Santorum never got the tens of millions viciously spent against him by the Romney people in Iowa.. that simple
True, but it’s not as easy to attack Santorum as it is Gingrich, either.
The problem for Gingrich is that the negative ads against him just write themselves. In fact, nothing needs to be said, the ad can just show pictures — Gingrich + Freddie Mac, Gingrich + Pelosi, Gingrich + Al Sharpton, and on and on.
IOW, Gingrich is a target-rich environment and, what can be said against him, is very easy to convey and is very easily understood by voters who have their own strong opinions of Freddie Mac, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton, etc.
Sure, Santorum no doubt has stuff on which he can be attacked. The question is whether it is stuff that is so very easy to convey in ads and whether it is stuff that taps into voters’ own already-formed opinions about issues.
I heard Hannity the other day decrying the “lies” told about Newt in these ads, one of which claimed Newt supported “amnesty.”
Well, Hell’s Bells, sure one can debate a technical definition of “amnesty,” but the fact remains that Gingrich proposed a plan that had illegal immigrants being allowed to stay in the U.S. Sorry, but, rightly or wrongly, that is VERY EASY to characterize as amnesty.
Moreover, even Gingrich prefaced his proposal by saying something like, “I’m going to get in trouble [with conservatives] for this.” To me, that means he (and Hannity) have given up any basis whatsoever for claiming Gingrich was “smeared” on his immigration issues.
This is Newt’s problem over and over again. Far from being the tough guy that some think, he actually continually makes it easy for his enemies. Again, on immigration, he KNEW he was making it easy for people to say he was for amnesty and he went there anyway. So he took the risk that he would not be able to convince people he was not for amnesty, he has to pay the piper, in my book.