Is it good for Mitt Romney? That was the question that
preoccupied many pundits as the Iowa caucuses became a tight
three-way race, concluding with a photo finish between Romney and
Rick Santorum. Make no mistake: a Santorum-Romney tie is
effectively a Santorum win, even if eight or so hanging chads
were discovered late in the game.
Karl Rove took to the airwaves to assure country club members
everywhere that all is still right with the world. Ronald Reagan
lost the Iowa caucuses back in 1980, he reminded us, and look how
that turned out.
Except that Reagan lost Iowa to George H.W. Bush. Romney’s
showing is the equivalent to Reagan losing to Phil Crane.
Yet Romney isn’t exactly whistling past the graveyard when he
focuses directly on Barack Obama and the general election. He is
still up by a wide margin in New Hampshire, though we shall see
what the post-Iowa polls say. Despite its social conservatism,
South Carolina has generally rallied to the establishment
candidate. Just ask George Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John
McCain.
The same George Bush who beat Reagan in Iowa in 1980 finished
third there eight years later, behind Dole and Pat Robertson. It
turned out to be a bump on the road to his coronation. McCain
effectively bypassed the caucuses in 2008 — young Meghan McCain
emerged to inform
us that they are “meaningless” — and won the nomination
anyway.
Lest we forget, McCain’s general election campaign was mostly a
disaster. So was Dole’s 1996 effort, after he barely beat Pat
Buchanan in Iowa. Republicans were reluctant to nominate either
man, but they blundered across the finish line partly thanks to the
self-immolation of a divided field and weaker opponents. This
didn’t create the conditions for inspiring candidacies.
Romney is in exactly the same boat. Forget the merry-go-round of
Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Cain
again, and Newt Gingrich. There has been one constant in this race:
better than 70 percent of Republican voters support someone other
than Mitt Romney. That has been true in the polls. Now in the first
meaningful contest of 2012, 75 percent of voters cast their ballots
for “not Romney.”
The question is whether Santorum is equipped to be an effective
“not Romney.” He gave a solid post-caucus speech showing that he
understands Romney’s vulnerabilities and has given some thought to
tailoring his conservative message for a broader electorate. He won
two statewide races in Pennsylvania, which Republicans have coveted
since 1988.
But Santorum doesn’t have much money, even if his fundraising
should improve now. This late windfall may not be sufficient to
build a quality organization. Santorum won’t have the luxury of
camping out in a single state for months at time. He will have to
be ready to compete in multiple states and media markets
simultaneously.
On limited government, Santorum is like many Republicans: he was
a fairly solid fiscal conservative in the 1990s, supported most of
the big-government conservative excesses of the Bush years before
getting booted from the Senate in 2006, and has tacked back to the
right during the Tea Party era. His big-government period and
occasional compassionate conservative flights of fancy will give
Republicans who dislike his social conservatism cover to oppose
him. If Santorum takes the class critique of Romney too far, as
Mike Huckabee arguably did four years ago, he may further inflame
this problem. Unlike all the other anti-Romneys, Santorum has yet
to face significant scrutiny or opposition research.
Rick Perry seems almost certain to get out of the race in the
near future, but what some of the other not Romneys will do is less
clear. Of particular significance will be Gingrich’s decision on
whether to keep seeking the nomination. Santorum and Ron Paul can
coexist — they are not, for the most part, competing for the same
voters — but Paul could affect Santorum’s placement in New
Hampshire.
Santorum has an opportunity to do the unthinkable as the
anti-Romney. Republicans have been telling us for months that they
don’t want to nominate Mitt Romney. Now we are about to learn how
much they really mean it.
