-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Daniel Larison makes two points about my column yesterday. The first is that it is hard for the conservative vote to be unified, because a.) there are so many conservative candidates and b.) as he puts it, “When voters are being asked to choose between two versions of Bushism, as they have been asked during the last two months, there is no obvious reason why they should go with the one with fewer financial resources and far worse organization.”
But the conservative vote was more consolidated in 2012 than in previous primary cycles. While various candidates claimed the anti-Romney mantle at different times, it generally belonged to one candidate at a time. Whenever someone claimed that mantle, the other conservative candidates receded into the background. Arguably, the main reason there was any meaningful split in the conservative vote this year was the split decision in Iowa and South Carolina, which temporarily created confusion about who was the most viable challenger to Mitt Romney. Iowa launched Rick Santorum and South Carolina kept people behind Newt Gingrich.
As the primaries wore on, however, Santorum increasingly consolidated the conservative vote even with Gingrich in the race. Outside the South, Gingrich was frequently running fourth behind Ron Paul. Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee all suggested Santorum could win Southern states even with Gingrich pulling a large share of the vote. By Louisiana, Gingrich was starting to fade even in the South. This consolidation process arguably didn’t happen early enough to make the race more competitive, but it clearly happened.
The differences between Romney and the anti-Romneys may not have been robust enough for Larison (or me), but they were enough for Republican primary voters. Millions plainly were siding with the candidate “with fewer financial resources and far worse organization” simply because he wasn’t Romney. Which brings us to Larison’s next point: “As much as Santorum might have wanted to portray himself as a challenger similar to Reagan in 1976, there is virtually no contemporary issue that divides Santorum and Romney. “
To the extent that this is true, it’s because virtually nobody tries to run as a liberal in the Republican primaries anymore. Even this campaign’s exception, Jon Huntsman, had a generally conservative record and platform. Almost all Republicans position themselves as conservatives. But the primary voters don’t always simply accept the candidates’ self-description.
The contrast between Romney and Santorum wasn’t over their contemporary positions but their past records. Santorum had been a pro-life champion in Congress for 15 years; Romney had been pro-choice as recently as 2004. Santorum opposed TARP (though he was conveniently out of Congress at the time) while Romney supported it. Santorum opposed Obamacare-like programs with individual mandates at both the state and federal level, while Romney signed Massachusetts’ Obamacare-like program into law. Again, the contrasts may not have been as sharp as Larison or I would have liked (Santorum backed Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind while being identical to Romney on foreign policy) but they were sharp enough for most Republican primary voters.
At the end of the day, the question is: Could a conservative candidate have done just slightly better than Santorum in Michigan and Ohio? For that matter, could one have avoided the split decision in Iowa and South Carolina? Either scenario would have been all that it took to produce a genuinely competitive race. Maybe that’s due to Romney’s relative weakness, but I think the mood among the Republican base also played a large role.
View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/12/could-it-have-been-different-f
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 12:06PM
The problem is the GOP leadership is RINO to the bone.
Bill| 4.12.12 @ 12:32PM
Santorum lost because:
1. Money
2. Temper
3. Opposition on the "Right-To-Work" law
4. "Moderate" voting record in the Senate
5. The 2006 senate re-election loss
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:54PM
#3 is a lie.
Santorum had a lifetime ACU rating of 88.1. That, by the way, is twice Arlen Specter's rating.
You know---the guy the GOP RINO Establishment insisted he support over conservative Pat Toomey.
Meanwhile, Mittens ran against Reagan and espoused nothing but liberal claptrap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU
But hey, who should we believe---you or our own lyin' eyes?
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:55PM
#4 rather. #3 may well be a lie too; don't have time to dig into it.
Dai Alanye | 4.13.12 @ 11:22AM
I object to your calling Bill a liar. Bill is too, er... too cognitively-challenged to be a liar.
Bill| 4.12.12 @ 2:32PM
Santorum admitted that his opposition on the "Right-to-Work' law, and defended saying that, "PA is a not a "Right-To_work" state, and I voted against the bill." Too bad, SEIU did not endorse him, instead they endorsed Obama.
Eric | 4.12.12 @ 12:44PM
God damn voters. How dare the vast majority of them favor someone Antle,Hillyer and Lord hate!
