The Santorum exodus
No, I’m not referring to anything Biblical (note that the word “exodus” isn’t capitalized). I’m referring to a trend I’ve noticed in the comments section of the right-wing blogosphere, and that’s the reaction to Santorum’s latest statements about Romney=Obama, and his supposed retraction-that-wasn’t-really-a-retraction.
Yesterday I wrote about Santorum’s remarks, but at that point I hadn’t yet read much of the backlash in the right half of the blogosphere. It’s been surprisingly strong and almost overwhelmingly negative, even among former Santorum-supporters. I can’t tell you how many comments I read yesterday that essentially said, “That’s it. I’ve had it with Santorum. He crossed a line that shouldn’t be crossed.”
For the most part, Santorum’s support has always been soft. It came late, because he was the last non-Romney standing. Now he may not remain standing for too much longer.
It’s interesting, because all Santorum did, really, was to voice the same thought that I’ve often read in comments throughout the right side of the blogosphere: “Romney is Obama-lite, so it really doesn’t matter which one you vote for.” How many times have I seen that stated? Plenty. But in response, even many people who say they agree with him on this say that whereas it’s okay for a blog comment, it’s not the sort of thing a person running for president should ever voice. And Santorum’s subsequent doubling-down, blaming Romney for the brouhaha over his own remarks, is causing him to lose even more respect.
The whole thing makes me wonder whether Santorum might be a blog reader himself. I’d guess that, at the very least, he must employ staff who peruse the blogs regularly. It strikes me that maybe that’s why he thought his remarks would be well-received; he’d seen so many similar thoughts expressed around the blogsophere that maybe he got accustomed to thinking they were mainstream and acceptable. Apparently, they’re not—at least, not for a candidate.
So if this is Santorum’s downfall, he shouldn’t blame Romney as he did. It’s the blogosphere’s fault :-).
“(note that the word “exodus” isn’t capitalized)”
Neoneocon: Come for the analysis, stay for the “sharing.”
Well, Santorum must not read Neo-Neocon or else he’d realize that all those Romney’s-no-better-than-Obama-comments are all part of a massive false-flag operation.
I wonder whether Romney’s folks made some phone calls in Loisiana asking whether people believe businessman Romney would have handled the post-oil-spill drilling bans as Obama did? The calls needn’t mention Santorum to get the point across.
A box of rocks is preferable to Obama.
Pure and simple, the fate of the world depends on replacing Obama.
A beautiful lady does not compliment herself or denigrate rivals. That’s what her maids are for.
Santorum pulled off quite a feat. How to kick your own self in the nuts when you’re already down.
It’s his lack of propaganda sense and skills that is at fault, that’s what. Learn from Obama’s operations. Always stick the dagger in the foe and call upon the sharks of the blogosphere ,but never make a direct comment yourself to support the attack. Always remain “neutral”. Then people will flock to you attempting to escape the hell fire you unleashed. It worked for Obama.
Rose: Unfortunately, a box of rocks is not running. Looks like we’re stuck with Obama v. Obama-lite.
If I decide to run for a local office this fall, it will certainly help my campaign if I can tell my Prog neighbors I’m voting for Obama. They don’t have to know that I will do so only because a box of rocks isn’t on the ballot.
Neo, I agree. Santorum’s remarks the last few days sound like they were written by a rabid Romney-hating ABR blog commenter. Who might just as well be a moby (false flag).
Re mobys/ false flags. I’ve always had very good moby radar, but these primaries (with the anti-“establishment” paranoia and ABR hyperbole) have put it out of order. E.g. sometimes when I read comments at Hot Air, 50% of the commenters seem like mobys to me. That can’t be right, can it?
Santorum is smart and capable and sincere in his convictions. He speaks well without a TelePrompTer and is quick on his feet but he keeps stepping in it with these extemporaneous remarks. It seems every few days he makes another comment that is easily misinterpreted. Wasn’t it just a week ago that he made that comment in a speech “i dont care about unemployment?” Regardless of the context, he keeps handing these sound bites to Romney on a silver platter. Yes he’s “authentic” but sometimes you gotta filter.
CV,
I think it’s more than a filter problem for Santorum. I think it’s an inability to prioritize based on what a president can really expect to accomplish. Many of the issues Santorum raises are real, but they aren’t the job of the president to resolve. He doesn’t seeem to recognize his limitations, and that scares people.
