Posted on 02/06/2012 8:07:32 AM PST by libertarian neocon
A couple of polls came out from Public Policy Polling this weekend showing that Santorum seems to be replacing Newt Gingrich as the main "not Romney" candidate in Minnesota and Colorado. There seems to be a desire to "give another conservative a chance" as well as to potentially field a candidate without as much baggage as Newt so that Mitt Romney's negative ad carpet bombing will not be as effective.
I think though that this reasoning is fallacious and switching support from Newt to Santorum at this point would be a major mistake. Let's just look at what I believe are the two main arguments for the switch:
1) "Give another conservative a chance". Didn't Rick already have a chance after his victory in Iowa? He had a ton of positive press coverage even when it appeared that he had narrowly lost (by 8 votes) in Iowa and he could have really taken advantage of it. But he didn't. He is just not as competent with voters or with the media as he should be. He followed up his surprising Iowa finish with a 4th place finish in New Hampshire, a 3rd place finish in South Carolina, a 3rd place finish in Florida and now a 4th place finish in Nevada. In none of these contests was he able to break through 17% of the vote (he got that in evangelical heavy South Carolina) and in two contests (New Hampshire and Nevada) he wasn't even able to break through 10%. And it isn't like Newt has the establishment media on his side keeping Rick down, if anything it is the opposite. After 25 debates and a victory in Iowa, Rick Santorum really has no excuse for not catching on, other than himself.
2) "We need a candidate with less baggage than Newt". Right now, because Rick Santorum has generally escaped much criticism in the media it appears that he would be a much safer candidate than Newt, one who could survive the carpet bombing of negative ads that will inevitably come from Romney once Rick is viewed as a threat to them. But this is an illusion as I don't think any candidate with any actual record could escape unscathed from Romney's attacks. Ad markets have been deluged with so many negative ads by the Romney team that their tactics practically meet the threshold to be considered brainwashing. Just think about what Newt has actually been attacked for. He has been attacked for an ethics charge related to the tax exempt status of a college course he taught (oooh, run for the hills!), something even the IRS decided did not hold water. He has been attacked for, as a private citizen, consulting for a politically unattractive client, Freddie Mac (If it was Iran, I would understand, but a publicly traded company that even Romney was invested in? Come on.). He has also been attacked for sitting on a couch for a commercial with a liberal democrat and actually promoting green energy (the horror)! All of these issues have been completely blown out of proportion by the Romney machine and the media and have nothing to do with Newt's very conservative record while in office.
I'm sure some people would argue that if they had anything on Rick Santorum, that they would have used it already. Not really. The Romney machine and its allies in the media establishment only attack when they see a threat to their candidate. I seem to remember a time when the very same people who are vilifying Newt today were cheering him on for his witty answers in various debates. The difference at the time was that they were trying to take down Rick Perry and Herman Cain and thought Newt had no chance. Just wait until they set their sights on Rick Santorum. There will be wall to wall ads about his involvement in the K Street Project, his endorsement of Arlen Specter (who became a Democrat and helped usher in Obamacare), his "leadership PAC" (which gave a paltry 18% of its money to candidates and spent the rest on everyday expenses for Rick Santorum), his scam of a charity and his numerous "gaffes" which will help sour his appeal among women and independent voters (he blamed the church's child molestation scandal on Boston being liberal, he equated homosexuality with bestiality and he said radical feminism is to blame for the decline of the American family). Then of course is his record which is more liberal than Newt's. He voted against NAFTA, against Right to Work and for steel tariffs, as well as various earmarks (especially in election years). If you don't think the Romney attack dogs won't find enough fodder in Rick Santorum's record to vilify him to the same extent that Newt has been vilified, think again. Remember, there was a time that even Newt had the highest positive intensity score in the entire field. Things change. In a few months, after the establishment is done with him, Rick Santorum's image as a straight shooting conservative family man will turn into one of a corrupt religious zealot who is only interested in his own advancement.
One final point. I know that conservatives seemed to have become addicted to switching horses in this primary race, going from Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich to Santorum and then back to Gingrich, but at some point, it just becomes too late. Due to his string of lackluster finishes, Rick Santorum continues to have a pretty decrepit organization which just recently couldn't even find enough signatures to get on the ballot in Indiana. Newt was attacked for not having an organization, so how does it make sense to go to a candidate who probably has an even worse one, especially with Super Tuesday coming up? Newt has his weaknesses, but like it or not, he is the best we have right now. He is a Reagan conservative who has a great ability to excite the base and explain to everyone else why we believe what we believe. We need to coalesce around him and defeat both Romney AND Obama and make America great again.
