And this is the key to why.
A Santorum candidacy would probably just be a longer version of the Sarah Palin section of the 2008 election, with actual sentences this time. Only difference is Palin was a genuinely magnetic figure–whether you believed she walked on water or correctly believed she was a completely ignorant trainwreck of a person, she commanded serious attention. Santorum, though, is just a sad, bitter man who can’t get over losing in 2006, has preserved the particular fights he waged at the time in amber and wants to fight them again and again, ad infinitum, as well as refighting a lot of older ones. Scattered message discipline is the hallmark of an underfunded, ad hoc political campaign, which again, shades of McCain 2008. But it’s not just that, as Alex MacGillis persuasively argues:
We talk a lot these days about Washington having been overtaken by conservative ideologues, but this is an exaggeration. Many of those glibly parroting right-wing ideology these days—say, Eric Cantor—are mere opportunists. But Rick Santorum is a rare breed—a bona fide ideologue with a fixed and coherent world view. He can’t just switch some button and turn off the social stuff and talk jobs instead. It’s all woven together. “I’m not going to go out and lay out an agenda about how we’re going to transform people’s hearts,” he said today. “But I will talk about it.” The contrast with Mitt Romney, the man who is all buttons and switches, couldn’t be any greater.
Which means that, if Santorum is the candidate, he’s going to be running on a holistic hyper-right worldview that will mystify and alienate pretty much everyone else. That’s much harder for Obama to campaign against, but luckily it will be impossible for Santorum to argue for everything to the electorate. How on Earth is he going to convince Protestants (who outnumber Catholics substantially in America) that they’re not really Christians? That’s not at all a political issue and it’s incredibly poorly suited to our soundbyte media culture to boot. Overall, the Santorum campaign doesn’t believe much in emphasizing one issue over another, modulating the impact of his statements for general public consumption, or even holding back on some of his less popular notions. Which is to say that his true enemy isn’t Romney or Obama, but the very idea of politics itself. This is why the Tea Party loves him, as it’s largely their contempt for the actual practice of politics that drives them, as opposed to the not-at-all political Great Statesmanship of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, men who were so morally pure and leader-y that they completely dominated all opponents and got every single thing they wanted when they wanted it due to that awesomeness, and none were known to make a bad call ever. It’s a complete fantasy, of course, but seductive to a lot of people on the right and some on the left too. This is why Santorum would be completely hopeless in a general election (and, God forbid, as president).
There are a lot of people out there who believe that Mitt Romney is basically a decent person with dignity and decency and everything, and that he just doesn’t think that elections ought to be taken seriously. It’s hard to reconcile a concept of Romney with dignity to this:
With just over a week to go before the Michigan primary, ABC News reports Mitt Romney “is enlisting the help of one of his highest-wattage surrogates: Donald Trump.”
“The real estate mogul is preparing to spread his pro-Romney, anti-Rick Santorum message in a series of radio interviews this week on local stations from Traverse City to Detroit.”
Is this going to convince anyone to vote Romney? Probably not. Nobody’s ever pegged the Donald as having the common touch, and aside from his ongoing birther fixation there’s little there for working-class white conservatives to have much of an interest in there. It would be one thing if Romney were trying to steal the New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut primaries away from Santorum, but Trump has no connection to Michigan or Ohio, he’s just the guy who says “You’re fired!” on the TV to everyone not in the Tri-State Area. Hard to see how he helps Romney, and it could even backfire by making him less credible with elites.
Does this reek of desperation? Of course, but Romney’s been wearing that scent so long it might as well be his cologne. And I do think there’s a fascinating angle here. Back when Romney was the unchallenged frontrunner, he declined an invitation to participate in a debate hosted by…Donald Trump, basically saying it was beneath him. Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum agreed to participate. But, now that pretty much everyone in America has turned on poor old Mittens, he’s decided that acknowledging the unbearable orangeness of being is now hardly beneath his dignity, and failed alternative football league founder Trump is now cheerleading for the candidate who publicly snubbed him, against one of the two guys who never did, and who additionally is the one whose style he most resembles. How confusing.
What can we conclude from all this? I think (1) that Donald Trump has no memory and is making it all up as he goes along, and (2) that while I do agree that Romney is probably not a horrible person deep down, the depth of his tragic flaw (i.e. an insatiable desire for power) is practically Shakespearean, and the few scruples that he still has today will probably be out the door in a few months if things get desperate enough. He’s like Francis Urquhart without the wit and humor.
