed by Romney?

Posted January 6, 2012 at 7:40:36 PM


A.R. Nash

Presenting oneself as a moral leader is a big mistake, especially since that is not what the general electorate is looking for. What's needed is a fiscal conservative who's willing and unrelenting in his determination to wield an axe or at least a surgeon's scalpel to the federal bureaucracy and entitlement programs.

The unemployed and under-employed don't care about moral issues when they have so many real-world problems that plague them. A winning strategy doesn't include putting on the collar of a priest and preaching to the choir, but pointing out the horrible flaws of liberalism as related to fiscal policy.

But if even the Republican establishment is also in favor of big government and socialistic policies and programs that they are willing to support but not pay for, then how can it elect a candidate that stands for the exact opposite?

I perceive that the intricacies of vast bureaucracies are so great that no candidate can even grasp the full extent of the problem. All they see is the tip of the iceberg and aren't sure how to deal with it, much less all that mass that's unseen.

Very likely, by going along to get along, and allowing the government to grow to such an unwieldy size, it has become almost an insurmountable task to figure out how and where to begin to cut except in a broad general sense. But the devil is always in the details and details, like massive Congressional bills, are always something that lazy men and women choose to ignore because they are too time consuming.

Posted January 7, 2012 at 3:40:56 AM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund