Santorum’s surge surprised just about everybody and he came within 8 votes of beating perennial front-runner Mitt Romney in Iowa. Newt faded, and Bachmann and Perry are likely out of the race.
So the conventional wisdom is that Rick peaked at the right time. Santorum was flavor of the week on the right week, but he doesn’t have the money or the organization to compete in the next primary states of NH and SC. And since Santorum came out of nowhere, he has yet to receive the scrutiny that withered other candidates. And as people get to know him, he will fade like the rest.
But…
While some or all of the above may yet happen, there are some reasons to think that Santorum will not entirely suffer the same fate as the other non-Romneys. While Santorum has just now received contender status, I don’t think he is in the same boat as the other contenders of the week. Bachmann surged at the beginning of the race but quickly faded to last place. Her initial surge, I believe, was a shot across the bow of the Republican party by tea-partiers letting the party know that they want a conservative. Nothing more. I like Michelle, but she never had a chance.
Then conservatives looked at the rest of the field to determine who THAT conservative would be. And they looked at Rick Santorum. Yes, back then. Rick is a solid conservative. Despite some of the knocks on him for his congressional voting record and his infamous endorsement, most everyone knows that Santorum is a very solid conservative. The big question on Rick is electability. Rick is easily caricatured because of his beliefs and he lost his Senate race big time in 2006. They worried about electability and they decided to put him in their back pocket.
Then they looked at the others. Perry seemed like a good alternative, until he opened his mouth and they had even greater concerns about his electability. They flirted with Cain until he wasn’t able. And then Gingrich.
The rise of Gingrich was/is of a different order. The flirtation with Gingrich was a serious one. Conservatives really wondered “Could this be our guy?” But Gingrich’s past and current erraticness coupled with his general unlikability caused many conservatives to sour on him and he faded to 4th in Iowa. Gingrich wants to believe that this is because of millions of dollars of negative ads against him in Iowa. But the truth is that Gingrich has equally faded in national polls as well and most of those people have never seen a negative ad other than Gingrich himself. Newt is his own negative add.
And so they came back to the solid conservative they know, Rick Santorum. They(we) still have concerns about electability, but Rick’s steadiness in the debates and general positive performance have more inclined us to think he can win.
So will Rick fade under scrutiny like the others? Maybe, but there are differences. We conservatives know Santorum is, for better of for worse. We shouldn’t have a lot of surprises in this area. The other big difference, there is no one left to flirt with.
Conservatives have consistently signaled that they want an alternative to Romney. That is either Gingrich or Santorum. That’s it. Those are the choices. The real question is whether conservatives will split their vote, like they always have in the past, and clear the way for the moderate establishment candidate. If I were a betting man, this is the most likely scenario because conservatives are very tribal and very stupid.
But this is the choice, the conservative alternative is Gingrich or Santorum. We know these guys. The question is whether we will get behind one? For me, electability concerns notwithstanding, Santorum is the guy.
Wildcard altert! Gingrich is really ticked off at Romney and might go scorched earth. His concession speech last night was a nasty piece of work. For those who saw it, like me, it only served to further remind me what I don’t like about Gingrich.
So now more than ever, Santorum is the only conservative alternative to Romney. Get on the bandwagon or get ready for the Romney ticket.
January 4, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Yes, I do, follow Catholic teaching on Just War. Do you follow anything other than the Daily Show?
So: you are not an American, you are used to getting thrown out of parties for being obnoxious, and you are just an RP internet volunteer then? Too bad you aren't at least making any cash from it. Perhaps when drugs and prostitution are legal in all states, you can visit the US and make some money that way. Oh and that's not an ad hominem attack – calling people you don't know warmonger and baby killer – now THAT'S an ad hominem attack.
And yeah, those insults doesn't do much to encourage warm fuzzy feelings or civil discussion.
Too bad. Other Ron Paul supporters who've posted here – while still wrong – are at least able to make their points effectively without that… crap. (sorry, not other word for it really)
January 4, 2012 at 11:03 pm
used to post – try reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. Specter supports killing unborn babies. Zummo said that Specter was a "squishy moderate". I wrote that I do not consider someone who supports killing unborn babies a "squishy moderate". Do you?
My dictionary has warmonger as "a person who advocates, wants, or tries to precipitate war". From the comments of you and others on this blog, I think the term fits. Perhaps I am wrong, and you all are peace-lovers who don't recognize the rights of other sovereign countries to have the same weapons of mass destruction as the U.S. has. Oops, sorry, didn't mean to call you a name there.
January 4, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Now, I'll leave you Nationalists to your self-love fest, since you don't seem to want to have a civil discussion.
This is like the tenth time you've implicitly said that you are no longer going to post here, and yet you keep commenting. So you're a liar on top of being, well, not particularly bright.
January 4, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Thanks, I really appreciate the names. Now I really will leave you pacifists to yourselves. Really.
January 5, 2012 at 12:20 am
try reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
…Dude, do you take a deep pleasure out of creating irony or something?
You call others names, misrepresent what they say, and respond to things not said…then complain about others doing that?
January 5, 2012 at 12:39 am
If you are getting things STRAIGHT, none of the Neocons (all of them BUT Ron Paul) are leftists masquerading as "conservative". Big government domestically, big government foreign policy, imperialism. RP is the ONLY one against NDAA, national health control, the central bank….ALL of which are commie planks. Ron Paul is the only one with true conservative credentials and track record. Neoconservatism, which is widely preached here is rooted in Trotskyism and leftists like Irving Kristol and WF Buckley promoting the infiltration of the GOP and turning it to increased statism. Statism is state worship, leftism is state worship. Enjoy your Barrabas.
January 5, 2012 at 12:47 am
Wow, Anony, that was impressive. You managed to hit every cliche in the cultist lingo. Maybe one day when you grow up you can have an original thought.
January 5, 2012 at 3:11 am
LOL! I love irony.
January 5, 2012 at 4:32 am
"Let's get something straight here, Geronimo. Ron Paul is not a Conservative. Ron Paul is a Libertarian pretending to be a Conservative."
Let's get this straight: the types of candidates who the Republicans ALWAYS nominate as presidential nominees, to include the candidate who they will inevitably nominate this year (and who folks like those at CMR always support like lemmings as the only choice to vote for), are not Conservatives. They are status quo, big-government, establishment neo-cons masquerading as Conservatives. Let's consider all the facts here and not ignore those that might interfere with you supporting yet another John McCain or Bush for president.