“Republican Standard Bearer?: No Really, Rick Santorum Can’t Beat Barack Obama
I gave into temptation and checked out the comments page for my piece on the GOP’s “Ricksanity” that was published last week. The comments were so overwhelmingly negative toward my criticism of former Sen. Rick Santorum that I actually paused and considered that maybe I was wrong, and Rick Santorum does have the support needed to become the nominee.
Then, Rick Santorum did me a favor and made my case for me.
First, there was the wide coverage of his comments about “Satan” and subsequent refusal to back away from them. Voters want to hear what a candidate is going to do to solve the soaring gas prices, high unemployment, and the deficit. Rick Santorum chooses to talk about Satan engulfing the United States of America because of issues such as Title X allowing the federal government to fund contraception. That is the exact type of useless social rhetoric that hurts the Republican Party’s image with the electorate and its chances of being successful in the November elections.
Then we got to see what front-runner Rick Santorum looks like at the debate on Wednesday night. It is now clear that while former Senator Santorum is able to deliver passionate speeches and portray himself as the unyielding conservative, under scrutiny he is about as consistent as Sen. John Kerry’s stance on the Iraq war.
The Title X that former Santorum loathes so much? Turns out he voted for it. His excuse—he proposed a second federal spending program called Title XX to counteract Title X. So much for being a deficit hawk.
The federal takeover of education in No Child Left Behind? Turns out Rick Santorum voted for that as well in order to be a “team player.” So much for being a small government conservative.
Santorum’s stance on former Gov. Mitt Romney? He endorsed Romney in 2008 calling him a “true conservative.”
Throughout the debate Rick Santorum appeared angry, dismissive of the other candidates (especially Rep. Ron Paul who was hitting him the hardest), and not ready for the limelight of being the front-runner.
Bottom line: The debate was a nightmare for Rick Santorum. It provided another window into the reasons behind his double digit loss in Pennsylvania in 2006. It was also a useful preview of what an Obama-Santorum debate would be like—not a pretty picture for the GOP.
I have absolutely no personal ill will against former Senator Santorum; I think he is a good man, husband, and father. However, I am also convinced that he should not be the Republican standard bearer in November.
By: Boris Epshteyn, U. S. News and World Report, February 25, 2012
“Not As Radical But Just As Ridiculous”: Mitt Romney’s Tax-Plan Flim-Flam
Well, it was about perfect, wasn’t it, that Mitt Romney gave his big economic speech before about 1,200 supporters in a 65,000-seat football stadium? Whether the stadium or the speech was emptier is the obvious question of the moment. Pathetic as the pictures of the event were, I’d have to hand the trophy to the speech. Some of Romney’s specifics weren’t as far out there as those of his opponents. His proposed individual marginal tax rates, for example, are radical, but not as radical as those announced by the remaining three other Republican candidates. But his plan is even worse than theirs are in a way that we’ve come to know as typically Romneyesque. He is desperately eager to please the right wing and also to try to seem like the responsible one, but there is no way to do both of things without lying.
First, though, let’s discuss that venue. So a hotel ballroom was oversubscribed. Okay, I know Detroit has been down on its luck for the better part of 40 years, but even so I find it pretty difficult to believe that there is not a venue in the whole metropolitan area that has a capacity somewhere in between the Westin Book Cadillac ballroom’s 1,000 or whatever and Ford Field’s 65,000 (for football; 80,000 for wrestling). The University of Detroit’s basketball teams, for example, must play somewhere. Reports indicate that the Economic Club of Detroit, not the campaign, made the switch. But someone at the campaign said, “Gee, okay!” It’s not a catastrophe, but it is staggeringly stupid. Imagine the field day the right-wing agitprop machine would have had in 2008 with Barack Obama doing something like that. Indeed remember the sport they made of the mere fact of Obama giving a speech in a football stadium, even after he did in fact fill it.
