• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Maybe The GOP Should Just Go Ahead And Nominate Rick Santorum

Faced with a Republican base that clearly doesn’t seem to like Mitt Romney and the apparent rise of Rick Santorum, Jazz Shaw wonders if maybe the GOP shouldn’t just go ahead and nominate the former Pennsylvania Senator and hopefully bring some resolution to a debate that has been ravaging the GOP for years now:

One of the chief sources of internecine scrapping and grumbling among Republicans has come from the ranks of the social conservatives, or Socons as they are frequently known. We have already spent time speculating what would happen if Mitt Romney becomes the nominee. If he loses to Obama in November, the Socons will once again say that it was because cowardly, establishment party leaders failed to push forward a sufficiently conservative warrior who would fire up the base as a champion of socially conservative principles. If he wins, the Socons could quietly grumble that he’d simply gotten lucky against a deeply flawed president running on a failed record and bide their time until the next open seat in the Oval Office came up for grabs.

Similarly, if Newt Gingrich were to lose to Obama, the blame could be heaped on his own shortcomings and extensive, frequently controversial biography. After all, his three marriages and “complicated” history didn’t exactly make him a darling among evangelical Christians. The same excuses could be applied with slight modifications.

But Rick Santorum is a horse of an entirely different color who could serve as the ultimate test of this theory and put the question to rest once and for all. Is the secret to electoral success truly found in a take-no-prisoners, hard-core, rock-ribbed conservative? Is this truly what America is pining for?

As Jazz goes on to point out, when it comes to the core issues of social conservatism, there’s nobody left in the race that’s as hard core as Santorum. Whether it’s abortion, marriage and other rights for gays and lesbians, or even evolution, Santorum takes the social conservative position on each issue and turns it up a notch. This is the guy, after all, who doesn’t recognize any exception to his opposition to abortion even in the case or rape or incest, who wants to roll back Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and who said that same-sex marriage would one day lead to men marrying dogs, and who peppers his speeches with warnings about the threat to the Republic posed by the so-called “gay agenda.” If you’re a social conservative, there’s a lot to like about Santorum. Of course, at the same time, if you’re not a social conservative there’s a lot to dislike about him as well.

That last part, and the fact that most Americans don’t share the extreme positions that Santorum takes, would seem to make the electoral outcome of a Santorum- Obama General Election inevitable:

If you were worried that Team Obama could turn a Gingrich nomination into a referendum on the speaker’s history, Santorum would make that look like child’s play. Gone would be discussions of the president’s paltry record on job growth or the disastrous downstream effects of his environmental regulatory policy. The DNC would dump hundreds of millions of dollars into running 24/7 advertisements in the fall featuring grainy, black and white clips of Rick Santorum reading off the quotes I cited above and many, many more. Tens of millions of moderate and independent voters who are currently looking with dismay at Obama’s record and are kicking the tires of a possible Republican alternative would thunder for the exits. In short, I believe a campaign such as that would lead to Barack Obama winning in a landslide.

That would seem to be the logical outcome of a Santorum candidacy, although Santorum’s supporters inside the GOP will argue differently. There are people here at CPAC, for example, who think that the way to win the election in November is to emphasize a Santorum-like position on abortion and hammer the President with it for months on end up through the General Election. One can call these people detached from reality, and for the most part many of them do seem to have no real conception of how politics works in the United States or how you win elections, but perhaps the only way to convince people like this of the fact that reality is, in fact, real is to let them have what they want. Put that hard-core social conservative on the ballot and let them run their campaign based on those issues even though poll after poll shows them to be out of touch with the mainstream of the electorate. At the very least, maybe it would be what’s needed to finally start reconstructing the Republican coalition that put Ronald Reagan into office 30 years ago rather than letting the GOP continue to drift down the road.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. john personna says:

    I’ve had the same thought.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  2. michael reynolds says:

    Yes!

    I’ll write a check!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  3. John Burgess says:

    I’ll go along, if only to force the Republican Party to smarten up and kick the SoCons to the curb.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  4. Modulo Myself says:

    Being ineducable is a fundamental right. People like Santorum have exploited this trait exponentially. I would bet any amount of money in the world that a Santorum loss would convince nobody who voted for him of anything other than the need for Santorum v. 2.

    Also, having this guy rise up and then be crushed in a general election will not be good for the real lives of many Americans. I grew up in NE Pa, sort-of his home territory, and there’s a lot of bad unearthly stuff that goes on behind close doors with people like him. Meanwhile, what appears out in the open is a pleasure-less amoral persona, furious about theoretical gays but willing to treat actual humans like dirt.

    At the same time, there are a lot of social conservatives who turn out to be open-minded people capable of bring some pleasure into the world. They’re against abortion and find gay marriage whatever, but endlessly fixating on corruption and the need for order is not what they are about.

    These are the people that social conservatives should be promoting, not the professionals and paid-agitators.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  5. Scott O. says:

    The detached from reality people would blame a Santorum loss on the main stream media, Acorn, our education system, elites, etc. You’ll have a tough time convincing them that their idea’s aren’t popular.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  6. Chris C. says:

    This won’t work. The SoCons will claim that the mushy moderates sabotaged the election and didn’t show enough loyalty. When the exit polls on election day show that Obama carries 20% of Republicans, Limbaugh et. al. will use it as evidence that moderates and RINOs are evil and should be further purged. The SoCons have a somewhat admirable, somewhat frightening way of holding onto their beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary, so I doubt they’ll be willing to change their beliefs even after a Goldwater-like loss.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  7. Eric Florack says:

    While it is true that there is nobody currently in the race that is as conservative as Rick Santorum, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he is the ideal candidate in this case either.

    That said, if conservative ideas want popular, then MIT Romney might actually be able to break 25% in any given state. Obama wouldn’t be in office, and Bob Dole and John McCain would have won their respective elections.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  8. Moosebreath says:

    It would be put up or shut up time for bithead. That alone makes it worthwhile.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  9. mattb says:

    @Eric Florack:
    As many of us have asked you multiple times, can you name anyone who would be the “ideal candidate” other than perhaps than a reanimated Ronald Regan?

    Seriously, is there anyone on the national stage that fits the bill? Or if there isn’t, what does that say about the viability of “Ideal Conservatism” as you continue to preach — the fact that in the 20+ years since Regan, there has bot been a single viable (let alone ideal) conservative candidate?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  10. Modulo Myself says:

    @mattb:

    The ideal candidate for a number of conservatives is purely tautological. The ideal candidate is equal to the ideal candidate. No criteria exist to explain this relationship or to convince others. It’s simply what is right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  11. PD Shaw says:

    @mattb: If we’re going to talk about reanimating Presidential corpses, I’d have other suggestions. But good question.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  12. Eric Florack says:

    The pot to cattle aspect of this aside, Romney is right at least insofar as Rick Santorum , that he’s not conservative he makes himself out to be.

    Moosebreath, you amaze me. We’re sitting on unquestionably the largest failure of a president ever. And you start talking about put up time for conservatives?

    Please.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 31

  13. anjin-san says:

    bit still refuses to name the “real conservative” that he thinks should be President. This is a simple question – which Republican do you support for the 2012 GOP nomination?

    Really dude, go buy a suit… then you can be an official empty suit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  14. Ben Wolf says:

    @Eric Florack: Actually, I’d like to hear you put forward a name: who in your opinion would be the best possible conservative candidate? If you could wave your pixie stick and annoint the nominee from anywhere in America, who?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  15. anjin-san says:

    You have to kind of love the absurdity factor here. We have a blog full of political junkies, and here is bithead – someone who fancies himself as being a serious person – who can’t even say who he supports for his party’s nomination.

    But, but, but, but……… Obama!

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1

  16. mattb says:

    @anjin-san:
    Eric doesn’t even have to pick from the people still in the race. Or who were ever in the race this time around.

    All I’m asking for is a name or names of “true” conservatives on the current national level. There has to be at least one that Eric can name, who he would consider an appropriate test case.

    Because if there isn’t, then I’d love to understand how we can possibly take the idea that a “true conservative” can win as a serious position.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  17. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    As I said over in the most recent Romney thread: According to bit/Eric, conservatism cannot fail; it can only be failed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  18. Eric Florack says:

    Doesn’t have to be a particular person.
    Only requirement is a real conservative.
    Positions, not personality, as I tried to say to Reynolds.

    As I said over in the most recent Romney thread: Nice try, but no tofu for you.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 23

  19. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Is “tofu” what passes as an insult on the right? Really?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  20. Tano says:

    @Eric Florack:

    The pot to cattle aspect of this aside,

    What does this mean?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  21. anjin-san says:

    Doesn’t have to be a particular person.
    Only requirement is a real conservative.

    In other words, your ideas about who should be running the country are based on a fantasy about leaders who do not exist.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1

  22. Hey Norm says:

    Re: Santorum…
    I wonder what it like…never having f’ed for the shear pleasure of it???
    I’ll donate a weeks pay to his campaign.

    Re: Eric Florak….
    I wonder if OBL thinks Obama is a failure.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  23. anjin-san says:

    I wonder if OBL thinks Obama is a failure.

    Stand by for boilerplate BS about how all Obama did was follow a Bush policy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  24. de stijl says:

    If you nominate someone who lost his last US Senate race as the incumbent 41 – 59% (the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever), you may be insane.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  25. de stijl says:

    @Tano:

    Cattle = kettle

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. michael reynolds says:

    I like when Eric comes by on a slow, dull day to offer himself up as object of ridicule.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2

  27. mattb says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Doesn’t have to be a particular person.
    Only requirement is a real conservative.
    Positions, not personality, as I tried to say to Reynolds.

    Ok… sorry, I have to call BS on this. For countless threads we have asked you to name a single national level politician that you consider “good enough” to put this to the test.

    You have never been able to name a single one.

    Instead you always fall back on this sort of pathetic weasel wording that the person doesn’t matter, conservatism does.

    If conservatism, as you imagine it, mattered, there would be someone.

    If that really was the case, you should be able to name at least ONE person. But clearly you don’t think there is.

    Which demonstrates how bankrupt your position is.

    Your action (or inaction) continues to invalidate your argument, demonstrating the think that you ACTIVELY proclaim over and over is fundamentally flawed, false or a pipe dream that you keep wrapping yourself in to prevent you from acknowledging the reality of how wrong you are.

    I’ve given you ever benefit of the doubt to put up. You have been afraid to. In fact all you’ve ever done is express the most weasel-worded excuses to prevent yourself from putting up.

    Eric, you’re worse than intellectually bankrupt. You simply don’t believe in your movement. Or your movement (as you imagine it) is a failure.

    And you, with your inability to put up, are simply a coward.

    And a deluded one at that.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 1

  28. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    @mattb: THIS.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  29. michael reynolds says:

    @mattb:
    Yeah, I believe that summarizes Eric pretty well.

    His own great hero — Saint Ronnie — wouldn’t pass Eric’s own tests. Raised taxes, gave weapons to the Iranians, cut and ran from Lebanon after 242 Marines were killed, negotiated with communists.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2

  30. Brummagem Joe says:

    This has essentially been my position for years. Give the right what they want (and it’s not just on social issues because on economic issues he’s just as crazy) and watch the entire house of cards come tumbling down. Nominate a Romney and if he loses the right will spend the next four years claiming it’s all because a real conservative wasn’t nominated. The only hope the Republican party has of tacking back to reality is a disastrous election rebuff. Without it the schisms in the party are going to get worse.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  31. Ben Wolf says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Doesn’t have to be a particular person.Only requirement is a real conservative. Positions, not personality, as I tried to say to Reynolds.

    Who in America best exemplifies Real Conservative positions? It’s a straightforward question answerable by anyone who’s spent time considering it, which I would think you had given your commitment to conservative identity politics.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

  32. JohnMcC says:

    In the original post at PJ Media, Mr Shaw contributes that the ideal conservative candidate would be an amalgam of John Bolton (on defense issues), Grover Norquist (budgetary) and Pat Robertson (social issues).

    Paging Dr Frankenstein!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  33. MattB says:

    @Ben Wolf:
    My point exactly. Eric has indicated in past posts that he is well plugged into conservative media at the local and national level. So there is little question in my mind he’s aware of all of the national players, both established and up-and-coming.

    I suspect his defense for not giving a name is that us mean ‘lib’s and independents will immediately point out aspects of that individual that don’t meet his idea of conservatism. All I can say is that if that’s the case is
    (a) you’re a coward for being afraid at being criticized
    and
    (b) friggin’ STFU about how the majority of Americans are secretly conservative Eric and how conservatism (as you imagine it) will always win, ’cause clearly it hasn’t won in quite a while.

    Outside of naming a name or two, Eric continually demonstrates how, when push comes to shove, he tucks his tail in between his legs and proudly announces how “Conservatism never loses.”

    The fact is Eric’s type of conservatism quits the game before it’s time to vote so it can remain “undefeated.”

    And that makes it, and him, the worse type of coward and the sort of critic that talks about how bad things are without ever actually putting flesh in the game. Eric and his conservatism have never risked. They represent the the sort of timid soul who has never known victor or defeat outside of the victories he’s convinced himself he continually wins on the internet.

    Because all of the rest of us can never be as smart as he is.

    Simply put when it comes to politics, he and his brand of conservatism,at best, have delusions of adequacy.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  34. anjin-san says:

    In the absence of the ability to offer up even one conservative who he thinks should be the GOP nominee for President, bithead dishes up the only things he really has to offer.

    Anger, envy, and fear.

    It must really suck to go through life with those things being the forces that drive you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  35. PogueMahone says:

    That said, if conservative ideas want popular, then MIT Romney might actually be able to break 25% in any given state.

    The pot to cattle aspect of this aside, Romney is right at least insofar as Rick Santorum , that he’s not conservative he makes himself out to be.

    Oh, I love this game!! The trick is to take Bit’s non-coherent string of words and arrange them to what you think Bithead really means. Lemme have a go…
    ~
    Conservative makes popular cattle aside what Romney said MIT ideas not state Santorum 25%.
    ~

    Tell me, Bit… is that close? Did I win?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  36. Ben Wolf says:

    @MattB: Conservative positions change with every news cycle, so I suspect the “ideal conservative” today is a socialist liberal tomorrow. I don’t think Eric actually knows who the preferred candidate is; not unreasonable as this is a movement in existential crisis.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  37. mattb says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    I don’t think Eric actually knows who the preferred candidate is;

    That’s the truly pathetic part about Eric (and speaks to your point about the larger existential crisis). I’m not looking for Eric to speak for the movement. I’m asking him to take a position based on his own belief.

