Despite being defeated in a near-20 point rout during his 2006 reelection bid, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum managed to win the Republican presidential nominating contests held in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri on Tuesday night.
All three are absolutely meaningless in terms of delegates as these will be rewarded at each state's convention later this year. However, the victories bode very well for Santorum's campaign momentum, and disastrously for resigned House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The latter is seeing his tattered right-wing coalition's theoconservative wing wooed by the out, loud, and proud church-state integration message of Santorum's platform. If this keeps up, Gingrich should be done on or before Super Tuesday.
The real question, though, is how does this all factor for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney? He is still the undisputed frontrunner to be the GOP's standard bearer against incumbent President Barack Obama in the fall, but there is no real excuse for his defeat in Colorado. Considering that he won the state with roughly 60% of the vote in 2008 and lost it by a slim margin this time around, he has a real problem developing. As with any problem, though, both a crisis and an opportunity are presented.
Romney can choose to move farther right on social policy, a strong suit had by Santorum, and to a lesser extent Gingrich. If this path is chosen, however, he will surely implode as his natural inclinations toward moderation are apparent through his records in the public and private sectors. People may dislike a certain candidate for his or her views, but they will despise the same individual for being a charlatan.
Alternatively, Romney can opt to champion himself as what he so obviously is; a pragmatist capable of dealing with America's multitude of crises. He can easily carve a niche as the sane, sensible man caught between two ideologues. This persona will do him very well in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and Pacific West; regions he must claim handily to beat his two main opponents. Looking forward, this appears to be his best chance for a relatively easy ride to Tampa.
Article comments
1 - Baronius
I think that's it for me. This article may be the last of yours that I bother to read. The topic is interesting to me, and a better author who supports any one (or none) of the candidates could have written something insightful. But this piece fails to pick up on most of the more obvious points of analysis, and all of the more subtle ones. That's because you've defined each of the candidates as types rather than as individuals with strengths, weaknesses, histories, and goals. In fact, your recommendation to Romney is to be more of a type. Your ideology has so blinded you to the facts that if someone ran over you with a car, the only description you could give the police is "a theocrat".
Shake yourself up. Take a position that you normally wouldn't agree with and try to defend it. Listen to an opponent's argument and study up on one fact that fits his argument better than yours (and not just to prove him wrong, either). You'll learn to understand how others approach the same questions as you. You may find some of your beliefs changing, or maybe not. But it'll make you a lot more versatile a thinker and writer.
2 - Dr Dreadful
This isn't one of Joseph's best, Baronius, sure, but your reaction is a bit harsh.
To some extent, political candidates have to present themselves as "types" because the average voter is looking for someone who espouses a set of policies and opinions that closely matches their own values, not a guy who has three master's degrees, lives on a ranch and likes cats.
3 - Joseph Cotto
Baronius,
Holy cow. If you want to critique the article, then I am all ears, but the personal remarks really do not add anything positive to your commentary. As far as speaking of the candidates as individuals is concerned, that is exactly what I did. However, this article was not intended to be a biography of them; I was specifically referring to my opinions about what Tuesday's results meant for each.
As luck would have it, in many formal debates, I have had to do exactly what you suggested; take the side opposing my views. It would seem that you are angry simply because my article did not gel with your own ideals. Speaking of ideals, or their collective outgrowth of ideology, I have stated time and again that when it comes to politics, I do not have one. In my writings, I call the facts as I see them. This does not mean that I have any claim to absolute truth, but then again, neither does anybody else.
Dr Dreadful,
You are spot on about candidates sometimes having no choice other than to typecast themselves. Unfortunate as this is, when socially rightist voters are brought into the mix, as the IQ study I wrote about a few days ago noted, it becomes essential. Despite being self-styled "conservatives", many in the Republican Party's rightist faction are collectivists at heart. Therefore, a specific candidate is either a member of the in-group, or an adversary in the out-group. This actually delves into sociology a bit, but I don't want to go on an article-length ramble here.
4 - Baronius
I think that Dread can testify that I've read and commented on a lot of articles over the years, ones that I've agreed with or disagreed with. I know I've commented on plenty of Joseph's articles before. But I've reached the point where I believe you've locked yourself so tightly inside your thesis that any article you write is going to be nearly identical. The only thing I can do at this point is make writing suggestions, and wish you the best.
5 - zingzing
that's weird, baronius... i've found myself to be somewhat surprised by joe's articles recently. as far as i can recall, he seemed to think quite differently when he first started out (or maybe the political landscape was different, or maybe it could be any number of other things), but he's changed or evolved or devolved more than others (say, you).
there aren't many people who bother to argue about politics from a position so near the middle. it's something rare in these parts for sure. if all you want to do is be a cheerleader for that with which you agree, or a wrecking ball against that which you do not, maybe you could also read some stuff from the likes of joseph.
you seemed to like him more when he seemed to agree with you more, so you might want to point your last paragraph of comment #1 at yourself a bit. (or at least don't go saying something like that right after you tell someone you don't like their where their opinions are coming from, so you won't be reading them anymore.) and, of course, i might need to do the same.
(and if you honestly want to say that santorum wouldn't attempt some sort of theocracy--he's already said as much--then you aren't paying attention. guy's a fucking loon.)
6 - John Lake
As to the Cotto article:
Santorum’s victory must cause unbearable pain to frontrunner Romney. Santorum’s campaigning paid off.
You refer to Romney as a “pragmatist capable of dealing with America's multitude of crises”; that may be true. It certainly isn’t true of Santorum. Santorum whines and summons up his family. His most cited point in his speaking is his strong family values. He does mention that he had involvement in authoring several bills.