The Fix suggests Newt Gingrich may be the most unpopular person in American politics right now. A CNN/Opinion Research poll finds 63% of all Americans viewed Gingrich unfavorably, compared to just 25% who saw him in a positive light. And a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows a similar split: 54% view Gingrich unfavorably, compared to 16% who say they feel positively predisposed towards him.It’s certainly a singular distinction during a period of high unpopularity of politicians in general. But Gingrich has been just an exceptionally trying figure this cycle, and it’s good to know that it’s not going unnoticed. Call me a starry-eyed idealist, but I believe that, if he tries really hard, Mitt Romney can beat Newt on this too.
We now see Mittens’s brand-new plan to dispatch Rick Santorum:
First, he’ll be compared to President Obama: “He’s never run anything. The biggest thing he ever ran is his Senate office.”
Second, he’ll be painted as a creature of Washington: “They’re going to hit him very hard on earmarks, lobbying, voting to raise the federal debt limit five times. The story of Santorum is going to be told over the next few weeks in a big way.”
Okay, maybe not so much on the brand-new part.
This pretty weak stuff. Considering that the GOP base largely thought Sarah Palin was entirely qualified to be president (even better qualified than Barack Obama, in their minds), the first point is likely to fall flat altogether. Which is to say, what they see as their best ammunition is going to miss the mark entirely. Furthermore, earmarks and the debt ceiling are entirely ephemeral issues that Republicans seized on for tactical reasons, but there’s not a deep reservoir of concern for (or even a basic understanding about) these issues among the GOP base (or among the general electorate either–remember how McCain flogged the earmarks in 2008?). Rick’s lobbying career might hurt him a bit, but unlike Gingrich he didn’t work for any obvious conservative bogeymen so one wonders how effective this will be. Romney’s prospective attacks on Santorum are interesting in that they don’t attack his point of strength (he is perceived as a sincere and authentic conservative culture warrior), but are trying to persuade voters that Santorum is weak where Romney is strong. But if these voters truly valued executive experience and capability to handle the job more than being a “true conservative” then they’d all be Mitt men (and women) now, wouldn’t they?
If this is the best Mitt has, he might as well just drop out now and end the pain. Santorum will command a lot of attention in Michigan, and his main problem in going after Mitt is where to start because there’s so much for a culture warrior to go after. Seriously, this is an actual problem since he has to have a throughline for his criticism, as he can not bombard the electorate with disconnected negative information. Going after Mitt’s past support for Planned Parenthood would be the natural place for him to start. It’s timely at the least.
It is surreal to me that these people have to ask themselves, “How do I defeat a resurgent Rick Santorum?” It speaks to Romney’s wretchedness as a candidate, to be sure. But the problem with Santorum (as opposed to Gingrich) is that Romney destroyed Gingrich by making Newt out to be a hypocrite and a phony conservative, which was easy since Newt was both. In other words, Romney beat Newt because Newt is one of the few less authentically conservative candidates than he is. Santorum, though, is not obviously either of these things–he’s obviously a creep but that’s no demerit in this case–and Romney’s campaign seems to be visibly flustered on the question of how to deal with this situation. It’ll be interesting to see how they do.
Well my own view is, it’s a great idea. People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they’re not using those benefits to pay for drugs. I think it’s an excellent idea.Why not just pass a law requiring HHS employees to just mock people getting their welfare checks? Maybe administer a slap too or something? It’s just such a gratuitous insult to people who are already down. Fuck this smiling rich asshole and his so very banal Oedipal need to one-up daddy.
I love TNC as much as anyone, but this does not sit right with me:
My sense from the article is that Romney actually was pro-life, in his heart, but had no hope of winning with such a position in Massachusetts. So he lied, claimed to be pro-choice, and has now flipped back again.
That seems par for the course in presidential politics. I don’t see much difference between this and the president’s “evolving” position on gay marriage.
TNC could be right on Romney being pro-life deep down (I have no idea), and I think he is right that Obama’s opposition to gay marriage is entirely political and will undoubtedly vanish around February 2013, one way or another. But Obama’s actual substantive positions are not really that different from what, say, Andrew Cuomo would promise LGBT activists were he running this year. Obama wants to repeal DOMA, which is the whole ballgame on a federal level, and he can package that whichever way he wants to so long as he does his best to follow through. What Obama didn’t do was to promise Rick Warren and NOM that he’d be an exceptional advocate for their positions, adopt a top-to-bottom antigay agenda, et al. Which is the equivalent of what Romney did as Governor of Massachusetts, adopting the substance and the label, and even attempting to be a national leader on the issue.
I think it would be great if President Obama were to favor marriage equality openly. But he favors it de facto, which makes it a somewhat smaller deal for me. Romney didn’t favor a pro-life stance in any way until 2005 or so. Obama plays with the packaging but the substance is essentially unaffected, while Romney is willing to change what’s in the box at a whim. If there’s a good comparison to be made here, I’m missing it.
