by Datechguy | January 4th, 2012
My Couch Stacy McCain’s future bed in Fitchburg 12:12 AM
I’m looking at the screen and seeing a difference of under 50 votes between Rick ($500,000 spent in Iowa) Santorum and Mitt (10 Million spent in Iowa) Romney. (Those figures per MSNBC) Rick Santorum gives begins his speech as we wait to find out who will actually win in Iowa.
For the last several days we have been told that no matter what happens in Iowa Mitt Romney wins if he finishes 1st to 3rd. (and as I’m typing he has taken a 41 vote lead with 2% left to report.) To call it a Pyrrhic victory if he manages to win it will be an understatement.
Mitt Romney has every possible advantage, 4 years of campaigning, a huge war chest, the backing of the GOP establishment and the aura of inevitability and yet, in the state of Iowa after 4 years of campaigning he can’t break 25% of the vote.
One of the arguments that the Romney people are constantly making is he is the most electable, let me tell you what Iowa tells me, Electable my ***!
A lot of this is his own fault, he base strategy of “ignoring” Iowa was a sound one. As long as the perception was he was only tangentially playing in Iowa (no matter how false it was) a finish in the top 3 would have been spun as a victory doing better than expected, however once Gingrich began his freefall Romney figured he would go in for the kill. This was the only strategic mistake he has made since the start of the campaign.
Instead he went in strong and as I type trails by 5 votes. This is what 10 million dollars buys you? A dead heat with a man who had no money to speak of?
Even worse news for the Romney campaign than the Santorum surge were the speeches by Gingrich and Perry.
Gingrich indicated from his speech that he will be on the offensive, and Perry suggested that he might cut his losses. That combination along with Michelle Bachmann’s horrible finish means disaster for Romney.
One of the reasons why Romney has not spent time courting conservatives is they he understands that they aren’t interested in him, as long as Perry, Bachmann and Santorum were dividing the conservative vote, Romney could cruise to victory after victory with 25-30% racking up wins to create the aura of invincibility.
With Bachmann and perhaps Perry out that is a pool of conservatives who are tailor-made for Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney.
Add to that a Newt Gingrich who blames Romney for his collapse. If Newt decides to go after Romney in retaliation, and I suspect he will this adds up to the perfect storm.
Mitt is going to win NH Big but Santorum is going to end up at least 4th (Paul and Huntsman boosted by the independents and liberals) and if Perry and Bachmann are gone before we get to the south Santorum has every possibility of beating Romney like a drum, particularly since his victories will bring the funds needed to compete which will produce more victories and generate more funds.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if Romney is the nominee I will have no problem voting for him over Obama, but lets ask the question: If you are a GOP candidate running for congress against Obamacare do you really want the author of Romneycare at the top of your ticket? Do you want to be asked why you support the author of Romneycare while running against Obamacare? I don’t think so.
Romney has one easy win ahead of him in NH, but after that he’s going to have a fight on his hands and Rick Santorum is going to be the man to give it to him. Or as Stacy McCain would put it, Vanuatu here I come!
Update: Can’t spell at 1 a.m. fixed title
Update 2: how contrived is Romney? After dissing Santorum’s victory Erick Erickson revealed that after Santorum’s speech Romney’s guys took down the teleprompter and he gave a speech he gave earlier today, for God’s sake it sounds like Obama lite without the Greek columns.
Update 3: Ali’s tweet says it all:
Mitt Romney spent 4 years and millions of dollars to lose six votes. And this guy is supposed to be electable?
Update 4: Instalanche Thanks glenn and an important update that people should note:
South Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Tuesday accused Republican Mitt Romney of shifting to the extreme Right to try to win the Iowa caucuses.
Sounding a Democratic theme for this election year, Wasserman Schultz said Romney’s attempts to pander to conservatives will come back to haunt.
“Over the last year, Romney has scrambled to get to the right of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum – and in a state with some of the most stalwart conservatives in the Republican nominating process,” Wasserman Schultz said at a press conference. “Romney’s showing can be attributed to his right-wing vision for America.”
and here is the “moderate voice“:
The unrelenting extremism of the Iowa field, from the candidates’ absurd stands on issues that matter to middle class voters to an oblique racism when it comes to Obama himself has forced Romney to tack ever harder to the right. It will take the biggest flip-flop of them all for Romney to reposition himself as a moderate and not the sell-out that he has become if he gets the nomination because otherwise he doesn’t stand a chance.
and That is the key comment, no matter who the GOP nominates the democrats will paint him as a “right wing extremest racist” So why nominate a person that is going to run off the conservative vote the GOP needs to win?