W. James Antle III | 4.12.12 @ 1:23PM
When Obama was elected, you didn't ponder how Republicans might be able to do better next time? It's hardly disrespectful to the voters.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:50PM
Yeah, because the Rockefeller Republican remnant of states Obama has no chance of losing ought to pick our candidate!
Mender| 4.12.12 @ 12:48PM
Santorum was fun but too angry to really unite conservatives. And he would probably have been too much of a cultural conservative for the general election. It's time to start the call for a properly conservative VP choice: I think Michelle Bachmann would be amazing here. She has the communication skills, the empathy and the experience to really make a difference come the fall. And she's from a major swing state.
Biggy G| 4.12.12 @ 1:07PM
Yeah, that's a great idea: when the media get done talking about Romney's Mormonism, they can ask Bachmann whether Oral Roberts was right to go up into that tower and say that God was going to "take him home" if donors didn't send him enough money.
Jack in Wi.| 4.12.12 @ 12:49PM
It's the same old playbook called divide and conquor. The neocons and the elites run some conservative hacks to split the vote. This is especilly true if a rare populist is running. In 1996 with Pat Buchanan it was Gary Baur, Alan Keyes, Bob Dornan etc.
This year the whole game plan was to make sure Ron Paul was marginalized. He was the only one who put forth a program that was a threat to the elites rule of the country. He polled very well against Obama, as did Romney. He could raise money and had a lot of on ground support. That is why we had obvious losers running in vast numbers. Michel Bacmann, Herman Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, were all Judas goats leading us down the path to the elites controlling the party and country. The Eastern banking establishment runs the party and picks the candidate who it thinks will do their agenda best. They almost always win.
In 1940 they blocked Herbert Hoover and other pro peace people at the convention with Wall Street hack Wendell Wilkie. In 1948 and 52 they blocked the populist conservative Bob Taft with a lot of tricks and nosense. In 1964 Goldwater actually won the nomination, after a bitter fight. But the elite minority defected in mass to Johnson. In 1976 Reagan came close but the organization controlled the machine and the convention. We finally had a real conservative in 1980 but Reagan took Bush which eventually turned out to be a disaster. Even then the moderates ran John Anderson in an effort to split the vote and defeat Reagan. Since then the elites have controlled everything.
Vern Crisler | 4.12.12 @ 3:39PM
There was no chance Ron Paul with his McGovernite, blame-America-first foreign policy could capture the Republican nomination. Since he had no chance, his motive for running was simply to get attention for himself and for his fruitcake ideas.
Neither Newt nor Santorum could compete against Mr. Etch-a-Sketch's money and negative campaign advertising, along with Paulista attack ads.
Biggy G| 4.12.12 @ 1:09PM
Precisely. I recall how they ran a third-party candidate in the general election in the 1994 Virginia Senate race to keep Oliver North from being elected. They tried to block Rand Paul in Kentucky too. These people want to keep the QE going and the bombs falling, because they're the ones who own the banks and defense contractors. (Google "Cheney.")
Clint| 4.12.12 @ 1:18PM
The RINO-CINO GOP Ruling Elites Repeatedly Attempt To Use We Conservatives, As Their "Useful Dupes " .
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
PCP Smoker| 4.12.12 @ 1:56PM
Had Santorum dropped out after SC, or had Gingrich dropped out after Santorums 3 wins, Romney would have been thoroughly defeated. Tea Party people demonstrating stupidity.
Clint| 4.12.12 @ 2:56PM
That's Similar To What The Pseudo-Intellect Bloviator Critics Said About Our Tea Party Before & After The 2010 Elections.
Dai Alanye | 4.13.12 @ 11:34AM
The Tea Party was extremely helpful in 2010 but many of them were snookered into supporting the fake conservative this go-around. Part of the problem is political inexperience, I suspect.
randyinrocklin| 4.12.12 @ 2:13PM
the most conservative candidate this cycle was Rick Perry. he got trashed by the immigration purists and the RINO Establishment. there was nothing that Perry could do to stop in-state tuition for illegals because the state legislature passed the legislation with a veto-proof majority. he just went with what the constituents wanted.