This is pretty incredible:
Christine O’Donnell told New York magazine that she would consider serving in a Mitt Romney administration.
Said O’Donnell: “I have to continue to help Governor Romney in any way that I can. Whether or not I would actually work in the administration depends, again, on what role, on what capacity, and what else was going on in my own career at the time.”
Yeah. Maybe if she were offered a job that was impressive enough and she didn’t have something going on that got her more visibility and media spotlight, maybe she’d consider serving her country. Maybe. But don’t hold her to it!
The only redeeming aspect of this is that she’ll never have to make that choice.
Obama approval/disapproval numbers now even.
He’s also beating Mitt by seven now.
Democrats are also up in the generic Congressional ballot.
I think that qualifies as enough of a Fun Friday post, right?

Which smile is most pained? I'm going with the unknown guy in the middle. Trying way too hard there, guy.
The thought occurred to me today that Mitt Romney is reminding me an awful lot of Meg Whitman, 2010′s megabuck Republican candidate for Governor of California.
The parallels are there: both candidates came from business backgrounds and had astonishing personal wealth. Both boasted continuously about how their business experience would make them job-creating geniuses if they were elected, though Whitman’s tenure running eBay gave her better credibility to make this argument than Romney’s atop job-shredding Bain Capital. Both ran against Democrats that were viewed in a lukewarm fashion at best by the electorate–Jerry Brown’s favorability was underwater for most of the campaign, lest we forget. Whitman had an enormous amount of money to spend to defeat Jerry Brown, and wound up dropping over $100 million of her own cash to do so.
But she lost by a huge margin. This might be expected considering that California is more Democratic than the country, but the state doesn’t seem to have much of a problem electing Republican Governors that tend to be more moderate. In fact, there have only been three Democratic Governors since WWII in this state, and one of those got recalled. This race, in any event, was close most of way. But Whitman, who saw her campaign slide away for employing an illegal immigrant, was already dropping in the polls well before that story broke. The Times sums up the reasons for this:
Ms. Whitman has spent much of the campaign explaining why she had rarely voted before entering politics. Her record at eBay, including layoffs under her watch, has been the subject of scrutiny. And she has been assailed by independent fact-checkers for running what were described as misleading or false advertisements attacking Mr. Brown by portraying him as a big spender when he served as governor of California in the 1970s.
Sounding familiar? Romney has had a different issue with voting that probably won’t matter in November, but the rest of this echoes Romney completely. Romney even has a comparable story of employing an illegal immigrant to Whitman’s. And Whitman’s other major problem in the campaign? Failed flip-flops:
After assuming a relatively tough line on illegal immigration in the primary — though explicitly avoiding the tough anti-illegal immigrant law passed in Arizona — she moved, the moment the general election began, to appeal to Latino voters with an extensive and expensive Spanish-language campaign that extended from television airwaves to bus stops to billboards that read, “Más Trabajos,” or more jobs.
She flip-flopped a few times on cap-and-trade too, for what it’s worth. Not a great idea to be ambiguous on environmental policy in this state is all I’m saying. But that’s another story. The point is that taking a hard line on immigration, as Whitman and Romney have done in their primaries, is essentially a killer if you want to get any Hispanic support as a Republican. It doesn’t matter if you soften it later, Hispanics at this point are suspicious of Republicans over this and other issues and Democrats will absolutely trot it out endlessly and hammer it home with no end. Republicans have a very thin margin of error to trod with these voters, and both Whitman and (likely) Romney have already crossed it. Obama will probably get over 70% of the Hispanic vote, I’m predicting.
Whitman’s campaign, ultimately, failed to connect for many reasons. But the overall gestalt pointed to one reason: the people didn’t connect with someone who just luxuriated in wealth, felt entitled to get a position because of her wealth and status, and couldn’t relate to normal folk. As Ruben Navarette Jr. put it at the time:
So then why did Whitman lose? For one thing, she never connected with voters and that hurt her when the Brown campaign started pushing the message that she was this rich empress who lived in a bubble and couldn’t relate to average Californians. [...]
There are plenty of differences between the two cases, but I think there are enough similarities between Romney and Whitman to make it an interesting question, and possibly some hope for Democrats in November. It’s amazing how these two politicians seem to have almost identical backgrounds, strengths and weaknesses (though in fairness, Romney did actually win an election once). Personally, I long for the days when rich people thought politics was a dirty profession.
Zandar takes this away from Mitt saying he doesn’t care about poor people:
All this of course comes back to the issue that Mitt Romney’s about as approachable as a hedgehog with a migraine, and he can’t override his own instincts when it comes to dealing with “the people”. He’s never dealt with them outside of spreadsheets and statistics and it shows. It’s all numbers to the guy. And nobody, nobody believes him when he says he rich aren’t his focus.
This has merit, but I actually have a slightly different take. Romney has been compared to Al Gore more times than I can count (the comparison was made most directly here), and Romney’s campaign reeks every bit as much of consultant overload as Gore’s did. I don’t think Romney’s spontaneity is killing him, I think it’s that his obsessive attempts to follow his consultants’ ideas that are doing it, which makes more sense anyway considering how he tends to be overrehearsed and overprepared. Gore was severely abused by the media, no doubt about it, but it’s hard to deny that his campaign was as effective as it should have been considering the strong economy and President Clinton’s popularity. Romney’s behavior has an odd deja-vu effect for me, as Romney continues to come off as stiff in exactly the same way, as though he’s trying to suppress his real personality and avoid coming off as too smart, too elite, that he stumbles over himself trying to convey an image that is fundamentally just not true. Of course, Gore was further disadvantaged by his consultants’ supremely idiotic decision to distance himself from a president with a 67% approval rating because Washingtonians always thought Clinton was a much more controversial figure than the rest of the country did. But that’s another story.
Of course, like Romney, Gore was the son of a prominent politician and grew up in the bubble to some extent. They had similar barriers to overcome in connecting with voters. But what was exasperating about Gore’s campaign was that a few years later, Gore became a prominent public figure again, and after freeing himself of consultants he was actually a smart, likable, and passionate person, traits that were suppressed by what was, in retrospect, a completely incompetent campaign operation. What is possible is that Romney’s consultants might actually be putting lipstick on a pig, as it were. I don’t know enough about Romney to know whether or not this is true of him as well, but my guess is that his inability to connect with the electorate is related to his complete lack of respect for it, his lack of ability as an actor, and perhaps a dash of insecurity that his own personality is good enough to make voters love him. The former is hardly a Gore-like trait, but the latter two certainly are.
My personal belief is that Romney is an exaggerated, even parodic, version of the things that politicians are that voters hate. He doesn’t just tell a little white lie now and then, he tells voluminous lies about nearly everything under the sun. He doesn’t just shift positions occasionally when the political winds change, he overhauls his entire political philosophy whenever it’s convenient, and he hectors people who have held his new beliefs for much longer than he has on their lack of sincerity on those issues. I’m not entirely convinced that “Mitt Romney” isn’t some character dreamed up by Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro from Wag The Dog to somehow rig the election for the president, while also making a point about the vacuity of modern politics. He feels almost like a bad fictitious “politician” type. Obama’s authenticity should make for a nice contrast in November.
Mitt Romney’s favorability has been severely damaged by the GOP primary contest, but it sure seems like a lot of people who dislike the guy want to vote for him anyway. In fact, things haven’t really changed that much in terms of the big picture over the past few months:
Perhaps the theory that the Republican primary race is destroying Romney’s chances has been a bit overstated? I do think that there are reasons to think Romney will underperform this year. His endorsement of the Ryan Plan will give Obama an easy club to beat him with, one that will really hurt among indy voter types. He’s been incredibly hamfisted and inept when it comes to talking about his tax arrangements and how he made his money, plus chestnuts like “I won’t apologize for being successful!” and “Don’t put free enterprise on trial!” are just not going to be that powerful outside of Republican audiences. And his hardline immigration stance reduced Newt Gingrich to a pile of goo last week will insure he’ll only get a token amount of Hispanic support in November. This is all true. But it’s important to remember that Romney is (correctly) perceived as a credible possible president by the media and the public. This is not the case with, say, Newt Gingrich, who has similar favorability but does far worse in head-to-head polls. It really does seem clear that the “Not Obama” candidate is going to do pretty well, so long as he meets a certain plausibility threshold. As all the models say, I suppose.
Not that anything is set in stone–I’m sure that if the economy improves a bit, some of those “Not Obama” voters will drop off, and Romney’s electoral support will be closer to the public’s views of the candidate himself. But it’s important to note that Romney’s strength at this point isn’t being Mr. Popularity. In fact, if the economy doesn’t improve, he doesn’t really have much of an incentive not to be a complete prick this year.
Snack Food
This is not the most important metric of economic success by any measure, but still a pretty significant accomplishment nonetheless. Welcome to the recovery. (0 comments)Richly deserved: The Fix suggests Newt Gingrich may be the most unpopular person in American politics right now. A CNN/Opinion Research poll finds 63% of all Americans viewed Gingrich unfavorably, compared to just 25% who saw him in a positive light. And a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows a similar split: 54% view Gingrich unfavorably, ... (0 comments)GOP Voters: 'Can We See What It Looks Like With Huntsman And Perry Again?'
WASHINGTON—Claiming something “just seemed off” with the combination of candidates currently seeking the Republican Party’s nomination for president, voters asked Tuesday if they could see once more what the GOP field would look like with Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry back in the race.
... (3 comments)Romney Still Soulless, Insincere, Greedy Humanoid
This really pisses me off: Well my own view is, it’s a great idea. People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they’re not using those benefits to pay for drugs. I think it’s an excellent idea. Why not just pass a law requiring HHS employees to just mock people getting their welfare ... (2 comments)E.D. Kain ponders “Why conservatives can’t do pop culture very well“
It reminds me of a post I did back in 2009, “And Jesus Blessed This Nation At Our Founding… Literally“
(3 comments)Official Gingrich-Cain 2012 response to Rick Santorum’s homophobia: “Rick, Rick, Rick. Don’t you know that the anti-gay bigotry only carries water if you have a few failed straight marriages under your belt?” Follow all their other words of wisdom here. (0 comments)Ron Paul Quote of the Week: Honest Rape
Here’s Grandpa Fustypants on rape and abortion:“If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.”
via (4 comments)Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Fine Vintages
- American Times
- Andrew Sullivan
- Ars Technica
- Balloon Juice
- Crooks and Liars
- Daniel Larison
- Emily L. Hauser
- Ezra Klein
- FrumForum
- Glenn Greenwald
- Jonathan Chait
- Kevin Drum
- League of Ordinary Gentlemen
- Little Green Footballs
- Matthew Yglesias
- Palin Watch
- Pharyngula
- Radley Balko
- Right Wing Watch
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- The A.V. Club
- TPM Muckraker
- Unreasonable Faith
- Washington Independent
- Washington Monthly
THE GRAPEVINE
Tasting Menu
- Rick Santorum Is A Extremist Who Could Never Be Elected 0 comment(s)
- Mitch Daniels: The Latest Failure To Build A New McCain 4 comment(s)
- Fox News Has a First Amendment Right to Lie – Updated 50 comment(s)
- Funny of the Day 0 comment(s)
- Grover Norquist Sees Romney As Trained Seal Who Will Do As He’s Told 0 comment(s)
Grape Explorer
- Some Legal Wisdom To Inform Your Gut Feelings on the Citizens United Case
- The Right and Gold Standard Weirdness: A Theory
- Late Night Music Party - Wir Sind Helden
- Focus on the Family Praises Obama Adoption Outreach
- No, The Debt Ceiling Resolution Was Not A Victory
- Westboro Baptist Church Has A Right To Protest
- We Really Need To Reform Our Patent Laws
- John Boehner Can't Stop Doubling Down, Largely Because He's Playing With Borrowed Chips
- Toward A Grand Unified Theory Of Obama
- Stupid Of The Month Club: Deer Crossing
Wine Labels
2010 Election 2012 Election Abortion Barack Obama Bullshit Bush Christianity Congress Conservatives Deep Thoughts Democrats Economy Fail Foreign Policy Fox News Gay Marriage Hatred Health Care Ignorance Insanity Iran Law LGBT Issues Libertarianism Lies Media Mitt Romney Music Policy Polls Quotes Racism Rebuttals Recession Republicans Right Wing Sarah Palin Scandal Stupidity Teabaggers Torture Truth Video War Crimes War on TerrorPost Cellar
- February 2012 (53)
- January 2012 (67)
- December 2011 (57)
- November 2011 (72)
- October 2011 (63)
- September 2011 (55)
- August 2011 (53)
- July 2011 (44)
- June 2011 (71)
- May 2011 (91)
- April 2011 (101)
- March 2011 (104)
- February 2011 (96)
- January 2011 (71)
- December 2010 (73)
- November 2010 (59)
- October 2010 (80)
- September 2010 (64)
- August 2010 (39)
- July 2010 (46)
- June 2010 (27)
- May 2010 (54)
- April 2010 (34)
- March 2010 (38)
- February 2010 (47)
- January 2010 (62)
- December 2009 (57)
- November 2009 (72)
- October 2009 (76)
- September 2009 (50)
- August 2009 (85)
- July 2009 (56)
- June 2009 (141)
- May 2009 (103)
- April 2009 (113)
- March 2009 (66)
- February 2009 (43)
- January 2009 (87)
- December 2008 (18)

(