And PLEASE don’t give me the “anti-Gay” stuff with Santorum, not only is it false, but the extreme left will play Romney’s Mormonism as anti-gay against him huge.
I still think Romney would beat Obama, but I’d feel a lot more comfortable about 2012 with Santorum at the top than him.
Update 5: Bachmann has decided to go but Perry has sent out a tweet indicating he has decided to stay . This is a big boost for Romney for several reasons:
1. It keeps the division of the Tea party vote, particularly in the south so Romney can win southern states with 30% of the vote.
2. Perry will be going after Santorum with reckless abandon allowing Romney’s hands to remain clean as Santorum is savaged
3. It keeps Santorum from becoming the official “anti-Romney
With Bachmann out Perry rises to my 2nd choice with Gingrich 3rd but
Santorum has to quickly get himself up to 2nd or 3rd in New Hampshire, or he’s going to be tagged in the press for major loss of momentum. Could it be that Jon Huntsman’s sole purpose in this race is to outpoll the social conservative coming out of Iowa in New Hampshire?
I saw your ad for a cleaner. You say mention DATECHGUY and get 1 piece cleaned for free. Do they do 9 millimeters?
The anti-gay stuff is “false”? You might have blogged about this before and I’ve missed it, but can you explain that statement to me? One of my biggest hangups about Santorum is precisely the “anti-gay stuff.” I’d love to be wrong.
How do you define “Anti Gay” If you define being against Gay Marriage as “Anti-Gay” then every US president in history is “anti-gay”.
Santorum is a practicing Catholic who believes Catholic Doctrine, is your argument that all believing Catholics are “anti-gay”?
So what you’re saying is, “well, it’s true, but it’s okay because he’s Catholic.”
Plenty of people are anti-gay-marriage, but Santorum is–so to speak–a real crusader.
Besides which, he’s a major, major statist. And by giving us Arlen Specter, he ensured the eventual passage of ObamaCare.
You attempt to support Santorum by saying he is just following Catholic Doctrine but he is fighting battles the Pope has conceded. He is still pushing creationism as valid (and trying to force it on school children!) while the Church has stated that evolution does not contradict catholic doctrine.
As for his repugnant position on homosexuality even if it is what the Catholic church pushes, I’ll answer with a quote from another Catholic.
“We do not want an official state church. If ninety-nine percent of the population were Catholics, I would still be opposed to it. I do not want civil power combined with religious power. I want to make it clear that I am committed as a matter of deep personal conviction to separation.”
– John F Kennedy
Whether it is Catholic Doctrine or Sharia Law I do not want a president who thinks it’s fine to legislate his morality on the rest of us.
Good point. Santorum’s famous “man on dog” comment in the context of discussing gay marriage was not actually gay-bashing:
“That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.”
Santorum was actually saying that homosexuality is not inherently evil on the level of pedophilia and bestiality. He has equated homsexuality with adultery, bigamy, and polygamy. One can regard that as anti-gay but it is considerably more nuanced than advertised one must admit.
The bigger issue, IMHO, is how our society will define marriage. Will unelected, unaccountable judges (re)define it for us, or will we have a say? There are people who believe that marriage is all about love, or a piece of paper, or doesn’t really mean much except as a convenient way of ordering one’s affairs. There are people who believe that it is the foundation for society, civilisation, and the family – as well as being the best way to create and raise the next generation. I see little reason why judges should decide which interpretation is correct and allowable.
Santorum, last I checked, is not for sodomy laws, punishing gays, harassing kids in high school who are discovering their sexuality, or anything that is “anti-gay”. What he does not believe in is the idea that a gay marriage is equal to a straight marriage, because of the simple biological fact that there is no gay couple that has ever produced, nor will ever produce, even a single child between the two of them. Every child born on earth is the result of heterosexual union – even test tube babies.
That’s science and sociology, not “anti-gay” animus.