I’m voting for Santorum.
I won’t vote for Romney even against Obama, I’ll go third party.
If Newt wins, I’ll support him.
The main thrust of Newt’s campaign is not to defeat Romney but to eliminate Santorum. I haven’t heard him tell Romney he should quit.
Newt’s main campaign skill is acting as if he’s already won something. I await the flaming.
After she taped a climate change ad with Newt.
“I think the Romney camp prays that Newt hangs on because they currently attract a number of votes under the theory that “Romney is the most electable”. If Santorum ever got enough momentum to challenge Romney again with a comparable “most electable” claim, it might dawn on a significant number of voters that they can get a fairly strong conservative that has a good a shot as anyone in the general too. Dangerous idea for Romney, that must not catch on.”
If that is true, why is a Romney shill like Jen Rubin also pushing Santorum? I think they are using Santorum to eat into Newt right now, knowing Santorum is not much of a threat.
And yes Santorum is performing well in “vs. Obama” polls but that is before any negative stories get into the press. But wait until his very strong social conservative views chase away libertarians, women and centrists. Remember everybody already knows Newt’s negatives, do they know Santorum’s?
Show me in the debate transcrpts the point at which Santorum “sneers”. Also, the amount spent by Santorum on everything is less than Newt’s Tiffany bill. Rick is running an extremely lean campaign, absent a sugar daddy like Newt has. And yet, he has won as many states as Gingrich.
Note to all; if you don’t support Newt, you are “pathetic”, “ out of touch” “stupid” (from last week) or a troll. How does this turn Santorum supporters into Newties? I don’t think we’ll be bullied, not by you or by Romneybots. I’m ready for flame.
I’m from Missouri and I will be voting for Rick Santorum next Tuesday, as will most of my friends. I know a couple people that will be voting for Ron Paul but the overwhelming majority will be pulling the lever for Rick.
I know of almost no one that will be voting for Romney and zero that are pro-Newt.
I guess you haven't heard. Whiny Ricky boy has his own billionaire backing him. I think he reside up in Wyoming (or around there).
Santorum has a personality that comes across as swarmy arrogance. The guy was just a senator. He has an incredibly overinflated opinion of himself.
Rick will NEVER win the GOP nomination, much less the Presidency. Seeing that twerp with his sweater vest makes me feel sorry for him. He looks like a pathetic dweeb.
This is all nonsense. Rick has no chance and he knows it. You might ask youself whay someone with on change keeps going. It means there is something in it for him. I will let you figure it out. Hint: it is as plain as the nose on your face.
“Gingrich will never be president. Even in the highly unlikely event Gingrich beats Romney, He will still never be president as the swing voters desert him and even a lot of republicans sit on their hands.”
Romney will never be president. Even in the highly likely event Romney beats Gingrich, He will still never be president as the base deserts him.
First, Santorum does have a sugar daddy, a billionaire cowboy from Wyoming who is financing his PAC and almost all of that advertising has been anti Newt advertising.
Ditto’s the Santorum campaign, which isn’t very big, but what there is of it is almost all anti Newt. Again, know a little something before you show your ignorance here.
Newt was the last, yes LAST Republican to run negative ads against other Republicans.
And finally, I would agree that Newt’s campaign is too obsessed with Romney and that it was not smart to publicly ask Santorum to drop out.
Allow me to translate that into the plain English we used to use before political correctness infected our discourse:
"But wait until his firm moral conviction to stand for what is right chases away anarchists, feminists, and the perpetually confused."
Much clearer now. No charge for the editing.
What billionaire?
To me, that would be awesome news. GO RICK!!
santorum has no money.
santorum has no patrons.
santorum has no ground game.
it is now all a matter of keeping romney from having a majority.
Santorum is no longer as substantive player.
Friess seems like a good guy.
“But wait until his firm moral conviction to stand for what is right chases away anarchists, feminists, and the perpetually confused.”
It is one thing to “stand for what is right” and to legislate against what you consider wrong. Killing yourself is wrong but does that mean you should have laws against smoking?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.