1. It looks like many of the delegates selected by Pennsylvania will not be Santorum supporters even if Santorum win the popular vote in his home state. One of the wonders of the race is how little support Santorum has gotten within the institutional Republican Party. The Pennsylvania Republican Party establishment seems to be doing its bit to make sure that Santorum doesn’t get the nomination. Santorum is also giving them a little help with his own campaign’s incompetence and disorganization:
The ranks of delegate hopefuls are littered with Republican state committee members, elected officials and others with close party ties, who will ultimately be more beholden to a state party leadership that, while officially neutral, is visibly leaning in Romney’s direction and increasingly vocal in its fear that Santorum could hurt the party in a general election — especially after witnessing his 18-point drubbing in 2006.
Romney, Ron Paul and even Newt Gingrich got some of their supporters on the ballot as delegate candidates. But Santorum’s campaign officials, who have struggled with ballot organization issues across the country, privately concede that they just didn’t have the time, nor resources, to organize their own supporters to run as delegates when the paperwork was due earlier this year.
“At this point the delegate candidates are lined up everywhere but with Rick,” said Charlie Gerow, a longtime GOP strategist supporting Gingrich.
2. It also appears that the Santorum’s campaign is having trouble properly organizing his speaking events. The lack of support for Santorum from the institutional Republican Party is disturbing but hardly disqualifying. Sure he has only a couple more congressional endorsements than Ron Paul and half as many as Newt Gingrich, but no one ever said that the Republican congressional caucus has a monopoly on political wisdom. But look at the picture. The two groups of politicians who know him best are in Pennsylvania (where he is from, and the state he represented in Congress) and Washington D.C. (where he has largely been based out of for the last twenty years.) The Republican politicians from those two places are, at best, very cool to him. Maybe that tells us something important about what kind of general election candidate and President they fear Santorum would be. Santorum is a professional politician who has never held an executive position. His campaign so far has not done much to allay concerns about his executive competence.
3. So how has Santorum gotten this far? Because he has his virtues. He seems like a personally very decent guy (unlike Gingrich and Cain.) He seems to have a set of firm principles (unlike Romney and Gingrich.) He is knowledgeable about national-level policy (unlike Cain, Perry, or Bachmann.) He doesn’t quit after a few reversals (unlike Pawlenty.) His campaign doesn’t ooze contempt for Republican primary voters (unlike Huntsman’s.) He just doesn’t seem to have the rhetorical discipline and organizational ability to go all the way.
March 18th, 2012 | 7:30 pm
Thanks for the info, however, it doesn’t change my appreciation of the Rickster, since he’s the only conservative running. And, while I know he’s prostituted himself for the GOP, it’s possible he’s had a ‘come to Jesus’ epiphany and now seeks to drive out the commie-Obamacon/dems, and restore order in the republic.
No one else, running, comes close.
March 18th, 2012 | 10:27 pm
Pete,
It seems that criticisms of Santorum come in two camps: one, he’s a radical non-mainstream candidate (read, orthodox Catholic, the last group, along with perhaps evangelical Christians, that one can hold a respectable prejudice against), and two, he’s a good guy with a good message but he’s not disciplined and did not have an organization in place in time. I suggest that while he can connect with middle America on economic issues, understands better than any other importance of the healthcare issue, and whether you agree with it or not, has a reasonable foreign policy strategy, and further clearly has experience and intelligence, he was unable to put together an organization early on because, although he would not compel anyone to share his views on contraception, the Republican establishment, on the one hand cannot comprehend anyone that holds his social views – the views by the way largely of the Catholic church, and on the other hand, cannot believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that such a candidate could win a general election. I am suggesting that he could not organize because he could not obtain support early on because of anti-Catholic prejudice (that is prejudice against those that actually publicly profess the views of their Church, as opposed to cafeteria style Catholics) on the one hand, and cowardice or skepticism by those that might agree with him politically but either couldn’t tolerate his views on contraception in particular, or don’t feel that prejudice against anyone who would hold those views could ultimately be overcome. There are other complexities to be sure, including concern by some that he has the ear of a “neo-con” pro war lobby, and that he promotes spending and big government, neither of which I would largely agree with, but surely anti-Catholicism on the one hand, and fear of anti-Catholicism on the other, has played a very important role in the challenges he has faced in organization, which in turn plays some role in discipline. Its unfortunate that this anti-Catholicism, and anti-orthodox Christian outlook by the Republican establishment isn’t named with more particularity. It might be time for Santorum supporters to consider withholding their vote for Romney despite the importance of this election.
