Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Let’s all surge for the least scrutinized not-Romney

    Let’s all surge for the least scrutinized not-Romney

    Rick Santorum has lived in Iowa for months, visiting every county, street, house, coffee shop, bakery, and front porch waiting for his time to come.  It may have arrived, if the recent polling is indicative of reality.

    But because Santorum’s surge comes just days before the caucuses, he is the least scrutinized not-Romney candidate.  Whereas Newt underwent a full month of what David Limbaugh calls the “relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery” of the Republican establishment, Santorum has led the life unexamined in this election cycle.

    Santorum has no organization outside of Iowa; while Newt and Perry were criticized (rightly) for not making the Virginia ballot, Santorum either didn’t try or didn’t try very hard.  I agree with Erick Erickson that “any surge by Rick Santorum is another factor ensuring Mitt Romney wins the nomination” because Santorum has no structure for moving forward.

    With no proven record of raising money (Newt is reporting $9 million this quarter and Perry raised a lot more when he was hot) and no organization, Santorum is a surge which cannot last beyond Iowa.

    It’s as if the mad scientists in the Romney campaign concocted the perfect foil, someone they didn’t need to attack because he was their best means of preventing candidates with name recognition, organizations and money from succeeding, with no chance of succeeding himself.

    And now that he is surging, it’s not at all clear Santorum could survive scrutiny.

    Rick Perry just started running ads regarding Santorum’s earmarks when he was Senator, and Erickson points to many aspects of Santorum’s Senate record which are problematic; I’m not agreeing that these are problems, I haven’t done the research myself, it’s just that we only are starting to hear about the negatives.

    We hear ad naseum that Newt is unacceptable because he backed Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, but Santorum backed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004.

    Santorum is in favor of federal medical malpractice limits (how is that conservative?) but his wife sued for an amount in excess of those limits at the same time Santorum was pushing the legislation.  This article from 2006 lists 20 reasons not to vote for Santorum from a liberal perspective; most of the reasons make Santorum attractive to conservatives, but several raise as-yet unexplored issues which are problematic, like this explanation of child sexual abuse by priests:

    Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture.  When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected.  While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

    I’m not writing Rick Santorum off or saying he could not be the conservative answer to Romney.  But I’d be a lot more comfortable if Santorum’s surge came a month ago.

    Just a few minutes (literally) of internet research tells me there is a lot we don’t know about Santorum, a lot of issues which have not been vetted, and a lot of potential surprises if he surges to be the last not-Romney standing.

    Update:  Here’s Perry’s radio ad against Santorum (via ElectAd):


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    valleyforge | December 29, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Prof Jacobson, you’re right – Santorum will be taken down by next Thursday at the latest before he can gain any traction in South Carolina, let alone New Hampshire where he is an asterisk.

    The logical, if completely counterintuitive, next step for conservatives is to start “reassessing” Jon Huntsman because he is the only candidate the establishment and media haven’t disqualified in the eyes of most voters. Plus he is perfectly positioned to take on Romney in his New Hampshire stronghold. Between Paul and Huntsman, Romney could be held to 30% and possibly lose, opening up the race to either Huntsman or a revived Gingrich or Perry.

    I predict we’ll see a number of prominent conservatives opining how much more consistently conservative Huntsman has been, and explaining away the times he has strayed, as soon as the Iowa results are in, and possibly a day or two in advance.

    Blaming your own deficiencies on “the establishment” was an annoying habit of ’60s hippies and ’10s conservatives have apparently adopted it.

    BarbaraS | December 30, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    Yeah, let’s all support Huntsman. FOO. Friend of obama. His ambassador to China. Big buddies. Didn’t Huntsman make the statement that he admires obama? That will do the trick.

    BarbaraS | December 30, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    And on top of that Huntsman was the media’s first pick for our nominee. When that didn’t fly they chose Romney.

    […] sufficient for limited-government conservative voters, even casual scrutiny of Santorum’s record of big government spending should prove to be particularly damaging with the same group. While […]

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend