Charles, I think the attacks between supporters of Gingrich and Santorum are just a natural consequence of what is going on in the campaign.
Each supporter thinks his or hers candidate is the best option.
BTW, the same day Santorum gave his concession speech in Nevada re: Florida (where he castigated the Romney/Gingrich attack cycle, Santorum is running an attack ad out in Nevada on Gingrich.
So, these attacks on each other are going to continue, Romney opened up the can of worms in Iowa. Point being, hard to rage on supporters for going back and forth when the candidates are doing it to each other.
Also, I think it’s obvious that Mitts saturation attacks are pointed to Gingrich only.
Santorum has gotten a free ride in this Romney campaign. Not being argumentative regarding your point, just giving an explanation for what is going on.
I thought about “attack ads” overnight. I think there are different types of “attack ads”, so calling something an “attack ad” does not provide enough information.
I’m not at all bothered if candidates tell me the truth about other candidates, in a way that puts that other candidate in a negative light. I’d prefer they not call character into question lightly, or paint a broader picture that would make it harder to elect a candidate.
For example, the ad Santorum is running paints Gingrich negatively in a race for conservative votes. It’s not the first ad Santorum has used that does this, he’s put others out that have pointed out on some issues that Gingrich in the past 3 years held the same position as Romney, or as Pelosi or others conservatives wouldn’t like. But those ads don’t attack Gingrich as a person, and they aren’t damaging in a general election if Gingrich wins, because frankly they probably make Gingrich look more “reasonable” to independents.
Some of the attacks Romney has used, and many of the ones Gingrich have used, are also just contrasting issues. Others are stupid, misleading, or false — it’s absurd to claim Gingrich didn’t support Reagan, or wasn’t conservative in the 80s. It’s not helpful to call opponents liars, because that is a character assassination which will hurt in the general election, even if it isn’t really true.
Santorum stood up for Gingrich when his character was attacked on the marriage issue. Santorum stood up for capitalism as well, objecting to lines of attack he thought were liberal attacks on more conservative positions. I hope he doesn’t get sucked into running ads that cross that line, but Gingrich and Romney have.
But I’m not going to get worked up about ads, so much as the personal vitriol being spewed here about Santorum and his supporters, and (to a lesser extend in my opinion) Gingrich and his supporters. I don’t think it helps conservatives to smear other conservatives for political gain.
More problematic still is figuring out why so many acceptable conservative icons (at one time at least) have endorsed Romney. How do we counter that without personally attacking people we think have made bad choices.
I need to watch the Santorum video; I don’t want to “defend” it without having seen it, although it seems that it isn’t false, and nobody has said he tried to paint Gingrich’s stated older positions as if they are still his positions. I don’t think it is wrong to point out places where your past compares favorably to your opponent.
Last point. Yesterday Gingrich publicly said that Santorum should drop out. That itself is a pretty negative attack, implying that Santorum is hurting conservatives. A lot here agree, but it is a negative statement. I doubt Santorum starting running his ads because Gingrich attacked his presense in the race — but it would be a good reason, in my opinion.
Underlying all this is that I’m not sure whether Gingrich or Santorum would be a better President. If I could choose anybody from the race, and install them, I’d put Perry in before either of them. But Perry wasn’t my favorite guy either, even before his faltering debates. I can’t even think of the person I would die to see in the race.
I wanted to see Palin enter the race, but I wasn’t sure she’d be my choice in the end — I hoped she would prove herself in the race, and I could therefore support her, but I wanted her at the debates to see how she handled the issues and the spotlight. She didn’t do that, and that was going to be my way of judging whether she’d be the best President (this isn’t an odd thing to say, I doubt 10% of freepers would have picked GIngrich in may as the guy they wanted in the White House, but his performance in debates proved to many that he was a good choice).
I like Mitch Daniels, but I’m not sure he’d be the guy I’d pick if I could pick anybody. I’m not sure he’d do well in an election either, though in retrospect I wish he, rather than Perry, had entered the race.
So I’m stuck choosing between two candidates with vastly different flaws and strengths, neither of whom I can vote for. I guess it’s about time to choose anyway, because it’s just “chicken” to stand aloof and support “everybody” or not support “anybody”.
Sorry to babble on, most of this isn’t directed at you anyway, just trying to sort through the options.