Vern Crisler | 4.12.12 @ 3:40PM
He lost because he was not ready for primetime.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.12.12 @ 2:13PM
Antle,
WHICH conservatives?
You read the idiots here every day commenting. Too many of them have one beloved turtle crossing the road.
Obama OUT!
Obama OUT!
Obama OUT!
Romney has simply proven he can gather the cash to get his message out better. I hope it can continue.
Cpm| 4.12.12 @ 2:23PM
If the 'true conservatives' hadn't kept changing their allegiances to the next 'true conservative candidate' flavor of the month during the primaries in hopes of tripping up Romney it might be taken a little more seriously. But as one flamed out they'd jump to the next, ad infinitum. So at the end you wound up with the last flavor of the month left standing, Santorum, who started out with no support at all, a joke among the 'true conservatives' until the possible Romney challengers were whittled down to a handful and all of a sudden somehow Rick Santorum went from anonymous loser into some kind of born again 'true conservative' champion. A last desperate hope for the Romney haters.
mrd| 4.12.12 @ 2:34PM
The economic differences among the republicans running in the primary are really at the end of the day trivial. All of them in one form or another favor conservative economic principals, ie less spending, less regulation and less taxation. All of them have said they would support some version of the Ryan budget.
The real differences were over the social issues. Reppublicans who would prefer that abortion be unrestricted, that is those who think killing an unborn child ( or human fetus if you prefer, they are synonymous) is trivial preferred Romney. They know that at the end of the day while Romney will give this issue lip service, and not actively promote abortion per se, he will leave the status quo intact, and not really make an issue of it. Those who think a just and humane society can not countenance killing unborn children at any stage of pregnancy for any reason at industrial strength numbers ( millions/ year) preferred Santorum, since he cared about the issue and likely would be more vigorous in pushing judges that were in the Thomas/ Scalia mode, restricting funding for abortion, appointing clearly pro-life people in the various federal agencies etc. Those who have real concerns over Obamacare also preferred Santorum who obviously is much more viscerally opposed to this kind of government health care takeover than Romney who on some level is ok with it in principal obviously.
Its that simple. Those of you who favored Romney have your guy, hats off to you, but many people think that a country that murders unborn children on an industrial scale is not worth saving. Do not expect them to turn out in droves to support Romney. If Romney can win without them then so be it. I hope he does as I prefer him to Obama, but not everyone Rove et al said "go to hell" to does...
Cpm| 4.12.12 @ 2:39PM
Well if the RINOs don't turn out for the Republican candidate then they defacto cast a vote for the infanticide candidate, Obama, and his minions in the democrat party.
mrd| 4.12.12 @ 4:02PM
I plan on voting for Romney, but I think many social conservatives are simply tired of this game, which translates "You have no choice, so shut up and get with the program" Some might argue ( and do) that to ever move the ball forward you must demonstrate that your votes are not a given." The argument is never used in reverse, how many people made the argument that ok Santorum was not a perfect fiscal conservative but he was better than Obama, and after all he changed his views on some subjects like "No Child left behind" What is getting intolerable is the idea that amounts to a kind of contempt for social conservatives within the Republican party. I frankly resent it. The Democrats do not depend on pro-life votes to win. I am sure there are plenty of people in the Republican party who think they do not need Pro-life votes to win either. This message with Romney's nomination has been sent. Well we will now have the experiment. I do not know the result, it will jsut have to play itself out. It is possible in the short run that Obama is so toxic it will be true and Romney will carry the day, but in the long haul I think this is a big victory for liberalism. A less radical, liberal Democrat will not automatically get social conservative votes. As the parties become more and more alike on this issue, the social conservatives will either not vote or vote their other preferences, many in fact would prefer liberal economic policies and vote Republican based on the social issues. The theory among the Republican establishment is that Social issues are losers, because the cost the precious moderate and independent vote. Well the historical record does not suggest this, as none of the following candidates was a vigorous pro-lifer ( Dole, McCain, Bush 41) all of course paid lip service to the issue, but all distanced themselves from social conservatives in one way or another. In spite of this all lost, except Bush 41 when he ran on the tails of Reagan. Bush 43 won only when Social conservatives turned out in high numbers due to the gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in several states, and probably helped him win Ohio. The track record for Republicans winning on the strength of these independents and moderates has not been terrific. Still I think the trend is pretty clear. Social Conservatives have been told go to hell, and this is likely to be a long term phenomena, so we will see how well the Republicans perform with this as the attitude. I really am not sure, it could go either way this time.
