The Economist
"if Mr Santorum does hang in long enough to have a serious shot at the nomination, it would be a fascinating outcome—a win for the socially conservative, big-government side of the Republican party, after three years in which much of the discourse has been dominated by the fiscally conservative, isolationist, anti-government strain."
Who is Rick Santorum?
by E.G. | AUSTIN
THE official tally came in during the early hours of the morning: Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus, by a mere eight votes. But as many observers quickly noted, that's basically a tie between Mr Romney and Rick Santorum, who finished second. And given the expectations going in—Mr Romney is the guy with all the money and name recognition, and he had said he was going to win—a tie should probably be considered a win for Mr Santorum.
But this raises a question: who is Rick Santorum, in this context? That is, is he Rick Santorum, the big-government Catholic conservative, or is he the latest in a string of "not-Romneys"? That seems to be a going debate around the blogosphere this morning, with many pundits implying that Mr Santorum is just the latest in a string of rising (then falling) candidates not named Mitt, albeit the one who happened to crest at exactly the right time. "The question is whether Santorum is equipped to be an effective 'not Romney'", writes W. James Antle at the American Spectator. At the American Catholic Donald McClarey says, "Last night the identity of the Not Romney candidate was determined." And at RedState, Erick Erickson argues that if Mr Santorum was more than the latest not-Romney Iowans would have supported him much sooner:
Santorum visited all 99 Iowan counties, some of them repeatedly. His “successful” campaign never, ever caught on with Iowa voters despite all that retail time in Iowa. It only became successful when every single other candidate had been vetted and imploded and there was absolutely no other person familiar to the voters who could stand as the non-Romney candidate.
However, there are some indications that Mr Santorum is more than just the latest not-Romney. David Brooks had a widely read op-ed yesterday praising the former senator's concern for the working class: "I do believe that he represents sensibility and a viewpoint that is being suppressed by the political system." Ross Douthat concurs that Mr Santorum has his strengths: "He has deep blue-collar roots, a more substantial legislative record than many of his rivals, and his campaign has been the only one to even try to hit the right-wing communitarian notes that Mike Huckabee struck so effectively four years ago." And as Dave Weigel notes, Rick Santorum spent $1.65 for every vote he received in the caucus; Rick Perry spent $817. That would seem to suggest that Iowa voters were drawn to Mr Santorum's particular message, despite the shoestring budget.
So there are two ways to interpret the Santorum win: as a win for Mr Santorum, or as a vote against Mr Romney. We'll get some clues soon enough as to which it is. Mr Santorum will get a big boost in attention and funds after last night, which will help him campaign. But as all the not-Romneys to date can attest, those sudden surges of attention can do a campaign more harm than good. At some point, the anti-Romney vote needs to coalesce around a candidate, but if Mr Santorum is merely not Mr Romney, I doubt that will be enough to keep his candidacy humming. On the other hand, if Mr Santorum does hang in long enough to have a serious shot at the nomination, it would be a fascinating outcome—a win for the socially conservative, big-government side of the Republican party, after three years in which much of the discourse has been dominated by the fiscally conservative, isolationist, anti-government strain.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/iowa-caucuses-2
No comments:
Post a Comment