I was under the impression that Santorum’s remarks had been misrepresented. He spoke awkwardly, but what he meant to say, I think, was that voters would think that between lefty A and soft-lefty (and untrustworthy big shot) B, they’ll take lefty A every time.
I’m not a Santorum supporter, but it isn’t as though Romney hasn’t had gaffes just as bad. Neo is all about context and dealing in facts. Suggesting that Santorum meant he or we shouldn’t care whether Romney or Obama is President is like saying Romney meant he really didn’t care about the poor.
I understand we’re trying to find some reason to get fired up. Seen the polls in Virginia lately?
kolnai, Santorum doubled down the day after. First angrily blaming Romney for the whole mess (as if Newt and people like Ed Morrissey and the entire MSM were all Mittbots, a very Obama-worthy move of blaming someone else for the trouble he got *himself* into), and then repeating his claim that Romney is a “mirror image” of Obama.
(And by the way NB that the man who’s blaming Romney for distorting his words and making a big deal out of nothing, is the one who for days has made a mountain out of the molehill of the “etch-a-sketch” remark– which wasn’t even said by Romney himself.)
So as we near the end of the primaries and the start of the general, Santorum, a primary GOP candidate, insists to Americans that the candidate who’s now almost certain to be the GOP nominee is a “mirror image” of Obama? OBAMA?
Santorum’s “clarification” is to say that he himself doesn’t necessarily see them as equivalent (and that he would vote for Romney over Obama)– he was just saying that “the general electorate” would see it that way. But he’s still legitimating such an equivalence as a reasonable POV. In other words, a GOP candidate for POTUS 2012 is pushing the meme that it’s perfectly legitimate and understandable for the USA to see Obama and Romney as so similar that they might as well stick with Obama.
The problem with hyperbolically minimizing the difference between and R and O into just a nominal one is not even so much the criticism of Romney, but the immense pass that gives to Obama. To minimize Romney’s conservatism so much as to make him out to be roughly equivalent to Obama, is at the same time to minimize Obama’s extreme leftism: to equate perhaps the worst and most ideologically radical leftist POTUS ever to an ideologically standard Republican like Romney (endorsed by Rush, Levin, Santorum in 2008 as the “conservative” choice to McCain)!
In making Romney out to be roughly equivalent to Obama, Santorum the 2012 GOP primary candidate has just made Obama out to be about as innocuous as a Romney.
And many of the conservatives defending Santorum’s statement now were the ones to despise McCain in 2008 for saying something as stupid as “there’s nothing to fear from an Obama presidency”! McCain said that in 2008– before we got see what an Obama presidency was actually like. Now, after experiencing 4 years of the O administration (including Holder et al), Santorum is basically saying: America, it’s perfectly legitimate for you to feel there’s not much more to fear from an Obama second term as there would be from a Romney presidency!
IMO it’s unforgivable.
PS Santorum also said that Romney is “someone who has the same record as Obama.”
Really, Rick?
I.e.: Obama is someone who has the same record as Romney?
Expat
I think it’s worth remembering that it wasn’t Santorum or the other GOP candidates who turned contraception into a national debate, it was the Dems and initiation of the HHS mandate. The opposition to the mandate has to do with the threat to religious freedom. Yet Santorum is repeatedly asked why he keeps talking about contraception. Answer: he didn’t put the issue out there, Obama did. On purpose.
Santorum may not have put the issue out there, but he can’t resist the bait either. I’ve been watching him and what I’m consistently seeing is someone who’s own mental self-image is that of a culture warrior. That’s why his one word self-description was “courage” – because that’s how he thinks of himself. Nothing wrong with being a culture warrior per se, but that mental image (IMO) is a big part of why he is so easily caught up by the social gotcha questions and why he keeps going off topic in his stump speeches. He may intellectually understand that he needs to fight the economic battle, but his mental self-image requires him to fight the social one, too and it keeps catching him up. The other part appears to be temperament. He’s not a cool and collected kind of guy at heart, and while he’s spent a lot of time in the public eye to develop some coping techniques, it wasn’t at this level or this intensity and it shows.
There will be a lot more “on purpose” stuff flying come general election time…the nominee has to be able to handle it.
I don’t think people want to dump Obama because he doesn’t enforce porn laws. That’s another issue Santorum didn’t need to pursue. LJ is right: the culture warrior keeps reappearing. People aren’t wrong to question whether that will provoke even more controversies that aren’t solvable by a POTUS.
