Pathetic In Its Predictablility
They say the most dangerous animal is the fatally wounded one. Santorum’s comments yesterday about Romney being virtually the same as Obama seem to prove that point. I’m gonna cut the guy a break because of the position he is in, but he crossed a line and needs to wise up pretty quickly or risk everything. Chris Cillizza yesterday:
“If Santorum runs a principled campaign and then concedes graciously then he has a big future ahead,” said Steve Schmidt, who managed McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “If he runs a character campaign attacking Romney, then Santorum’s future is more limited.”
That about sums it up.
The General Has Begun…
I had expected, in death throes similar to Santorum’s, that the anti-Romney forces on the right would draw the Etch-a-Sketch to Mormonism line. That the line would be drawn was terribly predictable, I was just wrong about who would draw it. Instead it came from the left. We were treated to it from The Economist, The Atlantic and Slate. In some it is a direct line, in others a glancing blow, but it is there.
The take-away is this. The anti-Mormon right has gone away to lick its wounds. They are sinking back into theology and making excuses – claiming more victim status that Mormons. (The idea of religious freedom, by the way, is to make it possible for us all to be winners. It’s really sad to discuss who is the biggest loser.) Unlike Santorum, they appear to wish to live to fight another day.
The battle with Obama is on.
One more sign of such is this Harper’s piece portraying, in less than flattering prose, Mormons as uber-capitalists. I understand that is problematic to some, but they are diehard Obama voters anyway.
Santorum is likely to win in Louisiana tomorrow. Doesn’t change my analysis here one whit. Just remember it is about delegates and less than half of the state’s delegates are at stake in a very convoluted process. The most that can really happen is that Santorum’s death throes will be extended, and ably aided by the press. Santorum would be smart to bear in mind the Steve Schmidt quote above throughtout the weekend.
Posted in Reading List | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
JLF9999 on 23 Mar 2012 at 7:08 am #
Jeffry R Holland, an Apostle in the Church and former BYU president, spoke to a Harvard Law School group Wednesday to briefly describe the Church and how it is different and why. He does a good job in bottom lining the big differences. Dr. Holland presents the real reason other Christians ought to engage us. I say real because there are legitimate reasons to take exception to our claims yet few do. Instead our detractors rant on about what are essentially irrelavant things such as Brigham Young’s use of hyperbole, early church leader’s personal bias, personal failings and the like. We have given these folks ample cause for discussion and disagreement on legitimate historical and theological grounds yet they ignore the important arguments and focus on the irrelavant ones. I suppose we will see more about Mormon personal behaviors, which make us all alike, and less about the real things – the important things – that make Mormons different.
GottaZoom on 23 Mar 2012 at 7:54 am #
“The idea of religious freedom, by the way, is to make it possible for us all to be winners. It’s really sad to discuss who is the biggest loser.”
This is such an excellent articulation of an important reminder to many evangelicals through this election cycle. I suppose freedoms being trampled by Obama and the left could be an excuse, but in the end it is only that.
“One more sign of such is this Harper’s piece portraying, in less than flattering prose, Mormons as uber-capitalists. I understand that is problematic to some, but they are diehard Obama voters anyway.”
Many, if not most, Obama voters are capitalists when it comes to their own personal economy. And one could also remind them that Mormons were successful community organizers before many of the left’s present day role models were born.
fitzwdarcey on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:30 am #
Santorum’s comment about voting for Obama if Romney is the nominee isn’t just foolish regarding what it means for his own future, it is foolish in that it gives those with a heavy bias something to rally around to stay home and not vote at all.
Retrocon on 23 Mar 2012 at 10:56 am #
Another quote from the Chris Cillizza piece is his supposition that Santorum’s showing in 2012 might give him a springboard for the future, as far out as 2020. According to Cillizza:
“… given how much [Santorum] has overperformed expectations in this presidential race, he would almost certainly have a constituency on which to build a bid.”
But I disagree with Cillizza’s assessment. Santorum has no natural constituency that will be with him in the future. The whole of his success in the present is that he has the backing of the evangelical “very conservative” right. Evangelical voters have demonstrated they are only now supporting Santorum because he is the last one to show any promise as the Non-Romney candidate. In future Republican primaries, the Evangelical vote does not travel with Santorum the Catholic, and he has no other broad base of support outside of a small set of blue-collar conservatives. Although Santorum is still young, he would likely be crowded out by the up and coming crop of new conservatives. It’s hard to see that Santorum would still be relevant in 2020 without either, a) getting himself into a high profile political position, or b) emulating the path Romney took after 2008 — preserving a good “brand” coming out of the primaries, then in a low-key manner building a strong national organization of support for the future.
Lee Allred on 23 Mar 2012 at 2:55 pm #
The GOP has a good sportsmanship tradition of usually backing the No. 2 of the previous primary season as presumed front-runner the next go-around. Reagan (1980), GHW Bush (1988), Dole (1996), McCain (2008) and now Romney (2012).
Santorum, if he has any future aspirations, might be wise to remember that. Romney bowed out graciously in 2008 and thereby won himself a lot of goodwill and behind-the-scenes support (both from the party and from simple voters like myself).
Santorum is not doing himself or the Evangelical bloc any favors waving the Etch-A-Sketch. Frankly, he’s putting himself dangerously close to Buchannan 1992 territory in my mind. Do the Evangelicals really want to follow Buchannan’s Brigades off the lemming cliff, pitchforks and all?