Violating states’ rights by attempting to annul marriages that have lawfully occurred within them is no small matter, irrespective of one’s philosophy regarding gay marriage.
To reach into the states that way from the executive branch is really appalling.
I would have to agree with you there Joy. As they were legal at the time I would simply grandfather them myself.
And, for the record–Santorum supports sodomy laws, as well as state laws that prohibit birth control. The latter stance, once publicized, could well set the pro-life movement back for decades–that is, after all, what they always say about us.
In this country (versus Europe) conservatism is associated with freedom. The freedom is based on the understanding and expectation that people will order their own lives, and probably along religious lines. But we haven’t gone down the road of micro-managing people’s morals.
I had hoped things would continue in this vein, but I see that I may be wrong.
If Rick Santorum becomes the GOP nominee, it is guaranteed that Barack Obama will be re-elected. Guaranteed.
Not at all, not at all. I know lots of pro-gay Catholics. I didn’t mention his Catholicism at all. I do not, however, agree with the excerpt below my comment attempting to defend his infamous “man on dog” comment. He wasn’t saying that homosexuals were “not like man on dog, man on child” relationships – he was saying that society is based on one-man-one-woman definition of marriage, not homosexuality, not man on dog or man on child relationships. Go read the quote for yourself. So he was equating homosexual relationships – or anything other than straight, for-procreation relationships – to unconsensual and morally repugnant bestiality and pedophilia. That’s not a person who holds gays in much esteem, in my opinion.
I see his “anti-gay stuff” to a real problem with understanding the proper role of the federal government. The last thing we need is another big-government so-called conservative. The true conservative position on marriage is, in my opinion, that it’s a states-rights issue. He alarms me not only with his casual insensitivity to real, loving human relationships that are none of the federal government’s business, but also with his crusading for federal control over state issues and his flawed logical reasoning. There’s just so much to be alarmed about there.
I also take personal offense at the idea that our society is based on the having of children in state-sanctioned relationships. I think our society is actually based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think a guy like Rick Santorum has demonstrated through his anti-liberty rhetoric that he thinks those are just words. That alarms me.
Does he think a gay relationship is equal to a sexual perversion with an animal? Who knows. But the fact that he brings them up together, as I said above, doesn’t indicate a guy who’s real sensitive to actual, gay relationships. But again, the “anti-gay stuff” is so much more than just the one remark – my alarm is more about the focus on this issue when there are so many more appropriate issues the federal government should be concerning itself with; leave marriage to the states where it belongs. That’s all.
Mitt Romney is a blander McCain with nice hair. If anyone can lose for the Republicans, it’s a McCain Redux.
The most important thing is that A.B.O. wins in November. We shall close ranks behind A.B.O..
What does Karl Rove think about all of this?
What does Karl Rove think?
Does Karl Rove think?
Santorum? You mean Arlen Spector’s greatest ally? You mean the guy who voted for expansion of the federal education bureaucracy?
The guy who voted to increase tariffs on steel.
The guy who voted to increase tariffs on honey?
He voted for the medicare prescription drug benefit plan?
This guy is not a conservative. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I respect that Romney is at least a competent guy.
But I worry a lot about his electability. The press is waiting on his coronation with baited breath. As the election rolls around they’ll unleash so many broadsides, he won’t know what hit him.
The first thing they’ll do is make Mormonism look like a cult. They’ll want to know why Romney stayed part of a racist religion for so many years. Why didn’t he leave? What does he think about polygamy. We’ll be bombarded with “facts” about Mormonism.
And, how is Romney going to be able to go after Obamacare? He’ll be hamstrung on one of the major issues that animate Republicans.
I suspect that the press has been holding their fire on Romney strictly because he’s so attackable. They want him to be the Republican nominee.
It’s not going to be pretty.
Hmm… if Romney pulled the same number of voters as last time, and this year’s election is more hotly contested and viewed as important to conservatives, he does not deserve the nomination.
He’ll be John McCain redux. The conservative base hates him, and they will react with indignation/apathy once more. Loser for sure…
Now that he has won Iowa, Rick Santorum should take my humble advice… Now this is a good thing too, you are only catching flak if you are over the target.
And I love your post.
Yeah, electable. I have a mental blog-rant all written about this.
Hey, are you and Stace heading to NH this weekend? Want company?
I pick him up at Logan Thursday morning