The zero tax rate for manufacturers is another example. In his zeal to return to a day in which the steelworker dad brought home a nice salary to his family, Santorum has put forth a tax plan that will become more muddled and subject to different kinds of abuse.
Meanwhile, Santorum won the LA caucuses with 50% of the vote. However, Rick clearly is having trouble ginning up any kind of enthusiasm within the conservative base of the GOP, as evidenced by the record low turnout.
(Sorry, just wanted to say that.)
Santorum is correct.
Romney is “Obama lite”.
It is clear that your American politicians and people have no intention of dealing with the sundering of your economy and society brought on by liberal policies from both Democrats and RINOs.
Therefore the obvious choice for your “head in the sand” electorate is Romney.
I do agree that Santorum has not played the game very well.
Even Margaret Thatcher had to be quiet on the real issues that the UK faced as a nation until she became Prime Minister.
My big issue is that when the brown stuff hits the fan for you people it is going to be horrendeous.
On the one hand will be those conservatives who have held up your country with their Judeo Christian values who realize they have been hoodwinked by a bunch of snake oil salesmen like Obama , Pelosie and Al Sharpton and on the other the liberal welfare grabbers who will hate when the freeness runs out.
This is a formula for social unrest and mayham.
Romney as Obama-lite? Maybe, but I see Santorum as “mirror-image” Obama. Both are ideologues, both believe government’s place is to “fix” the social problems of our society, and neither one has any real intention of ordering anything other than a “super-sized” meal. They just want different flavors of government. If I have to choose between two ideologues, I’ll go with Santorum over Obama, of course…but I’d rather try the pragmatic “etch-a-sketch” guy first.
It always amuses me when commenters such as “Joseph” state their conclusions as though they were an obvious fact, with absolutely no need to even attempt to prove them or cite any evidence whatsoever to support them, or to counter the evidence that counters what they’re saying.
It’s the argument from authority—only Joseph and others don’t even have any authority.
I think in an ironic way Santorum’s “gaffes” have actually helped to keep his campaign going, because they highlight one of Romney’s biggest shortcomings – that he is, or is perceived to be, insincere and manufactured. The “etch-a-sketch” thing.
ugh. Going to the gym…
And if you don’t read anything this year read this from Mark Steyn:
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/294304
What can we do for ourselves and our children??
I’m not exactly sure.
We’ll need land to farm, lots of cash reserves, no debt, etc. We’ll need to exercise and be in shape, secure facilities, family and friends, etc.
The only thing you can trust is what you can touch. The only people you can count on is people who’s words mean things.
Santorum’s problem is that he keeps biting off more than he can chew, rhetoric-wise. I’m a conservative/traditional Catholic and _I_ don’t like the guy. I was scared that if he won the nomination, the press would annihilate him, without even working up a sweat, because the guy simply isn’t smart enough to back up his own assertions without coming across as a wild-eyed zealot… and I’m saying that as a person that agrees with him.
Up until now, I’ve appreciated the fact that Santorum has been a reminder to Romney that he needs to say something other “I would be a good President”, but now I think he’s become not only a liability to himself, which is fairly benign in the context of defeating Obama, but a liability to Republicans as a whole. He’s making “good” the enemy of “less bad” and doing a bang-up job of campaigning for Obama. The fact that he either doesn’t realize this, or doesn’t care is further evidence of my original thesis that Santorum just isn’t smart enough to campaign against Obama (and that’s not even considering the job he’s trying to apply for).
Romney may not be very good as inspiring people. He certainly doesn’t inspire me. But at least he’s capable of speaking without doing himself or his party damage. Santorum clearly is not.
And now from last night, we have Santorum unable to handled the press reporters questions on his “pick any Republican but Romney” statement and having a mini-meltdown on camera.
There are lots of comments out there already this am, claiming that the press misrepresented Santorum’s statement when they asked him about it – that they knew Santorum was speaking in the context of Romney being “uniquely unqualified to go against Obama because of Obamacare” – which may in fact be the true context of Santorum’s speech, but totally misses the point of what the video reveals – his temperament.
Santorum can’t expect the press or the “loyal opposition” (or other nations leaders, for that matter) to “play by the rules as he see it”. It’s just not going to happen. He has to be able to handle it and not lose his cool. And he can’t seem to do that. He keeps flaring up. That, to me, is an ominous sign.
I remain an anyone other than Obama voter, but I’m not deceiving myself that given the current state of politics & culture, anyone but Obama is merely a slowing down of the rush to the abyss. I often wonder why only single digits of the adult population realize we are approaching debt oblivion. Ryan, bless his bouncy enthusiasm, is 2 decades and 16 trillion late (not counting 50+trillion in unfunded liabilities).
I will vote against BHO, but I will not fool myself into believing in “hope and change”. Anyone but BHO is merely a pause to take a deep breath.
I am not pro-Romney.
The critical need at this time is the need for culture warriors; without that it is all moral relativism and political “science.” We would IMHO be better served by Santorum or Gingrich than the almost-inevitable Romney.
I have read Neo’s editorial rejoinder to Joseph and simply don’t get her beef with him.
Just saw Neo’s comments and I understand her pique. It has more to do with my views making sense and not correlating with hers than with its validity.
I can agree with her that my positions need more backup but it won’t happen here for a couple reasons mostly to do with time.
This is a blog and I simply do not have the time as I am working on a book on a similiar set of issues, am not an American and do not have time to expound on the obvious plus have to deal with the same “head in the sand” liberal environment in my country that supports the ineffective and RINO policies of a Romney. Neo simply cannot see the perils facing your society and while applauding her for her blog and approach I am sorry that she is so unrealistic.
Quick set of points.
The sundering of Western Civilization has to do with the undermining of our Judeo Christian culture, tradition ethic. Note that this affects me in my country as much as North Americans or Europeans.
The undermining of the family and social norms by liberals/leftists/progressives/socialists is fundamental to the mayham taking place and it is not only about economic issues as some like to think.
Now.
Do you think Romney will stand up for conservative positions ( in rabidly liberal Washington DC where 93% of journalists are card carrying liberal supporters) unless he sees it impacting a 2nd term ? I think not?
Do you think Romney is willing to make the hard decisions on welfare and federal expenditures when faced with the backlash from victim groups and lobbyists he wants to appease? I think not.
Do you think the liberal 70th Governor of Massachusetts, author of Romneycare and pro abortionist is going to run the USA as a liberal President or will it be the faux conservative who has merrily flip flopped his way through the Republican primary ?
Do you think that Romney will stand up for marriage in any other way than like Obama for whom marriage is just a political issue to help or hinder his election prospects? I think not.
Relative to conservative issues Romney is no different than Cameron in the UK. Their eyes have only been on the prize of Prime Ministership or the Presidency. They have no commitments to what is right for the UK or the US but what is right for themselves and their personla agenda.
That Romney is no Thatcher, no Reagan , no Jack Kemp is obvious.
He is in the mold of an Obama, Scott Brown, John Kerry or Olympia Snow.
If that is what you think will take the US out of its morass then so be it !
Joseph—quick answer, “Yes.” Although I’m sure not to everybody’s satisfaction, yet far far more than Obama ever would.
And of course I disagree with a great deal of your description of Romney and his positions, but I doubt very much that any fact would change your mind.
Neo – as they say ” You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts ! The internet unfortunatly -as wonderful as it is – seems to have blurred the distinctions and not many know as much of the truth as is required to make sound decisions.
I agree that Romney HAS to be supported if he becomes the nominee but until that happens I would suggest that stiftening the opposition in the primaries is still worth the fight.
Interesting proposition.
Is Romney better for America than Obama ?
When Obama was first elected I saw through him right away having worked politically against just such a “snake oil salesman” in a developing country. I said at the time that he was no more competent that a first year student in politics 101 in any Third World Country. So said so proven.
I also said that it was much better to have Obama as President than Hillary Clinton because sho would ensure the “one step forward, two steps backward” dance of conservatism in your USA. Obama on the other hand would expose the failure of leftists policies particularly for the past 60 years. Again so proven. Obama was the genesis of the Tea Party movement and caused the great awareness of your Constitution and Declaration of Independence – so vital to your success.
Would that argument still hold for Obama /Romney?
It galls me when American Catholics and even those in the top echelon of the curia itself abandon our Judeo Christian principles for the politically correct dogma of the left’s religion.
Does America still need to fall further with Obama to come to their senses rather than a slow dance to the cliff face with Romney ?
Joseph: see my post that mentions “apocalypse-seekers,” and especially the lengthy discussion in the comments section that follows the post (for example, this).
See also this, this, and this.