But the deception involved in trying to make 1,200 supporters seem like 80,000 is nothing next to the deception of the plan itself. Romney would lower all six current individual tax brackets by 20 percent. That’s not as drastic as his opponents’ plans. Newt Gingrich, for example, would let any taxpayer choose between paying under the current regime or just paying a 15 percent flat tax. Rick Santorum would have most taxpayers paying just 10 percent. So this is the Romney-the-Reasonable part of the plan. Sticking with six brackets is supposedly meant to signal that he believes in a little stability and is not a loon.
Reducing those rates, of course—along with the reduction of the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent; along with massively increasing Pentagon spending—will reduce revenue. And here’s the catch, via The Wall Street Journal’s write-up. Romney “said Wednesday that as president, he would direct Congress to make up lost revenue from the rate cuts by limiting deductions, mostly for wealthier Americans. Mr. Romney and his aides didn’t say which deductions would be targeted.”
Ah! There it is. Deductions? We’ll figure those out later. Listen, I have a new fiscal plan for the Tomasky household that I am announcing today. I’m going to go half-time at the Beast and quit doing all my other work, thereby reducing my income by well more than half. But circumstances dictate that I also need to buy a new car, and a nice car, a Lexus, because this household needs a husband/father who isn’t ashamed to be a Tomasky and is prepared for the future because the roads can get awfully dangerous out there in Montgomery County. How will I pay for it, you ask? Well, first of all, you’re a freedom-hater for even asking the question, and second, I’ll simply cut all other household spending to the bone. I’ll end up revenue neutral, I swear.
Romney’s plan is literally about that serious. He won’t announce which deductions because it’s really hard to go after deductions, and because there is probably not enough money there anyway to make up for the lost revenue. But trust him, it’ll all work out.
And here’s a curious thing. Romney commits a grave error, from the right-wing point of view, in even acknowledging that there is lost revenue. If he’d gone to the Mitch McConnell School of Economics he’d know that cutting tax rates increases revenue. So the really interesting question here is: Why does Romney even bother to acknowledge that there will be lost revenue that will need to be made up?
He acknowledges it because some small but quickly vaporizing part of the man still retains some attenuated grasp of fiscal reality. So rather than tell the balls-out, red-meat lie that reduced rates will raise more revenue, he tells the squishy and weasely lie that he’ll take care of the imbalance at a future unspecified date in some future unspecified way. And that, my friends, is Romney to the core. He thinks he can finesse everything, that he’s much cleverer than he is, that somehow people won’t notice. But no one’s buying his line about the bailout. It’s patent nonsense, and Steve Rattner just demolished it on the Times op-ed page today. Romney also looks a little graceless, by the way, saying that he drives the Mustang and the GM pickup, while his wife drives the Cadillacs, plural. The way he added that after a pause, it reminded me of John McCain not remembering how many houses he owned. But Romney remembers. He just thinks he can bluff it.
He makes me really wonder about the private sector in this country. Did he earn all those millions behaving this way, telling people what they wanted to hear, then maybe doing something else entirely, then saying to them that that was his plan all along, then jovially throwing a colleague under the bus? Don’t answer that question.
By: Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast, February 25, 2012
“Everyday Mitt”: A Few Of Mitt Romney’s Favorite Things
Mitt Romney Visits Michigan
“I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height. I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. There’s something very special here. The Great Lakes, but also all the little inland lakes that dot the parts of Michigan. I love cars. I dunno, I mean, I grew up totally in love with cars.”
—Mitt Romney, February 16, 2012
Mitt Romney Visits Arizona
“I love this state, too. It seems right here. Even more right than Michigan. The heat is the right temperature. The spines on the cacti are just the right sharpness. I like drought. I enjoy canyons. I grew up totally in love with canyons. There were pictures of canyons on my bedroom wall. I also love mountains.”
Mitt Romney Visits the Dentist
“I love this place. I love drills and fillings. I love plaque, and also the removal of plaque. I like teeth that are inside the mouth, but I also like teeth that are outside the mouth. I grew up totally in love with novocaine. I’m addicted to novocaine. I wish I could go to the dentist every day, and get a shot of novocaine. My dentist is just the right height. He’s also approximately the right width.”
Mitt Romney Visits the Bathroom in the Coach Section of a Commercial Airplane
“I am absolutely in love with this place. The toilet is just the right size. I love cramped spaces that smell like human waste. I’m totally in love with used paper towels. I like it when other passengers flush the toilet, but I also like it when they don’t.”
Mitt Romney Visits a Department of Motor Vehicles
“I love this place, so much. The lines are just the right length. Not too short. I hate short lines. I love how this place hearkens back to a simpler time in our history, before we knew how to efficiently process people through a system that could very easily be automated. I grew up in love with civil servants struggling to perform simple tasks. There’s something very special in here. The eye charts. I love eye charts.”
Mitt Romney Visits Rick Santorum’s House
“I really love this place. I love tiny houses that only cost one or two million dollars. I grew up in a bedroom about the size of three of these houses. I love the domestic staff that works inside a house, but also the staff that works outside a house. Where is all the staff? I don’t see them. I think this house is terrific, especially given the size of Rick Santorum. I think he is the perfect depth.”
By: Jeremy Blackman, The New Republic, February 24, 2012
“Son Of Detroit”: Mitt Romney Overplayed His Hand In Michigan
In the campaign world, it’s almost a cardinal rule: Undersell your chances, then overdeliver at the ballot box. Former Gov. Mitt Romney never got the memo on this, and he might well pay a severe price for this misstep in next week’s Michigan primary.
After squeaking by in the disputed Maine nominating contest and getting clocked by Santorum in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado before that, Romney’s veneer of invincibility was gone and his campaign was left to deal with a harder question: Could he lose his home state of Michigan?
True, Romney was born in Michigan, where his father was a prominent auto executive and later governor. But Mitt Romney is more identified with Massachusetts, where he served as governor, or even with Mormon (like him) Utah, where he rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics.
He could’ve had it both ways. He could’ve acknowledged his family’s deep connection to Michigan without declaring himself “a son of Detroit.” Expectations would’ve been lower, and the connection—for any benefit it may hold next Tuesday—would’ve been solidified.
But he used those exact words—son of Detroit—to describe himself in a widely circulated op-ed in The Detroit News.
This went over about as well as could be expected for the campaign that can’t seem to shoot straight in recent weeks. Poll numbers barely budged. Talk of losing the home state intensified—one Republican U.S. senator said, “If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate.” And the campaign had to pull out the checkbook and again try to buy a primary by carpet-bombing the opponents with negative ads.
Then, in hardscrabble Michigan—home to shuttered factories, high unemployment, and one of the weakest state economies in the nation—Romney decided to unleash his secret weapon—Donald Trump. The Donald, who endorsed Romney after his own campaign flamed out, toured the state stumping for Romney and, no doubt, making deep connections with working-class or wish-they-were-working-class voters in the Wolverine State.
At that point, the Obama campaign no longer could resist joining in the fun. A super PAC associated with the president made its own huge ad buy to thwart Romney’s plan for a happy homecoming. It’s like the Fourth of July in Michigan right now—negative ad bombs going off in every direction.
And because Romney could not leave well enough alone, could not underpromise and overdeliver, and could not resist calling himself “a son of Detroit,” his campaign has spent the last two weeks trying to douse the political equivalent of a five-alarm fire.
Romney should’ve focused on Arizona all along. Its primary—the same day as Michigan’s—yields 29 delegates in a winner-take-all format. Michigan’s yields 30, awarded proportionally. If Romney hadn’t spent a dime on Michigan, he probably would’ve ended up with more delegates on the day than his current chief rival, former Sen. Rick Santorum. Santorum lags in the polls in Arizona and didn’t help himself with a poor debate performance in the state on Wednesday night.
Ironically, as we inch closer to the two primaries next Tuesday, Team Romney has begun to lower expectations in Michigan—to say the state is not, in fact, a must-win for his campaign. No kidding.
But the Romney camp could’ve saved itself a lot of money and a giant headache if it had started off trying to shape the narrative rather than becoming beholden to it.
By: Fred O’Connell, U. S. News and World report, February 24, 2012
Rick Santorum: The GOP’s Unelectable Soul Mate
Could GOP primary voters have finally found their soul mate? In the person of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, they may have stumbled upon a presidential candidate who can speak their language with a forceful authenticity that simply can’t be programmed into Mitt Romney.
And as if by divine providence, the rise of Santorum coincides with the return of culture war issues—gay marriage, abortion, and, especially, contraception—upon which he has earned his reputation and loyal following among conservatives.
But Santorum’s turn as the not-Romney of the moment and the sudden political shift from jobs to social issues illustrate the perilous political position into which the GOP is charging headlong. It’s a confluence of candidate and issues that can lay bare the cultural gap that has grown between the Republican base and the mainstream of American politics.
Take the birth control flap. When the administration rolled out a new rule requiring, for example, Catholic-related organizations like schools and hospitals to include contraceptive coverage as part of their employees’ health insurance, it was denounced as a disaster even by regular allies of President Obama. The president “utterly botched” the policy, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne said. The rule put the country on the brink of a “religious war” and was a “dissing, in common parlance, of Catholics,” pundit Mark Shields opined. Moderate Democrats like former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine quickly repudiated the mandate.
Republicans sensed an opportunity, and even after the president unveiled a compromise whereby the contraceptives would be paid for by insurance companies rather than the offended institutions, they doubled down. They denounced Obama’s accommodation and pushed legislation allowing employers or insurers to dispense with any health insurance item that pricked their conscience. In this they had the enthusiastic partnership of the bishops of the Catholic Church, who were equally unmoved by the deal.
What they did not have, however, was the support of either the broad electorate or the bishops’ flock, a fact illustrated by the preponderance of recent polling data on the issue. A survey released by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, for example, showed that 56 percent of voters support the birth control benefit, and 53 percent of Catholics do. The same firm later polled the Obama compromise and found that 57 percent of Catholics, including 59 percent of Catholic women, support it. With the compromise, 56 percent of Catholic independents favor the contraception mandate.
These figures are not outliers. Another survey released by the Public Religion Research Institute, found that the pre-compromise rule had the support of 62 percent of women, 58 percent of Catholics, and 51 percent of independents (and 55 percent of Americans overall). The only group in the survey that opposed the rule was white evangelical Protestants, with 38 percent in favor and 56 percent against, raising the question of whether the Catholic bishops are stewarding the right church. A New York Times/CBS News poll last week found that 65 percent of voters support the compromise, including a majority of Catholic voters.
One of the few recent surveys that produced a markedly different result, from Pew, showed that among those who have heard of the rule, opinion is closely divided—hardly the stuff to power the initial pronouncements of Obama’s doom with Catholic voters or to support the GOP going all in on the issue. All these figures help explain why, in the face of fretting that the contraceptive rule was a political blunder, Gallup announced last week that the president’s approval rating among Catholics was statistically unchanged.
But those same polls show Republican voters are, for the most part, strongly opposed to the mandate and to the compromise, which helps explain why the party continues to battle the policy on the Hill and in the campaign, which brings us back to Rick Santorum.
No candidate is better positioned to capitalize on the resurgence of culture war issues (not only birth control, but also California’s ban on gay marriage being struck down, and the Planned Parenthood-Susan G. Komen spat) than Santorum, who made his name in culture skirmishes, most famously comparing homosexuality to bestiality.
He’s been almost as outspoken on birth control. “One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea,” he told the conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts last October. “Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Here’s a candidate, in other words, who is ready to turn the power of the bully pulpit against … contraception.
He has on other occasions said that he doesn’t think contraception works, that “it’s harmful to women” and “harmful to our society.” More generally, he has denounced the “whole idea of personal autonomy,” and the notion that “government should keep our taxes down and keep regulations low, [but] shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom … shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.”
That kind of cultural conservative hawkishness might play in a GOP primary, but it’s why so many political observers view Santorum as completely unelectable. Which leaves Romney in a tough position: How does the self-described “severe conservative” attack his rival for being too severely conservative?
By: Robert Schlesinger, U. S. News and World Report, February 22, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 