March 19th, 2012 | 7:17 pm
John, which of the following probably is more likely to better describe the thinking of pro-life and conservative (in the common “political” sense) Catholic Republicans like Bobby Jindal and John Boehner?
1. He is, on a personal level, against the use of contraceptives generally even though he has no stated intention to use the coercive power of the state to limit the availability of contraception. I just can’t handle that – or the public can’t handle that.
2. He is, whatever his considerable virtues, an easily distracted loud mouth who lacks the self-discipline to focus on high salience issues.
Or to put it another way, how many people even know his opinions on health care policy as opposed to hearing about him trying to put out the various fires he helps light. It is true that reporters keep suckering him into these scraps. It is also true that he keeps playing the role of the sucker. And that (along with his seemingly lousy executive abilities) is a much bigger problem for him in the primaries than his Catholicism.
To give an example from today: I was watching the 6:00PM Fox News show and Santorum was giving an interview. It sounded like it was being held in a hurricane.
March 19th, 2012 | 8:11 pm
Pete,
I guess without attributing Divine Powers to Santorum he is not responsible for the hurricane like winds. Perhaps Divine Providence though is against him and has raised a hurricane to propel Romney to the unenviable position of debating health care, given his record, with P. Obama. Thus, through said hurricane Divine Providence guides a pro-abortion politician to victory in 2012. Why? Perhaps a chastisement upon the nation. Or, if one buys the notion, that within the cold infinite spaces of the universe, to put it nicely, stuff happens, chance and necessity, and all that, then Rick Santorum is less responsible for the hurricane. But I suspect that you mean that Santorum, if he were presidential, would have the organization in place to control for the various contingencies he’s faced with, eg. not letting him be interviewed in a hurricane. On that point, you win. They, I guess you’re suggesting, should have controlled the environment and made sure he was interviewed where he could be understood. Sorry I didn’t see the interview so not sure how it went down.
Its not that I’m not at times frustrated by the Senator’s “lack of discipline”, but I’m more frustrated by the fact that he clearly has the highest combined index of being conservative, having experience, qualification and personal virtue and yet so much is made of his “gaff’s”. Which of them, other than perhaps suggesting that it might be “snobbish” to wish ones children to go to college, disqualifies him as a conservative Judeao-Christian candidate? And why should these views not be allowed in the public square? Many have told me that while they agree with him, they think he should be more prudent in voicing his views, and for that reason they can’t support him. And yet he has only said that he is personally opposed to contraception, not that he would try to force this view on others. I suspect that if those who wished him to be more prudent, and we could argue as to whether they’re referring to an Aristotelian-Thomist version of prudence or rather a more Machivellian version, showed a combination of prudence and courage would realize that whatever Senator Santorum’s weaknesses may be, these would much less magnified if they would support him. Got a better current candidate Pete?
March 20th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
John, or he could have held his interview indoors.
” And why should these views not be allowed in the public square?” Lots of views are debatable and even right, but aren’t about high salience issues in a presidential election and it might well be prudent to focus discussion on other things.
“that whatever Senator Santorum’s weaknesses may be, these would much less magnified if they would support him.” No. His problems with persuadables and that fraction of voters who identify themselves in the Republican primary exit polls as “somewhat conservative” would be precisely the same even if I didn’t notice or comment on them.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact