Throughout the race, pundits have wondered whether a Mitt Romney nomination would keep the conservative base at home next November. Now they may have their answer. Conservatives don’t gloss over Romney’s flaws, and many cheer on his GOP opponents when they skewer his moderate positions. Rick Santorum has recently gone all out on the Romney-is-a-RINO theme, running ads comparing Romney to President Obama. But there is a line. And Santorum barreled right through it when he blurted out that America might as well stick with Obama instead of taking a risk on Romney yesterday.
Conservatives were outraged, and Santorum quickly attempted to backpedal.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, a Santorum supporter (and an excellent model for how a pundit can endorse a candidate and still provide fair and balanced election coverage), had this response to the controversy:
It seems that Senator Santorum has forgotten the purpose of the Republican primary. It’s to choose the most successful candidate to beat Obama in the general election. It isn’t to test a few candidates to see whether the goal of beating Obama is worth the bother.
And why do we need to beat Obama? The economic policies of this administration have been an utter disaster. The Senate won’t pass any budgets, not even the President’s, while he’s in the Oval Office. Energy prices are going through the roof thanks to the massive regulatory hurdles his administration has created to production and refining, especially on federal lands. An ObamaCare repeal will only happen if Obama is no longer President, assuming that the Supreme Court doesn’t throw the whole law out this summer. …
I will go to the caucuses tomorrow. I expect Senator Santorum to have recovered his sense of reality and apologize for that statement by that time. If not, I may end up arguing for another candidate when we meet to discuss the next phase at our Republican caucus.
Morrissey goes into further detail about what an Obama second term would mean for conservatives, but readers of Commentary get the picture. Not only did Santorum show a lack of discipline, as Jonathan pointed out earlier, he’s also driving conservatives to come out in defense of Romney – which doesn’t exactly help Santorum at this point.
The whole incident suggests that despite some of the grumbling from the right about Romney’s moderate record, conservatives have a clear sense of the stakes next November. Romney may not be ideal when compared to some of the Republican dream candidates, i.e. Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. But if the choice is between Romney and Obama, conservatives aren’t going to sit on the sidelines and let the president waltz breezily into a second term.
Just so. If Mitt Romney emerges victorious from the Republican primary process, he'll have my whole-hearted support. I have my quibbles with the former Massachusetts governor but let's face it: On his very worst day he looks like Lincoln or Reagan by comparison with Barack Obama. The priority for 2012 is not to sulk because we didn't get the ideal conservative candidate—but to evict Obama from the White House before he does even more damage!
He won't have mine — not without earning it. n nI have made that mistake too many times in the past — blindly looking for the "R" and now I am saying "no mas!" n nClinton had been neutered by the 1994 Congressional elections – so much so that Rush Limbaugh's TV show collapsed because he really didn't have anything to talk about. And we were better off in the late 1990s under a neutered Clinton than we ever were under Bush — yes, Democrat politicians ought not be trusted with people's daughters, but we had the luxury of tabloid discussions of sophomoric twentysomethings behaving badly with guys old enough to know better. n nI went down to the old schoolhouse and voted for Susan Collins — actually had to go twice because in a small community the poll workers are also the volunteer EMTs and medical emergencies are agreed to be non-partisan and to take precedence. As much as I disliked Collins, I figured she would do less damage than Tom Andrews — and in six weeks she did more damage (stimulus, bailouts, etc) than I even dreamed Andrews possible of. n nI saw 16 years of RINO Mass Governors — it was the judges appointed by Republicans who voted for gay marriage — and the Dukakas appointees who voted against it. It was the conservative (trade union/Catholic) Democrats who pushed education reform – along with the business/high-tech community — the mASSgop just went along. In hindsight, I so wish that the Democrat, John Silbur, had won the Governor's election in 1990. n nNo, we don't need another Susan Collins. A GOP POTUS doing less damage than Obama actually would harm the country *MORE* because we would have to support the schmuck as opposed to being united in opposition to Obama.
Making the prefect the enemy of the good is the besetting sin of a certain type of conservative.
He only digs his hole deeper by trying to blame the press for "misrepresenting" what he said and how he meant it.
"And I ask, exactly what is Romney's *vision*? Obama's was "change" — what is Mitt's?" n n how about: n n"Change it Back!"
"Change it back" — to WHAT?!?! n nThe Herbert Hooverish disaster that was the final days of the Bush Admin? nYes, Obama has spent more than Bush — much like Reagan spent more than nJimmy Carter on defense, but much as the Reagan buildup started with Carter nafter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Obama spending spree really started nwith GWB. n nNo, "change it back" won't work — nor is advisable — although I wouldn't be surprised to see Romney mouthing that line. Sowell is right — we need a CANDIDATE to beat Obama, and for those who don't remember, "candidate" comes from the Latin word for "candid" — one who is candid. That is what we need from Romney — a "fire in the belly" for something *other than* just winning. n nIs there any value or principal or issue that Romney feels so strongly about that he would gladly risk his chance to be President over it? Is there anything that he would gladly be excommunicated from the Mormon church over it — not that they would ever take the position contrary to his, but if they did, he would be gone. n nIt may be difficult, but think about it for a minute — there are some values, in many cases bedrock principles of your religious faith — that if the religious authorities were to suddenly take the exact opposite position, you would walk away. For example, if my faith abandoned Natural Law and said that women aren't created in God's image with God-given rights to life, liberty & property — that instead it was perfectly acceptable for fathers to sell their daughters as property — I couldn't and wouldn't accept that. n nSo I am not attacking the Mormon faith and let me be clear on that. I am not asking for a case where he disagrees with his faith's leaders, or when he may have fought for change in the doctrine (e.g. some feminist issues) — some core belief that he and the faith share, that is so fundamental to all of them that *everyone* would leave were it changed and so basic that no one could even conceive of it happening. n nAs Ms. Goodman noted, Romney clearly loves & adores his wife. Why? n nMichael Dukakas made a lot of mistakes — *was* a mistake — but his two biggest tactical blunders in his POTUS run was that truly foolish-looking picture of him in a M1-Abrams tank with the functional-but-funny-looking hat on, and his death penalty TV interview. nDukakas, who let Willie Horton loose to kill someone in Maryland (and it was the _Reader's Digest_ that broke the story a couple years before Al Gore first used it against Dukakas in the primary — and Horton wasn't the only one, the _Digest_ also mentioned a white guy with a Polish last name, but Horton had the higher body count_ — Dukakas was opposed to the death penalty. n nSo what if someone was to rape & murder Kitty (his wife)? Now there is the red-blooded male response to this ("I would kill him myself"), and more professional version ("tough cases make poor law — of course I would want him punished severely, but as to public policy….) No, Dukakas continued on about how he opposed the death penalty, speaking dispassionately like it was some random woman he had never met — and not his wife. n nMy jaw dropped. He and Romney are both considered "technocrats" and both need to prove to the voters that they are actually human. Dukakas failed — badly — and in fairness he was actually covering up his wife's serious mental illness which itself was an act of love — but he flunked the passion test.
at this point, there's no reason for Santorum or Gingrich to still be running. neither can possibly win. n nthey are not accomplishing anything but hurting their own party for the sake of their own egos. it's getting a little disgusting.
I agree Santorum is a selfish person. He has no chance to win the nomination and would lose to Obama without a doubt Yet, this narcissistic schmuck just for his own selfish reasons is doing Obama's work for free. Santorum couldn't win reelection in Pennsylvania. Get out of the race. His "slip" was very revealing. He wants Romney to lose in the insane hope he will win the nomination in 2016 and the presidency. But he is too right wing to win a national election.
"Sanitorium" is to the republican party what a bunion is to a runner.
Romney has the benefit of smearing Santorum through ads and various advocates, so he looks squeaky clean. Santorum has to do his own attacking on Romney. I don't see anything wrong with what Santorum said, because it's true that 4 years of Democrat Lite Romney will just usher in 4 years of Democrat Heavy after that. I'd much rather have 4 years, possible 8, of an actual conservative that duplicitous Mitt.
Rick Santorum is in panic mode and is liable to say almost anything no matter how incoherent or ridiculous, the sooner he faces the fact that he has no chance and drops out of the race the better.