    He constantly proclaims that America is majority conservative. And that a conservative should win if anyone was brave enough to run one.

    But he’s not brave enough to name a single candidate that he (not the movement) would like to see make that run.

    Until it’s members have enough spine to actually back named candidates in a fantasy draft, no one has a right to defend populist conservatism as a viable political movement, let alone the one to rule them all.

    I look forward to Eric’s explanation in four years about how America truly ended thanks to Obama and all of us are too dumb to realize it. Because, chances are, in four years time, that’s still be all he has on this particular subject.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  38. MM says:

    @mattb: I think Eric makes the point inderectly though. Once you have convinced yourself that everyone is waiting for a true conservative, then any candidate who doesn’t win must have been insufficiently conservative.

    Nominating Rick Santorum doesn’t give the social conservatives their chance to win, or their day in the sun, it just gives them a chance after the fact to point out all of Santorum’s flaws and suggest that next time we need to find a REAL conservative.

    It’s basically purity trolling writ large.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  39. mattb says:

    @MM:
    Fair, but in that case you don’t get the luxury of touting the intellectual superiority of your position.

    Nor do you get to pretend that you are arguing a fact-based, traditional conservative position.

    Nor do you get to act like you occupy a higher moral ground from which you can accuse all non-conservatives of arguing positions based on emotion or faith.

    Nor do you get to claim that you have the proven position.

    I see nothing wrong with arguing from faith if you are honest about it. But when it comes to making the case for his brand of conservatism, Eric has yet to prove that he can take an intellectual honest position. Nor has he been able to prove that he can be intellectual honest in evaluating other political movements.

    Basically all he’s proven is that he’s got nothing to back up his position.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  40. mattb says:

    @PD Shaw:
    Ok, I’ll bite, other than the railsplitter/vampire hunter, who else might you zap back to life?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  41. Latino_in_Boston says:

    As much as I would love to see Santorum get nominated and then creamed in the general election in a Goldwater-like meltdown, I have no illusions this would actually result in some sort of epiphany for conservatives. Certainly not for social conservatives. If you truly believe that God’s way is Santorum’s way and vice-versa, him losing would just prove that Satan is at work.

    As to the Limbaugh types that believe that conservatism always wins, the conclusion is clear. If someone loses, it’s because they weren’t conservative enough. This leads to a larger problem which is that conservatism as defined by the Limbaugh movement is not based on policies, but in opposition to the Democrats, which over time loses its ideological bearings (hence support for cap and trade, individual mandate, DREAM act, is now authoritarian communism).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  42. grumpy realist says:

    @PogueMahone: WTF does MIT have to do with Romney, except that they both are/were in Massachusetts? Or is this a misspelling of Mitt?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  43. M. JOSEPH SHEPPARD" says:

    Hey Doug do you feel a jerk deliberatley sitting out the back at CPAC and missing Palin’s speech which brought the house down?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  44. M. JOSEPH SHEPPARD" says:

    Hey Doug do you feel a jerk deliberately sitting out the back at CPAC and missing Palin’s speech which brought the house down?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  45. Brummagem Joe says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I like when Eric comes by on a slow, dull day to offer himself up as object of ridicule.

    You said it all Mikey. In a way it’s sad, and I’m not trying to be smart or concern trolling, because here we have the said Eric who I don’t think is a multi millionaire hedge fund manager but he’s been brainwashed into believing that his interests roughly coincide with theirs. How you could possibly arrive at this conclusion is beyond my capacity to explain but there it is. Wake up and smell the coffee Eric dear boy these folks are screwing you over by appealing to some subterranean prejudices about who knows what that you harbor. I can understand there maybe some issues you feel strongly about like abortion or same marriage but there are a lot of other folk who feel differently and they are not all spawn of Satan. Some of them may be related to you. There are aspects of modern society I’m uncomfortable with but on the whole I’m for pragmatism and tolerance. It’s not a bad philosophy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  46. merl says:

    @Eric Florack: you’re another of those retards who have forgotten chickenshit George Bush aren’t you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  47. mattb says:

    Prediction… if he does return to this thread, the only post Eric will respond to is:

    @merl: ‘

    @Eric Florack: you’re another of those retards who have forgotten chickenshit George Bush aren’t you?

    With something along the lines of “I never said George Bush was a conservative.” Or “I have written extensively about how neither Bush was a conservative.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  48. john personna says:

    @Gold Star for Robot Boy:

    Is “tofu” what passes as an insult on the right? Really?

    And yet we must build our military out of our fear of the tofu-eaters!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  49. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    @Eric Florack:

    We’re sitting on unquestionably the largest failure of a president ever.

    The only metric I can think of that would come within a galaxy’s distance of your assertion is that Obama must not have delivered you a magic pony within 30 days of his election. Are you sure the pony isn’t on the no-fly list? Or maybe currently being held and tortured–oops, I mean “enhanced-ly interrogated” at Guantanamo?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  50. sam says:

    @grumpy realist:

    WTF does MIT have to do with Romney, except that they both are/were in Massachusetts? Or is this a misspelling of Mitt?

