One of the most persuasive cases against nominating Mitt Romney is that he would make it difficult for Republicans to attack Obama over health care during the general election. But conservatives need to go beyond just asking themselves what ground they want to challenge Obama on. They also need to ask themselves what ground they want to spend the general election defending.
If Mitt Romney is the nominee, Republicans will have to scale back the all-out assault on ObamaCare they hoped to pursue. But at the same time, they won’t have to spend the race mounting a vocal defense of RomneyCare, since Democratic attacks aren’t likely to focus on that issue. Instead, Democrats will target Romney on class warfare, business regulations, taxes, Wall Street, and so on.
Rick Santorum’s nomination would cause Democrats to revamp this strategy. Class warfare will undoubtedly play a role. But Santorum’s key weaknesses with independent voters are in the social issues arena, and that’s what Democrats will zero in on. Republicans will spend most of the election defending Santorum’s positions on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and the role of women in the military and workplace.
This isn’t to say that Republicans should only base their nominee decision on Democratic attacks. Focusing solely on defense is a losing strategy. But they should remember that while it’s important to nominate a candidate who can effectively attack Obama on his weaknesses, it’s just as crucial to nominate a candidate whose vulnerable areas are ones they want to spend the next nine months defending.
"Republicans will spend most of the election defending Santorum’s positions on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and the role of women in the military and workplace." n nThis Republican won't be. He'll be voting Libertarian for the first time in a presidential election. It would be pretty amusing watching Republicans trying to defend Father Rick's heartfelt lectures against non-procreative sex, however.
I'd prefer to defend Gingrich's weaknesses, which at worst are character flaws (that aren't any worse than Clinton's, and not talking about sex, but Gingrich's and Clinton's quick anger and ego) and at best are only that a certain percentage of people despise him with their whole being as they despise Palin, G.W. Bush, and some, to this day, still despise Reagan (if a lot of those who hate him are Republicans, he'll lose … but if they are Democrats, maybe their hatred would motivate Republicans to vote). Gingrich's plusses are that he sometimes gets people to be proud they're Americans — maybe Romney will do that too, instead of talking so much about "managing," but I think he has a better chance than Santorum who's social negatives turn off a lot of Republicans as well as Democrats and Independents. Nobody wants a morals lecture!
I won't spend the next nine months defending anybody. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. n n
As a once-moderate conservative, I want the Republican nominee to win in November. But given that, I long for a culture war struggle between now and November, because our culture deserves defending. If nominating Santorum is the best way to lay out the social issues to independent voters, that by all means, bring it on. These issues are worth fighting for. Obviously the economy, the debt, the foreign policy mistakes, the entitlement nightmare, social safety net dependency, are just as important. But the social issues are critical too. Critical to the future of America. If we cannot save the concept of marriage, if we cannot control abortion, if we cannot convince young people that playing with sex can doom you to a lifetime of misery, then we as a nation are headed down the wrong path. Check out Eric Metaxas' speech at the National Prayer Breakfast (on C-SPAN). These issues are worth fighting for.
An excellent post! Thank you.
Yes, by all means let's stop the national scourge of married people practicing family planning through contraception.
Romney’s inability to attack Obamacare is highly overrated. The simple difference between federal and state plans plus the pledge to inoperationalize it immediately on getting into office will do him just fine. I contend that Santorum’s hyper social conservatism poses a greater electoral liability.
I may be repeating myself but I'll say again that Romey's inability to attack Obamacare is highly overrated. Simply citing the state federal divide and pledging immediately to operationalize it should do very nicely for him. On the other hand, Santorum's visibly perceived social conservatism and role as a public scold make him unelectable. I disagree with commenter Burke. Fighting out the "culture war" would prove an electoral disaster.