SantorumGloves

It is now official -- so I can let the cat out of the bag. Rick Santorum will speak at Hillsdale College on Monday evening at 8 p.m. Invitations are out to Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney: so, stay tuned.

This year marks the first time in the history of the college that one or more presidential candidates have appeared on campus during the campaign. Herman Cain passed through in November shortly before he withdrew from the race. Now we will get a chance to look over Santorum and, I would guess, some of the rest.

I will be in attendance on Monday evening, and I will give you my impressions late that evening or the following morning.

For what it is worth, I believe that Michigan may play a decisive role this year. Mitt Romney grew up here. His father was Governor; his mother ran for the Senate in Michigan. This ought to be his home turf. There are, however, a great many Catholics in the state, and Romney appears to be behind in the polls. That may, of course, change. Romney has deep pockets; Santorum is short on resources and is running a -seat-of-the-pants campaign. Romney's advertisements are now saturating the state.

But, in a time of crisis, money in politics can rarely compensate for a perceived lack of principle, and Romney -- for good reason -- has a credibility problem. Santorum was unpleasant and whiney in the early debates. In Florida, suddenly, the man caught fire. Romney was dull, dreary, and adequate in the early debates (except in South Carolina, where he was worse). He, too, caught fire in Florida. The debate in Arizona on 22 February may tell the tale.

Then, again, what happens in Hillsdale may have an impact as well. The only thing that I am confident of is this. If Romney cannot take Michigan, he is in deep trouble. The general election will be won or lost in Pennsylvania and the Midwest -- and everyone knows it.

Comments:


Chris Deleon
Joined
May '10
Chris Deleon

All that (in comment #20) seems off topic, but it is part of the answer to the question about whether liberals intentionally debase morality in order to get people dependent on government aid, and continuing the lines of thought from ~Paules and FeliciaB.

I think most liberals' own thinking has been so affected by their formative years, whether in sexual restraint or other areas (media, entertainment, and schools are awash with liberal thinking), that they just assume this is the way things are.  In that sense, if there are people cynically and intentionally doing as you say, the vast majority of other liberals are simply their "useful idiots" who actually believe in liberal philosophy, and are useful for propagating it.

Edited on February 16, 2012 at 10:36pm
Chris Deleon
Joined
May '10
Chris Deleon
dogsbody: As of Thursday morning, RealClearPolitics has Santorum ahead of Romney in Michigan by an average of 8.2 points...

Polls don't mean much-- right now.   Romney's strategy now is to go a bit less negative, make sure to have some pro-Romney positive ads, and at the same time let a "slow burn" of negative information leak out against Santorum.  He knows he'll suffer more blowback if he comes out with both guns blazing, so he's opted to get his allies to release a constant drip-drip of negativity through various other channels (such as the Drudge Report), hoping that over the next couple of weeks it will wear away Santorum's support without overreaching.

So if you want Santorum to stay ahead, we've got work to do to counter this.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Fredösphere:"Then, again, what happens in Hillsdale may have an impact as well."

So, Doc, you're saying that what happens in Hillsdaledoesn'tstay in Hillsale?

I agree, a Romney loss in Michigan will shatter the meme of Romney inevitability like nothing else that has happened so far.

I think I just may need to drop everything on Monday and attend this event. · 10 hours ago

Edited 10 hours ago

I strongly disagreed with Prof. Rahe's earlier suggestion that Michigan would decide the race. I do think, though, that Santorum is a capable and talented man who could win the general and make an impressive President.

As such, I've long held that a race with Santorum would be much closer, and go on much longer, than a race with Newt would have. It's also much better for the party, whoever wins. While Michigan will never end the race, it will be a wake-up call to a country that still doesn't take Santorum seriously that there is a genuine race here. I guess "wake up call" is the wrong metaphor, as that would be Colorado, but confirmation.... a snooze button kinda deal?