    Eric uses voice-to-text software to communicate his stream of unconscious BS to us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. Neil Hudelson says:

    @sam:

    Does anyone know why? If it’s because he is unable to type (like parapalegia), i’ll stop making fun of his incredibly odd grammar and sentence structure.

    If its because he is lazy, then fair game.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  52. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Eric/bit,
    If you’re still lurking, I just want you to know your weak-sauce act will haunt you as long as you continue to comment at OTB. The moment your head pops up to spew the crap you believe passes for deep thinking, I intend to hammer you with the same question again and again: Who, on the national level, is a true conservative?
    Until you answer that, we’ve got no choice to regard you as less than a coward – you’re a bully who ran away like a coward because someone punched back.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  53. Barb Hartwell says:

    If the GOP nominates Santorum and loses to Obama the Republicans will be right where they are today, divided. The foolish social issues from the extreme Christian right inflamed many. Then we have the mega wealthy wanting to destroy the middle-class. One half of them probably is waiting for a guy like Jim Jones to lead them into the promised land and the other half wants to lead the rest of us into their web of poverty. The ones that are not paying attention are the ones I`m afraid of. I want everyone to have the truth and decide what is best. There will always be people like Eric that don`t really know what they want , they just do not want Obama and they can`t tell you why either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  54. JohnMcC says:

    The after-action report that conservatives filed to themselves after the Goldwater election had them elated because they had found 27 million conservatives and thought they could build on that. According to their official history of the world, the Reagan election proves they did so.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  55. Jib says:

    I honestly think the repubs should nominate Santorum. The GOP coalition the last 30 years has been establishment (Wall Street) economics married with cultural populism. Then along came the Tea Party which brought a conservative economic populism into the GOP. This directly threatened the Wall Streeters and left the cultural warriors without any followers as they were all now in the Tea Party.

    In 2012 the TP is muted. Romney is the establishment economics candidate, Santorum is the cultural populist candidate, the TP candidate, Palin, sits on the sideline. Romney losing means nothing other than Wall Street is unpopular which everyone, repub and dem, knows is true.

    Romney winning is the last best hope that Wall Street has to halt and perhaps reverse their decline so they will put everything into his election. But neither the TP nor the socon’s care for Romney so if he wins, it does little for them. Yes they will be happy Obama is gone but that will last about a month then it will be ‘who is this guy?’.

    On the other hand, a Santorum victory will be a true cultural populist victory with real benefits. It would open up the possibility of a TP / socon alliance, cultural and economic populism combined. Santorum might be able to get much more of his socon agenda passed if he marries it with beating up on Wall Street.

    And if he loses, then Doug is right, at least that part has been answered.

    So Romney loses, nothing learned, Romney wins, blah.
    Santorum loses, big lesson, Santorum wins, possibly big changes.

    Politically, I think Santorum will lose and lose big. But I actually think he has a better chance of winning than Romney. Wall Street will be toxic this election and although he can keep it close, I dont think Romney can win.

    So Romney loses but keeps it close, Santorum most likely loses big but there is a small chance he squeaks a victory (EU collapse, economic turmoil, Santorum campaigns against Wall Street, running to the left of Obama on Wall Street, TP and socons unite, etc)

    If dont think a repub will run against Wall Street remember, Palin has made noise about this. It is out there…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  56. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Barb Hartwell: I don’t think the rich guy really wants to destroy the middle class; there’s simply no alternative to doing so. In a world of “takers” and “makers,” the middle class generally represents the “taker” side of the coin by refusing both to work at the poverty-level wages that are better than they deserve for their efforts (remembering that all income models ultimately represent “confiscation” of the proceeds of “making”) and by failing to become the entrepreneurs/venture capitalists/inventors/professional athletes that the society needs to prosper. The real problem is that this kind of loon really believes that everyone can become rich if we only work for ourselves hard enough (and have an executive position at an investment bank).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  57. superdestroyer says:

    @mattb:

    Since the Republicans are zero chance to win and are basically an irrelevant political party, there are not good candidates. When close to 50% of the voters are automatic Democratic Party voters and a few more percent lean heavily to the Democrats, there will never be a good Republican candidates.

    The real question is whether the media will even bother to cover the 2016 Republican primary after the Republicans lose in a rout in 2012.

    The most important question in 2012 is not will the Republicans nominate to lose in a rout to President Obama but whether Nancy Pelosi will return as Speaker of the House in 2013.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  58. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    the biggest long term mistake that the cheap Repubicans made is amnesty for illegal aliens. Reagan carried California in 1980 and 1984. These days Reagan would lose California by double digits.

    And the taxes that residents in California pay are not really offset by cheaper labor due to open borders and unlimited immigration.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  59. Brummagem Joe says:

    @Jib:

    Santorum might be able to get much more of his socon agenda passed if he marries it with beating up on Wall Street

    You’re forgetting the main goal and purpose of the Republican party as it was explained to me over 50 years ago and I’ve never seen any reason to disagree with it. The Republican party exists to protects the interests of the richest Americans and big business. As for the socon agenda it’s simply unsaleable outside the fundamentalist base of the GOP.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  60. mattb says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Since the Republicans are zero chance to win and are basically an irrelevant political party, there are not good candidates. … blah blah blah… same old same old… republicans irrelevant crap

    Since we’re asking difficult questions, can you again address WHY THE HELL YOU STILL LIVE IN THE US?

    Seriously, you clearly identify conservative — but of some weird older type (though not Burkian or Kirkian) — yet you constantly say that conservatism and republicanism is dead in this country due to darkie… err… “demographic shifts” that are inevitable thanks to the policies of the past.

    You constantly tell us the country is headed for a one party system and to be destroyed by immigrants, people of color, juh-hews, academics and hipsters. And you never offer a bit of hope for anything else.

    I’ve had to read your BS for way too long about the death of a common (read as “White — but the right type of White”) culture.

    Clearly you believe we’re doomed.

    SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU STICKING AROUND?

    Seriously, is it because you’re praying for an eventual race war in the hopes that you can act out your barely concealed fantasies about going postal on “others?”

    I mean, at least most klansmen hold out the hope of a white uprising. You don’t even seem to have that.

    So before you trot out any more of your old school, weak tea, boring ass zenophobic rantings, justify your existence… WHY THE HELL ARE YOU STILL HERE?

    And if you can’t do that, please do be joining Eric in the STFU corner.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  61. superdestroyer says:

    @mattb:

    As I have pointed out many times, the future for middle class whites is about adapting to the changing demographics of the U.S. From white flight in the 1960’s to the hyper competitive tigers moms today, there are many forms of adaption.

    A policy and politics blog should be about discussing how the U.S. will changes and the demographics change. I keep pointing out that a single party state means much higher taxes and much higher level of government spending. Thus, the question is how will people adapt to those higher taxes. Will they be like the handy man who refuses to accept a check or will it cause people to invest more in tax exempt investments or some for of international money movement.

    Demographics is the U.S. is doing to change and to claim that it will not have any impact is taking the same attitude that the last white person in their old neighborhood in Detroit took.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  62. sam says:

    @superdestroyer:

    A policy and politics blog should be about discussing how the U.S. will changes and the demographics change.

    Yeah, but Supe, dude, every single one of your posts, every effing one, could be shortened to:

    White folks is doomed because the coloreds is gonna take over.

    Why don’t you just save the bandwidth? And stop boring the shit out of us with longer versions?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  63. superdestroyer says:

    @sam:

    Any discussion about politics that does not discuss demographics is not a discussion based in reality. Every area of politics is heavily influence by demographics.

    So any discussion of the Republican Party, the changes of Republican candidates, or the future of the politics must be a discussion that includes demographics, ethnicity, and culture.

    If not that whites are doomed but how whites adapt to being a minority inside a U.S. Does the U.S. continue having affirmative action when most than 50% of the population qualifies. How does the U.S. compete in a global market place when China has more people capable of learning calculus than the U.S. has as its total population. What migration trends will occur due to changing demographics.

    The Republicans refusal to discuss demographic and refuse to face the inevitable consequences of demographic changes just demonstrates that they are not serious and are not competent enough to put in charge of the government.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  64. sam says:

    You’re boring us again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  65. Brummagem Joe says:

    @sam:

    Old superdestroyer, as subtle as a guy with bells on his hat. This presumably means he’ll be voting Democrat.

    The Republicans refusal to discuss demographic and refuse to face the inevitable consequences of demographic changes just demonstrates that they are not serious and are not competent enough to put in charge of the government.

    Yeah…right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  66. Eric Florack says:

    In other words, your ideas about who should be running the country are based on a fantasy about leaders who do not exist.

    Not even close.
    But what you fail to reckon with is that the tea party has gone on as long as it has and is strongly as it has and is continued to grow as it has because it ties itself to principle not personality.

    Whereas the democrats appeared of tie themselves to a personality. Obama. How’s that working out for you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  67. Eric Florack says:

    If you’re still lurking, I just want you to know your weak-sauce act will haunt you as long as you continue to comment at OTB. The moment your head pops up to spew the crap you believe passes for deep thinking, I intend to hammer you with the same question again and again: Who, on the national level, is a true conservative?

    If you’re flyweight nonsense is what’s considered hammering…. trust me you will present no problem whatsoever.

    All you’ve got going is the repeatedly disproven claims that anyone who dares stand for conservative principles is immediately inferior to yourself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  68. Eric Florack says:

    After watching what has been happening in the presidential races, and what has been happening in the congressional races, I’m becoming convinced that the real change for conservatism is to occur not within the presidency not within the White House but within the halls of Congress. All that’s needed at this point, is a president who will sign the bills that have already been written and will be run through the procedure as soon as we rip the gavel out of Harry Reid’s hands.

    That’s hardly a new observations, by the way. Nor is it a new angle. After all what did Obama do but signed bills that the democrats already had in the pipeline? The only real success is that he has had, are where he has gone over congressional heads, and continued Bush policy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  69. Brummagem Joe says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Whereas the democrats appeared of tie themselves to a personality. Obama. How’s that working out for you?

    Pretty well. Intrade has him at 59 % for re-election

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  70. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    He’s baaaaaa-ack!

    So, bit/Eric, pleas answer: Who, on the national level, is a true conservative?

    All you’ve got going is the repeatedly disproven claims that anyone who dares stand for conservative principles is immediately inferior to yourself.

    But you haven’t stood up for anything!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  71. PogueMahone says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Whereas the democrats appeared of tie themselves to a personality. Obama. How’s that working out for you?

    Whereas Bithead ties himself to a phantom personality. How’s that working out for you?
    Not too well, it seems.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  72. Buffalo Rude says:

    At the very least, maybe it would be what’s needed to finally start reconstructing the Republican coalition that put Ronald Reagan into office 30 years ago rather than letting the GOP continue to drift down the road.

    Do you mean the coalition between Big Business(TM) and the resentments of the social conservatives? That coalition still exists and, frankly, Santorum is the poster child. Between the god-bothering and his extensive ties to K Street (especially during the lobbying scandal), good ol’ Frothy is arguably the logical conclusion of the coalition that picked up the pieces of the Nixon-led Republican party and ran with the Reagan Revolution.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  73. mattb says:

    So after all of that, Eric’s only responce is that his brand of magic-unicorn-glitter-fart conservatism works only on the local level.

    So basically he continues not to be able to name a single person on the national stage that he would back as a “realz” conservative.

    It’s got to suck to be Eric.

    He’s going to spend the rest of your life watching his brand of conservatism fail, his imagined white… oops, right America disappear, and all the while you’ll do everything you can to convince yourself that despite every fact to the contrary, you are in the right.

    At least if you lived in the South — say Alabama — there might be a little hope on the local level. But come on Eric, you live in New York State. An it’s in the midst of the Cuomo resurgence (a success for pragmatic independents, not partisans).

    Things are not going to get better for you. But I can predict that you, at least, will continue to get bitter.

    It’s so sad to think that all you have left is faith, and you don’t even really have that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  74. mattb says:

    @superdestroyer:

    As I have pointed out many times, the future for middle class whites is about adapting to the changing demographics of the U.S. From white flight in the 1960′s to the hyper competitive tigers moms today, there are many forms of adaption.

    Again, I call BS — please point out any place where you have spoken hopefully about “White America’s” chances of successfully adapting to those demographics.

    All you want to do is talk about Race. And you never want to imagine any sort of positive outcome.

    Please point out any place where you’ve ever displayed any hope for the future of America as you see it. You always invoke Detroit as the future.

    You’re a broken record. You don’t have hope for the future and you don’t have the basic courage necessary to do anything more than complain.

    Welcome to the sad, sad conservative white man club. All the future holds for you is bitterness. May god have mercy friends and relatives who are going to have to put up with you as you continue that pathetic descent.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  75. DRS says:

    Twice SuperDestroyer (and can I just say again what a silly name this is?) has written intelligent posts without his usual doom-and-gloom about race – both were in threads about sports and universities. The first concerned remuneration for coaches of university teams and the second in the thread about sports scholarships which is still recent and on the opening page. Both displayed knowledge of the subject matter and were written objectively and provided good info.

    So my question to SD is – why can’t you write like that all the time?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  76. An Interested Party says:

    I’m becoming convinced that the real change for conservatism is to occur not within the presidency not within the White House but within the halls of Congress.

    Ahhh…so the likes of Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Thune, and Marco Rubio represent conservatism’s bright, shining future? Oh Eric, you poor thing…

    So my question to SD is – why can’t you write like that all the time?

    It’s hard for racists to consistently write intelligent posts…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  77. mattb says:

    @DRS:
    That I think is ultimately the frustration that has driven my posts in this thread. I have, in the past, “liked” posts by both SD and Eric.

    Eric has correctly pointed out positions in the past where I’ve been off base. And he’s written things that I think were well thought out.

    Unfortunately, both of them are also so dogmatic about the correctness of EVERYTHING they write and so sure of not just their positions but of the supposed intellectual grounding of their positions that it completely guts their positive contributions. And it makes it impossible to have any sort of honest conversation with them.

    I realize that saying I pity them tends to make me come across as the a-hole, but it’s the truth. Both are so wedded to a sad, shrinking view of the world, increasingly divorced from any sort of reality, that not only is it difficult to engage with them, but it just has to be difficult to be them.

    And frankly, that just makes me sad for them, and even sadder for those who have to listen to them, in RL, on a regular basis.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  78. al-Ameda says:

    I’m a Democrat and I definitely support Rick heading up the ticket.
    I hope the Rick is in it to the bitter end.