How could Santorum possibly deal with education issues when his six children are home-schooled? He may be a fine family man, but he didn’t wait for the still-born’s wake to let the other children view the lifeless infant. To me that suggests imbalance and one who is out of touch with reality. I don’t think Santorum has a chance, and his hat-trick released great quantities of air from Romney’s sails.
7 - Igor
I can't imagine why Baronius chose to be so critical of Cotto's article, which seems to be one of the better ones BC has had on current politics.
IMO Romney, like the other GOP candidates, doesn't have what it takes to deal with "... America's multitude of crises..." because the ideology they lean on, Supply Side Econ, is simply bankrupt, as bankrupt as the Creationism they all cling to, also. Supply side was always just a secondary correction to Demand Side economy, like a trim tab on a rudder, for small correction but not capable of steering the ship. Once US industry went into 25% over-capitalization, as it did several years ago (and where it has stayed), Supply side simply became futile, like pushing on a rope.
I look forward to the day when a new breed of real conservatives takes over the GOP with more forward-leaning ideas than the old wornout notions of the past. Rather as Eisenhower did in 1952.
8 - Igor
6-John: I think you misunderstood Cottos comment "...pragmatist capable of dealing with America's multitude of crises..", which I took to be Romneys self-evaluation, not Cottos evaluation of Romney. Joseph could tell us for sure, but I think the context makes it clear.
9 - Joseph Cotto
Baronius,
I respect your opinion. However, on that same note, I would make the observation that it seems you are quite locked into your own thesis. Maybe considering a bit of your advice would not be such a bad thing.
zingzing,
Thank you for your kind words. I have not changed my political philosophy, generally speaking, but rather learned the value of showing more tolerance toward differing viewpoints. This, apparently, has made all the difference.
John,
Excellent points all around about Santorum. He is a very dangerous candidate; like Greg Stillson from Stephen King's 'The Dead Zone'.
Igor,
Supply side economics, in my view, can work at certain times under certain conditions. You are correct about its relations to demand economics, and this is why free trade fundamentalists like Ayn Rand despised it.
Regarding Romney, thanks for highlighting the actual context in which I described him. I do feel that he is at heart a pragmatist, though not without many flaws, and most concerned about turing a profit financially or otherwise. I think that this is a positive attribute for a president of any political stripe as it is his or her responsibility to take the most advantageous course of action for the national interest.
10 - Baronius
My thesis doesn't prevent me from seeing beyond the political labels. But let's say it does. There are a lot of interesting questions you can ask within a label-oriented framework. What is socially conservative, fiscally conservative, neo-conservative, moderate, liberal, socialist, libertarian, Tea Party, or OWS about Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul? Why do some of them appeal to some groups; why do they make gains or losses depending on region or format (caucus/vote)? How do their temperments and their pasts enhance or detract from their attempt to shoehorn themselves? What does it take for a candidate to successfully shoehorn another? There are, of course, a lot more that can be asked without such a label-oriented framework. But if the framework you're using is so narrow that it prevents you from seeing past Romney-moderate, Santorum-theocrat, then every article you write is going to read like word association, and you're never going to get any payoff from your analysis.
And as I've said before, I've probably made a hundred comments on your articles over the years, all of them about specifics. (I usually get yelled at for being too specific.) This is the first time that I recall stepping back and saying that there's an underlying barrier that's preventing you from turning facts into a credible narrative. I think after 100 comments I've earned the right to at least recognize the pattern.
And if my thesis makes me so predictable, tell me, who am I supporting? Does anyone on BC know?
11 - roger nowosielski
Baronius' criticism (#1) is ill-taken. Cotto's article wasn't designed to provide us with an in-depth look at the personalities behind the scenes (that's a job for the biographers and the historians) but to sketch the sorry picture of American political landscape. Truth be told, Reagan and Clinton, for all their faults, may have been our last statesmen of note, and the present array of candidates running for office can't help but come across as a motley crew, a parade of types, cartoon-like characters.
If Baronius thinks there is any nuance to be attributed to the espoused positions, a nuance that Cotto had missed, let him enlighten us. I'll be all ears.
12 - Igor
Thanks for the clarification. I don't think Romney would make a good president because he's the wrong kind of businessman. He's not a builder or even a good administrator and grower of business. He's a jackal, a scavenger, who preys on weaklings and squeezes personal profit out of it. That's what Bain does, and that's where he made his money.
In that business they use the old LBO "2 and 20" rule, or some more modern advanced version. Under "2 and 20" the consultant (say,me) comes in with a contract that says that I get a commission of 2% of the nut (all the capital I raise, and sometimes including current cap value, if I can swing it), that includes ALL the new capital commitment, even if that's all promises and only a fraction of that is actually put forward. And, if I can show a profit at the completion of my contract, I get 20% of that. Sometimes there's an accelerator clause, if I can swing it.
I can't lose. I'm going to make money. Maybe a LOT of money. All I invest is my time. Pretty sweet, eh?
The basic idea is to create a temp profit and skim the cream off. This is a common theme in modern business executive goals: create a temp profit and skim it off. That's why the airlines are always failing these days: every periodic profit is skimmed by a 'parent' holding company and the operating company starts off with zero in the bank next month. The mathematician will recognize this as a non-ergodic process.
I don't want a president like that: who takes a big commission at the front and a big share at the back and leaves the country broke.
13 - roger nowosielski
@12
That goes without saying. What's at bottom of Cotto's erroneous thinking of course is the idea that running a nation is like running a business. Such ideas may have been palatable during the height of the mercantile era and prior to the democratic franchise, when the moneyed-class was virtually the ruling class and its interests coincided with the state's interests. It's still so today, though our government has to put up with a pretense at justice.
But Rommney doesn't even know how to run a business; he wouldn't make a good mercantilist.
14 - Zingzing
Baronius: "And if my thesis makes me so predictable, tell me, who am I supporting? Does anyone on BC know?"
so coy...