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Paul A. Rahe

Valiuth:

You have stated very nicely the position that I have been inclined to hold. I am now on the fence, however -- for one simple reason. I am by no means sure that Romney is the safer candidate. Like most managerial progressives, he is uncomfortable with political principle -- with what George W. H. Bush contemptuously called "the vision thing." And this election is going to turn on first principles. Obama is going to press the issue. See my post earlier today, and read the comments. They are perceptive. Awkward, timid candidates repeating poll-tested boilerplate lose when faced with passionate, principled opponents. · 10 hours ago

Having moved on some issues is not the same as having no issues that one cares about. Go to Mitt's website and you'll be constantly reminded, as he does in his speeches that "we have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in". He might demure on questions about contraception, but he won't demure on questions about deficits, unions (much of his likely loss in MI will come from the labor vote), or immigration.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Chris Deleon

dogsbody: As of Thursday morning, RealClearPolitics has Santorum ahead of Romney in Michigan by an average of 8.2 points...

Polls don't mean much-- right now.   Romney's strategy now is to go a bit less negative, make sure to have some pro-Romney positive ads, and at the same time let a "slow burn" of negative information leak out against Santorum.  He knows he'll suffer more blowback if he comes out with both guns blazing, so he's opted to get his allies to release a constant drip-drip of negativity through various other channels (such as the Drudge Report), hoping that over the next couple of weeks it will wear away Santorum's support without overreaching.

So if you want Santorum to stay ahead, we've got work to do to counter this. · 

I don't think he pushes for a win too hard in the next two weeks; I think he pushes for a principled contest. In Michigan, in particular, it's him and Governor Snyder v. Rick, class warfare, and the unions. This race is going to last, and it's important to frame it right.

Mothership_Greg
Joined
Nov '11
Mothership_Greg

President Obama is an extremist with respect to abortion.  At some point, we need to have a fight over abortion, to push the issue back to the center where it belongs. I do not know if now is the time to have that fight, or if Santorum is the candidate to lead the charge (Rubio's pro-life speech was deeply impressive to me, and I really hope he runs in 2016 or 2020). I do not think Romney will engage Obama on his record of abortion extremism. I say this as someone who feels very strongly about abortion, in that I was undecided in 2008, and I thought lots of things Obama was saying on the campaign trail sounded reasonable, and his record vs rhetoric on abortion firmly convinced me that I would NEVER vote for him. When I say I feel strongly about abortion, I mean that I believe that politicians should speak eloquently and honestly about their views about it, not that they necessarily agree with me.  Obama's dissembling with respect to his radical pro-abortion record still fills me with disgust. Prepare for FOCA or something like it if he is reelected.


Joined
Dec '11
RobininIthaca

Chris Deleon:

I think most liberals' own thinking has been so affected by their formative years, whether in sexual restraint or other areas (media, entertainment, and schools are awash with liberal thinking), that they just assume this is the way things are.  In that sense, if there are people cynically and intentionally doing as you say, the vast majority of other liberals are simply their "useful idiots" who actually believe in liberal philosophy, and are useful for propagating it. · 10 hours ago

Edited 9 hours ago

This is interesting as I live in a college town and I am constantly dumbfounded by my acquaintances' ability to say they are liberal progressives, yet live as conservatives.  Kids born in wedlock, families united to work in the community, monogamous marriages, living within their means - it's amazing, really.  

What I find even more illuminating is how judgmental they are in regards to how others live, despite their protestations that religious folks are far more harsh in their judgments of others.  You can't point this out to them, so I live in a constant state of amusement and try to view them as adorable pets gnawing at the same tired bone.

Paul A. Rahe

James Of England

Paul A. Rahe

 

I am by no means sure that Romney is the safer candidate. Like most managerial progressives, he is uncomfortable with political principle -- with what George W. H. Bush contemptuously called "the vision thing." And this election is going to turn on first principles. Obama is going to press the issue. See my post earlier today, and read the comments. They are perceptive. Awkward, timid candidates repeating poll-tested boilerplate lose when faced with passionate, principled opponents. · 10 hours ago

Having moved on some issues is not the same as having no issues that one cares about. Go to Mitt's website and you'll be constantly reminded, as he does in his speeches that "we have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in". He might demure on questions about contraception, but he won't demure on questions about deficits, unions (much of his likely loss in MI will come from the labor vote), or immigration. · 13 hours ago

James, the passage you quote nicely illustrates my point. Romney comes off as a Republican Michael Bloomberg. The issue is not balanced budgets. It is liberty.