Clint| 4.12.12 @ 3:00PM
Who Are You Attemptin' To Shuck & Jive.
The RINO-CINO's Are The Flunkie Stooges, Who Are Propping Up The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
Cpm| 4.12.12 @ 3:04PM
RINOs are people who claim to be Republicans and then don't support the candidates of the party by sitting on their thumbs on election day. Those are the RINO Flunkie Stooges. You might as well be a democrat because you are in effect making a choice, voting by sitting on your ass.
Clint| 4.12.12 @ 3:37PM
RINO's Are Why There Is A Tea Party Rebellion That Rose Up In The 2010 Elections Against The Ruling Elites' RINO Primary Candidates,Like The RINO-CINO PosterBoy Arlen Specter.
The RINO-CINO's Are The Flunkie Stooges, Who Are Propping Up The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
Travis| 4.12.12 @ 3:20PM
I didn't vote for Romney. Not excited about him as a nominee(though I do respect him and think he's a good man). Still,what is the point of rehashing all of this? We had a split conservative base,which let the most moderate candidate win. Not hard to figure. Also had the two weakest possible conservatives,Santorum and Gingrich,be the last standing non-Romney's.
Cpm| 4.12.12 @ 5:04PM
Hey Clint, how's that Ron Paul Revolution going? You know, with Rand poised to inherit the presidency when the old man's reign ends?
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.12.12 @ 5:22PM
CPM,
now you've done it! Now I have to scroll past more Clint Rants.
Drek| 4.12.12 @ 5:40PM
The establishment came behind Romney even before the conclusion of the 2008 race, for even then, while that campaign was still ongoing, Romney staffers working with McCain were laying the groundwork for blaming Palin for the defeat, and preparing to torpedo any hopes she might have for being the candidate in 2012.
My point here is that the establishment and the Romney people have been active for quite some time, which means they enjoyed a tremendous advantage over grass roots conservatives who weren't even aware of this kind of skullduggery occurring.
Moreover, the money was already being lined up behind a Romney candidacy.
THIS lining up of significant donors also served to prevent other serious contenders from entering the race, because they were already facing an uphill battle in terms of funding.
This served to intimidate some men who should have jumped in. The exception was Perry, who being from Texas, had his own source of funding outside of the control of the establishment, {this is another key reason why he and the Bush clan haven't hit off, because Perry is outside their control or influence}.
Again, what were were rank and file conservatives to do to counter this kind of activity going on very much behind the scenes?
That's why guys like RSM getting all hysterical about how we let this slip away are kind of out of it. Wresting the nomination away from an establishment favourite was always going to be a tremendously difficult task, and Santorum's candidacy, his weak record, his lack of executive experience, his propensity to get off message, his coming across as a religious zealot, all of that didn't help.
Once Perry went down, Romney focused all of his attentions on polishing off Gingrich and allowing Santorum to linger as the default candidate, knowing full well that Santorum was ALWAYS going to prove much easier to defeat. And so he did.
The Romney people played it almost perfectly. The only thing they can be faulted for is not wrapping this thing up earlier, but with his record that oscillates all over the place, that too was always going to prove difficult for him and his campaign.
Many, too many for that matter, staunch conservatives don't understand how difficult it easy to uproot party leadership and lay down a new course for the party.
Dai Alanye | 4.13.12 @ 11:47AM
Superficial overall, and counter-factual in part. Anyone who hung with Gingrich after his pre-Iowa claims of having the nomination in the bag cannot judge politics with any degree of accuracy.
Drek| 4.13.12 @ 2:44PM
Good grief, if you haven't picked up the fact that aspiring office holders always speak POSITIVELY of their chances, and that their claims can't be taken as objective assessments of their chances for success, if you've not picked that up, --- then why are you commenting upon politics?
If there are details that you take umbrage too, --- spell 'em out.