Before we proceed with whatever comes next, attention shall first be paid to last week's announcement from Pennsylvania's most prominent conservative in exile, Rick Santorum.
Santorum said the other day: "I'm very concerned about the state of affairs in this country."
Translation to plain English: "I want to run for president in 2012. I'm looking at the other Republican candidates and I'm thinking, hey, why not me?"
Why not indeed. Thus guy might be worth watching.
Santorum is set to visit Iowa on October 1. Assuming he's not fixated on getting a good steak in Des Moines, there's only one reason why Santorum would be going to Iowa - just as other '12 Republican dreamers have already done. He's hitting all the stations of the cross - a guest appearance on Des Moines talk radio (where he can connect with the angry white listeners), a guest gig at a right-to-life luncheon (where he can connect with the kinds of conservative activists who typically dominate the Iowa GOP presidential caucuses, the first stop on the '12 primary trail), and a headlining role at a fundraiser sponsored by a conservative political action committee (you need lavish early money in order to map a presidential bid; as a character quipped in one of David Mamet's movies, "Everyone needs money! That's why they call it money!").
It might seem counter-intuitive to imagine Santorum as a top-tier '12 player, given the fact that in 2006 the voters of Pennsylvania heaved him out of the U.S. Senate with great force; his defeat by 18 percentage points was reportedly the worst for any incumbent senator in the last quarter century. But that was a general election race in a blue-trending state in a strong Democratic year. The political factors in a Republican presidential race are very different, starting with the fact that grassroots conservative activists, as always, will determine who gets the nod.
Which brings us to Santorum, and his tantalizing possibilities:
1. The conservative base adores him. The conservative base not only is pivotal in those Iowa caucuses, it is also pivotal in early-voting South Carolina. Much to the base's delight, Santorum remains uncompromisingly opposed to abortion, and any laws that would foster greater acceptance of gay people in the mainstream of life. (Santorum, in his infamous 2003 interview with the Associated Press, actually did not equate gay sex with "man on dog" sex; rather, he damned with faint praise, by conceding that gay sex "is not, you know, man on child, man on dog, whatever the case may be." He did contend, however, giving gays the right of privacy in their own homes was tantamount to condoning polygamy, incest, "the right to anything.")
Mark McKinnon, a former campaign strategist for George W. Bush, asserted the other day that Santorum is "very, very dangerous" because he is "anti-anything that smacks of progressive thinking, centrism, bipartisanship, or moderation in the Republican party." Which is precisely why the conservative base is passionate about Santorum.
2. Take a look at the rest of the likely Republican field, and it's clear why Santorum doesn't feel overmatched. Mitt Romney is still viewed by many conservatives as an opportunistic flip-flopper who shed his moderate beliefs in order to fit in. Tim Pawlenty, the current Minnesota governor who's giving up his job next year, is as dry as a Quaker Oats rice cake. Mike Huckabee, now a Fox News host, is widely viewed by pragmatic conservatives as unelectable. Newt Gingrich peaked in 1995. John Thune is a little-known senator from South Dakota. And Sarah Palin? She connects with the conservative id, as we know - but so can Santorum, who campaigns tenaciously and speaks just as passionately...plus, unlike Palin, he actually knows something about governance in Washington.
Indeed, Santorum recently took a not-so-veiled poke at Palin. After she quit her job as governor, he told Fox News that his lady at home, Mrs. Santorum, was very disappointed in Palin: "She felt like, number one, (quitting) hurt Sarah. And number two, it hurt women in politics." The resignation "looks like, you know, she couldn't take (the heat), and that's not a good thing for women." All told, Palin's decision to quit, "is going to hurt her."
He then hastened to add, of course, that "I'm speaking for my wife, not for me. I'm not telling you how I feel about it."
Translation, in plain English: "For me to boost my visceral appeal to the base, I've got to do everything I can to undercut Palin's visceral appeal, even if it means using my wife as a cut out."
3. Recognizing the truism that politics is always cyclical, Santorum anticipates that the 2010-2012 period might be akin to another 1994, when the angry right rose from the ashes of defeat in Bill Clinton's election and seized power again in Washington. Santorum is a '94 alumn, having ascended to the Senate during the conservative wave that year; he knows how to function in that environment, speaking to the right's resentments and fear of change. He road-tested a few themes last week on Fox News: "This is a very critical time...This is about America. This is about our traditions. This is about who we are as a people..there's something foundationally going on in Washington to rob America of its essence." (Not to be confused with Jack D. Ripper, the military commander in Dr. Strangelove, who feared that America was losing "the pruity and essence of our natural fluids.") And as a footloose ex-politician (encumbered primarily by commentating duties, including a twice-monthly Philadelphia Inquirer column), he has plenty of free time to woo the grassroots.
Santorum does have a few potential liabilities, of course. Conservative voters in the early states might view him as a poster child for the party's Bush era downfall, too much a reminder of the recent failed past. He was, after all, the number-three senator in the Republican hierarchy that was swept from power. As such, he might be viewed as too much the Washington insider. If he looms as a viable threat, a rival could gin up some 30-second ads about how he home-schooled his kids in Virginia while the state of Pennsylvania paid the tab. Also, it might be a bit awkward for Santorum to go after Romney, given the fact that, a mere 20 months ago, Santorum was praising Romney as a great '08 candidate ("If you're a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now, and that's Mitt Romney").
And as Mark McKinnon rightly noted, there's also the question of whether Santorum's social intolerance and neoconservative hawkishness (on Iraq, even today; on refusing to talk to countries such as Iran and Syria) would alienate moderate swing voters and render him unelectable in a November race. Even though six years is an eternity in politics, could he as a presidential nominee really win Pennsylvania (which is crucial, in any GOP scenario) after having been so thoroughly trounced in his Senate re-election bid?
All these calculations would seem to be a long way off - nobody can rationally predict how Barack Obama and the economy will look on the eve of the next campaign - but Iowa has already played host to six Republican hopefuls seeking to plow early turf. Actually, make it five hopefuls; John Ensign, fresh from his casino mogul daddy paying off his mistress, will not be back. Given the competition, can you blame Santorum for dreaming?
-------
Meanwhile, as the baby boomers bid farewell to the Woodstock anniversary (the festival ended 40 years ago today), here's a news item guaranteed to make them feel that the times, they are a' changing.
Who cares (other than Mr. Polman) about Santorum at this point in the presidential election cycle? From the last blog; ***Repubs haven't stopped anything, the GOP doesn't have the votes! Pres. Obama's own party stopped 'healthcare reform' out of self-preservation mostly (thank you Blue Dogs) and in the process may have kept the Preident from mortally wounding himself for 2012 w/Pelosi-care:) Now let's go back and do the whole process right. At least spend as much time redoing 16% of our economy as the President spent picking out the right 1st dog (6 months:) Medicare took 1 1/2 years to design and pass. I think that portability of health insurance is a good place to start, I did it w/ my life insurance and just pay the company directly! Maybe if the insurance companies agree to take direct payments from individuals at the same rates as they charge companies (group rates), we could start paying them directly, business's could just give their employees the insurance $$$ in their paycheck (yes taxed) if they choose and business would get out of the health insurance game altogether (I doubt any would complain)! A good start? *** NEPhilly
Comment removed.
Grassroots conservative activists did not give John McCain the nod. Tom Tancredo's popularity with grassroots conservative activists was meaningless. Santorum stands zero chance of getting nominated and even less chance of getting elected. anonymous
Comment removed.
The Republican Party owes Obama a big thank you for uniting it and helping it ressurect itself. CD75
Comment removed.
santorum the neanderthal will always play well the conservative core although his ideal position would be as a vp candidate probably romney's snarque
"Santorum has six children. In 1996, he had son born prematurely who lived for only two hours. He and wife brought the child home and introduced the dead infant to the rest of their children as 'your brother Gabriel' and slept with the body overnight." - http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/santorum-is-dangerous/2/ the stupid does burn
Canada. New Zealand. Even Switzerland. Civilized people. Simone- That Bob Casey is a very distinguished replacement for Santorum. How does Pennsylvania end up with two useless Senators like we have? Specter and Casey are both a waste of air and water. Mr. Smith
***The solution sounds simple, and it is. To create a real market, we need to hand consumers the money companies now spend for them. Then, employees would own their policies and carry the coverage to the next job. Today, millions of workers cling to jobs just to preserve their health benefits. The result of liberating them would be a revolution, with providers tailoring a galaxy of new plans -- rich, high-deductible, and everything in-between -- to the needs and budgets of consumers writing their own checks. The House bill championed by President Barack Obama moves precisely in the opposite direction. Americans need total freedom to buy the plans that are right for them. By contrast, the Obama plan doesn't allow for much choice. That's because it sets extremely strict minimum standards for all the plans the government will approve for sale.*** http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/14/news/economy/health_care_solution.fortune/index.htm NEPhilly
Comment removed.
I'd take that as the Repub candidate any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Of course Rick probably still thinks the planet should shut down on Sunday as a day of rest. This dude needs to run for office in the Vatican. They are the only community on the planet who lives life in a manner he sees as sufficient. Perhaps he could be elected, and reinstitute the crusades. That's a cause worth paying for....But forget about national healthcare. gee1971
Some more tidbits; ***For example, Americans would have to pay for mental health benefits and coverage for their "children" until the age of 26. While many Americans may want that kind of rich coverage, millions do not. So why impose these expensive plans on everybody? By setting deductibles extremely low -- another feature that makes any plan offered under Obamacare extremely expensive -- the law would pretty much eliminate high-deductible insurance. Again, that's what millions of families now have, and what tens of millions more will want, but won't be able to get. The Obama bill blocks insurers from charging more for people with unhealthy lifestyles -- smokers and those with high cholesterol due to unhealthy diet, for instance -- than Americans who exercise regularly and watch their weight. That's hardly a formula for reducing costs. A free-market plan would allow insurers to offer discounts to people who pursue preventive care and carefully nurture their health. It would charge people premiums based on their actual or projected costs.*** NEPhilly
I am really starting to long for a place to escape so that one may live out one's life in peace away from the meaningless noises of pundit idiocy. And to hell with the future and survival of democracy, decency & the earth itself. But apparently some of us can give up the fight while staying in place. Anybody who suggests Santorum could be a desirable - or even viable - President of the USA has lost his way and his compass has tilted toward ethical irrelevancy. Why can't the media see past its own nose? Politics isn't merely a game of strategy to entertain media "pundits" whose perspectives are unnecessarily narrow & enthralled with how political expediency works. It MATTERS who runs for office! It MATTERS if they are extremist! Every person has a stake in the policies of government; whether it works for the few or the many; when an ideology encourages selfishness, and glosses over (other people's) suffering is not a small question. An ideology that rationalizes gross ineqity with hypocritical moral rightenousness should be called what it is! It should never be accepted as mainstream. For God's sake, Polman, it greatly matters what kind of person is running for office! This is the kind of media blindness & tolerance that enabled the public to accept a dimbat - and all the abuses & excesses of that Administration - like GWB. The result was and is disastrous. Media deserves a large share of the blame. Idiots. Simone
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
- December 2011
- August 2010
- August
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008