Paul A. Rahe

RobininIthaca

 

This is interesting as I live in a college town and I am constantly dumbfounded by my acquaintances' ability to say they are liberal progressives, yet live as conservatives.  Kids born in wedlock, families united to work in the community, monogamous marriages, living within their means - it's amazing, really.  

What I find even more illuminating is how judgmental they are in regards to how others live, despite their protestations that religious folks are far more harsh in their judgments of others.  You can't point this out to them, so I live in a constant state of amusement and try to view them as adorable pets gnawing at the same tired bone. · 2 hours ago

I used to live in that town. I was an undergraduate there for two years, and I taught there for two years. I know what you mean. If you spoke up, you would incur rage.

Incidentally, what you say dovetails nicely with Charles Murray's most recent book.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Paul A. Rahe

James Of England

Having moved on some issues is not the same as having no issues that one cares about. Go to Mitt's website and you'll be constantly reminded, as he does in his speeches that "we have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in". He might demure on questions about contraception, but he won't demure on questions about deficits, unions (much of his likely loss in MI will come from the labor vote), or immigration. · 13 hours ago

James, the passage you quote nicely illustrates my point. Romney comes off as a Republican Michael Bloomberg. The issue is not balanced budgets. It is liberty. · 7 hours ago

Unbalanced budgets are our greatest threat to liberty. They're not as exciting as the other stuff, but each day we work to pay bond interest is another day that we're not keeping the fruits of our labor. Each business that consequently fails, each man discouraged enough to leave the labor force, adds to the number of dependents we support involuntarily, alongside our children, and parents, friends, and charities in need. Debt, far more than anything else, threatens European style surrender.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

More than this, the deficit is not sustainable. It can end either with Ryan/ Simpson/Romney/Santorum plan style cutbacks, or it can end Greek-style with violence and collapse, tremendously exacerbated by the lack of meaningful outside aid. A collapse would not be an orderly managed bankruptcy from which America would emerge phoenix-like from the flames.

It would be a world in which the elderly on fixed incomes could not get even those, one of constant riots as people respond to genuine and surprising deprivation, whether through unemployment or loss of benefits. Heck, or opportunity as the Police strength is decimated. A collapse in which fraud, embezzlement, blackmail and other crime is near universal as the regulatory system breaks down and the sense of fairness that underpins compliance evaporates.

Iraq, where I was working when I started reading your work, was not all that dissimilar to the US in terms of prosperity when its collapse started in 1958. The instability drove away the finance that formed the backbone to its industry (it was, in particular, an insurance hub). Disaster fed upon itself, leading to decades in which each year was a year defined by its particular catastrophe.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

In circumstances like that, one cannot have liberty. America today has liberty because it has trust, fairness, patriotism, and massive bureaucracies to limit suffering and enforce the law. In a less polyglot, or smaller, society, or one that had not tasted modern super-abundance, the bureaucracies would not be so necessary; for white men, America was in many ways even freer in the eighteenth century than it is today. Nonetheless, you can't get to there from here.

The other existential issue for American liberty is, of course, security. Which, of course, is likewise dependent on averting our current course. Defense is obviously going to be the first department to receive real cuts in the face of impending crisis, and those cuts will be doubled and redoubled as each wave of horror falls on our country. The world will be left without a policeman and the warlords that emerge as dominant will hold no love for America.

As with your (significantly) qualified dismissal of the Tenth Amendment, the difference between your understanding of America's moral underpinnings and Romney's is not necessarily one that marks Romney as lacking an adequate understanding.

Mothership_Greg
Joined
Nov '11
Mothership_Greg

RobininIthaca

What I find even more illuminating is how judgmental they are in regards to how others live, despite their protestations that religious folks are far more harsh in their judgments of others.  You can't point this out to them, so I live in a constant state of amusement and try to view them as adorable pets gnawing at the same tired bone. · 11 hours ago  

I feel your pain.  The irony of the Leftist understanding of what the word "bigotry" means would be amusing, if it wasn't so depressing.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In