    What hurts Mitt Romney is that he is probably the least authentic and least sincere national politician in the last 25 years. No one can say that Mitt definitely believes in anything.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  79. superdestroyer says:

    @DRS:

    The writing is the same. The trick is to avoid the fan boy media on topics like sports or politics and look at the underlying data and information. What got me interested in college coach pay was when Notre Dame fired Tyrone Willingham and the president of the university said he had nothing to do with it.

    The same thing happens in politics all of the time. Why did Kerry and Bush put so much effort into Ohio and ignore states like California, NY, and Texas. Because that was where the swing votes were. If you look back in voting history, the old Confederate States went almost 100 years without electing any Republicans. It did not matter when the states were much smaller and was off set by the Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. The Republicans did not do anything to try to win the south and there were no relevant Republican candidates.

    Why should the same thing occur at the national level when more than 50% of the population are automatic Democratic voters. Why can’t the U.S. be a one party. DC, Mass., Chicago, and now California function as one party state. Countries like Japan and Mexico went decades with only one relevant political party. As the demographics of the U.S. of tomorrow become the demographics of Mexico or Brazil today, why shouldn’t the politics be the same.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  80. Latino_in_Boston says:

    Your commentary about Japan and Mexico shows that you don’t know very much about either country.

    Mexico’s longstanding PRI dominance had nothing to do with demographics, as neither did the LDP’s, it had much more to do with particular historical developments–the Mexican Revolution and World War II–that shifted power to those particular groups and used it to control the political landscape and prevent competition. That same dynamic is not about to happen in the US (as much as I would love for it to in favor of the Democrats).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  81. Jib says:

    @Brummagem Joe: I agree with you, that is the GOP establishments focus. But the Tea Party is a direct challenge to this which is why FNC worked so hard to redirect it to the deficit and big govt and away from Wall Street. And the socon’s know that they have been taken for a ride by establishment.

    The sogens can not win a straight up election and honestly, I think they know that. But a anti-Wall Street campaign would be very popular this fall. Technically there is nothing to prevent Santorum from completely abandoning culture war and go full on anti-Wall Street. The socons wont push it because they know he is one of them. It does not violate any of his personal ideology. And once in office, he can push a lot of the socon agenda.

    I dont think he will do this but Obama is vulnerable to an attack from the left on Wall Street. Everyone is pissed off at how easy Wall Street got off. It is the only way for Santorum to win, however very, very unlikely. But a former financier like Romney is NOT getting elected in 2012 no matter what. So I still say it is the best chance the repubs have.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  82. anjin-san says:

    I’m becoming convinced that the real change for conservatism is to occur not within the presidency not within the White House but within the halls of Congress.

    How’s that working out? Congressional approval is at an all time low, and Obama his repeatedly humiliated the Republicans in the house since he decided to take the gloves off. So much for the tea party revolution.

    I guess since there is not a single conservative in this country who has the stature to be a credible candidate for President, this is the best you can do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  83. anjin-san says:

    The only real success is that he has had, are where he has gone over congressional heads, and continued Bush policy.

    Right. Like his continuation of Bush’s “I don’t really care about Bin Laden and I am disbanding the unit that is searching for him” policy.

    How’s that working out for you?

    Pretty good. Bush left our country on the brink of catastrophe. Now the stock market has recouped the mind boggling losses that were part of his legacy and we are in a job/general recovery. Well at least according to that noted Obama tool the Wall St. Journal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  84. WR says:

    @Eric Florack: “But what you fail to reckon with is that the tea party has gone on as long as it has and is strongly as it has and is continued to grow as it has because it ties itself to principle not personality. ”

    Actually, the only thing the Tea Party ties itself to is the corporate cash shoveled to Dick Armey, As for it continuing to grow, that’s only true in its lack of popularity…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  85. grumpy realist says:

    @superdestroyer: Actually, the major reason Japan had the LDP running things for so long was because the opposition was so freakin’ horrible.

    I mean, the major point of conflict between the Japanese Socialist Party and the Japanese Democratic Socialists was whether Marx or Lenin was more correct.

    (The Communist Party decided both were wrong and decided to form a “purely Japanese” form of communism. Interestingly enough, the Communist Party is the only grass-roots party in Japan. Quite a few of them get elected as mayors of the smaller towns.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  86. accidentalfission says:

    @Brummagem Joe:
    You write: “,,, Eric who I don’t think is a multi millionaire hedge fund manager but he’s been brainwashed into believing that his interests roughly coincide with theirs. How you could possibly arrive at this conclusion is beyond my capacity to explain but there it is.”

    I only have two explanations for this phenomenon and I’ve been trying to understand it for a long time.

    1) The Republicans are “pro-life”.
    2) http://www.amazon.com/Rainbow-Pie-Redneck-Joe-Bageant/dp/192164091X

    That’s a link to Joe Bageant’s last book. He passed on a short time after its publication. He explains the phenomenon as well as anyone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0