In a post earlier today, I took issue with Hugh Hewitt, holding that Mitt Romney did not lock up the nomination with his Sunshine State victory and contended that Rick Santorum had, in “the wake of his February hat trick, winning Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri all on the same day, . . . a read chance to capture the Republican nomination.”
He did well on that day as well as in a number of primaries and caucuses over the succeeding seven weeks, galvanizing evangelicals and convincing voters looking for a “credible conservative candidate” that he is the man they’re looking for. This cycle, we on the right have long longed for an alternative with records like those of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan or rhetoric like that of such leaders as U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla) and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, all putting forward policies or articulating ideas in accord with the Reaganite principles of small government and individual liberty.
Perhaps had Santorum focused on those unifying principles, instead of letting himself be diverted by media questions on social issues, important to many Republicans voters, but anathema to others, he might not find himself today struggling to win his home state. If the Pennsylvanian, after his early February victories, A.B. Stoddard contends, had kept his focus, for example, on Romney’s supposed weakness on health care, he might have changed the dynamic of the race:
It was the pivotal moment in the race none of the Romney rivals who preceded him had achieved — and Santorum blew it. He veered off course, and out of this millennium, enthusiastically bemoaning birth-control pills, free prenatal testing and college education. He insulted Obama, calling him a snob, and President Kennedy. Santorum, a devout Catholic, said Kennedy’s insistence on a strong separation of church and state made him want to throw up.
Given the tendency of the legacy media to magnify such statements, Santorum appeared oblivious to the real concerns of American voters and more interested in discussions that many Americans, including large pluralities of Republicans, believe beyond the purview of politics. He failed to establish himself as a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan or even Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, the latter, to be sure, a social conservative, but a disciplined candidate, able to keep his campaign focus on the fiscal issues of greatest concern to his constituents.
Santorum, simply put, failed to convince enough conservatives of his Reaganite bona fides. No wonder Jonathan S. Tobin writes, “The reason why Romney is going to be the nominee has more to do with the failure of a credible conservative candidate to enter the race than any machinations by a mythical establishment.”
Instead of rambling on last night about that supposed establishment, Santorum would have been wise to make a strong case for unifying conservative principles — as he has in the past. He did himself no favors by attacking certain segments of his party — whose votes who would need should he somehow secure the nomination).
He failure was similar to that of Jon Huntsman, but from the opposite direction. The former Utah governor, even though he had a conservative record as governor and ran on a conservative platform, all too often attacked the conservative direction of his party. Santorum attacked (what he deemed) the establishment who favored, in his view, a more moderate nominee.
Had either candidate kept his focus on the conservative economic policies he advocated, both might be facing off today for the delegates still at stake in the current contest for the Republican nomination.
I knew from the moment the field for 2012 was shaping up that Romney was going to be our guy. Not that that makes me a great clairvoyant or anything, but he is the most palatable candidate to the Independent voters, who are really the only voters who matter.
That’s the mistake I think both parties can get caught up in, let’s nominate the guy (or girl) who fires up the base like no one else can but, oh by the way, for the most part, your base will cancel out our base and the winner will be the candidate who grabbed the bigger share of the middle who could vote either way. So while I was high on the Cain train until the sleaze machine took him out for a good old left-wing media lynching, I’m very good with Romney.
Gingrich? Seriously? You think he would have had a shot at beating Obama? I marvel to think at the Republicans who thought he might stand a chance. And I don’t care if he could have danced circles around Obama in a debate. Read a text transcript of the Nixon vs. Kennedy debates, if it was broadcast on radio or printed in the newspapers, Nixon would have won that election.
Same with Santorum. It has not been that long since 1992. Have we really lost touch with the most basic maxim that exists in politcs? It’s the economy, stupid.
So I’m good with Romney, I’m okay with the party, we have a decent shot at winning, I have this uneasy feeling that the evangelicals are an important part of the party and I respect their faith, I really do, but for those who condemn homosexuals, I pray for them, I don’t hate them, I pray for them, because I know for a fact there are people who are just that way, and maybe that’s why it makes me such a fan of Gay Patriot, because your core beliefs drew you to a party where there’s a small minority that’s a hostile audience to your lifestyle.
I’ve always wanted to tell you this – being gay and being a Republican makes you infinitely cooler than all the other gay sheep who mindlessly become Democrats. Stay gay, stay GOP, there is no freakin’ place for the government to tell you which sex you should be naturally attracted to.
if you think chris christie is a conservative you don’t know what you are talking about. christie is a dhimmi in the pocket of both CAIR and steve adabuto.
It’s not over until Romney achieves 1144 delegates. As the conservative wing of the Republican Party aka “the base” rejected Romney in 2008, they knew it was an uphill battle based on open primary system that favors the candidate of the minority liberal Republican Party. Santorum and Gingrich have no intent to deliver the nomination to the “Father of Homosexual Marriage” after the European Court of Human Rights rejected the social activism of the APAs/ABA and the Swedish model. Romney has to earn every delegate.
The media must share at least part of the blame for this. They knew social issues were Santorum’s weakest link and exploited it by hammering him on it day after day after day. Now, Santorum should certainly have minimized any comments on those issues and stuck to the economy and jobs, but the liberal media had their claws out and were ready to pounce on him every chance they got.
On The Drudge Report, it was noted that Santorum is taking 4 days off due to exhaustion. That may partially explain his wackiness and inability to concentrate on fiscal issues. Or it could be that’s he such a religious fundie that he cannot control himself. This inability to control his tongue is symptomatic of His Majesty, the greatest President of all time, Dear Leader Obama.
I wish Santorum, or any social conservative politician, would ask, in all seriousness, for a liberal to explain why it’s “hate” to believe what social conservatives believe. Why is it “hate” to believe in traditional marriage? Why is it “hate” to be pro-life? I want to know that. I really wish Santorum would ask that, and make it clear he expects a real answer. It would be really interesting to see what liberals would come up with.