Rick Santorum, Iowa, and the Republican Nomination

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum has some very dangerous ideas, but I’m not at all concerned about his strong showing in Iowa. The Republicans have been cycling through all of the non-Romneys. The white Christian Iowa Republicans are so horrified that a Mormon could get their party’s nomination that they’ve been frantically searching for anyone else to vote for. Just about all of the other candidates have each spent a couple of weeks as the front runner, only to be doomed by the fact that the Iowans eventually realize that these other candidates are even more reprehensible than a Mormon!

Maybe it’s time for the Republicans to actually read the Constitution, specifically Article VI, paragraph 3, which states, in part:

…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Santorum can attribute his strong showing in Iowa solely to the luck of the calendar. He just happens to be the non-Romney du jour. This near-win will give him a boost that will carry him a few days longer as non-Romney than he would have reached otherwise, but his record, statements, and platform will doom him to the same fate as all the others.

The Republicans—even the batshit insane fundie Republicans—will soon come to their senses and nominate Mitt Romney. Romney is the only Republican candidate who could beat Obama, and it would be a cakewalk. Obama’s record on issues that matter to liberals is so dismal that he will receive few votes from that side. Moderates, of course, will realize that they’re no better off now than four years ago, so those votes are gone. Conservatives will decide that Mormon is better than Muslim. Romney could sleepwalk through the campaign and still pull off a victory.

All of the other Republican candidates are so extreme that if one were nominated, it would force moderates over to Obama, and it will be Obama who cakewalks to victory. Enough Republicans know this that Romney’s nomination is almost assured.

Almost. What a funny word. So fluid and undefined. You can actually sail a supertanker through an “almost”. You could probably squeeze a planet through an “almost”. You see, all Romney has to do to get the nomination is to not do or say anything extremely stupid! The funny thing about American politics, though, is that these self-destructive meltdowns happen with surprising frequency.

So now we sit back and watch for a meltdown. There’s so much carbon in the air these days, we just might see one.

16 Responses to “Rick Santorum, Iowa, and the Republican Nomination”

  1. Sue Blue Says:

    You would think at least some semi-conscious Republican voters would crawl out of their Fox-News-illuminated caves, rub their eyes, get a pencil, and connect the dots between “bathsit crazy”, “dumb as a doorknob”, and “pathological liar” and see how the resulting outline always looks like one of their candidates. No? Well, at least the Republican Calvacade of Cretins is good for laughs.

  2. Jeff Says:

    You would think at least some semi-conscious Republican voters

    Well, there’s your problem, right there.

  3. Sue Blue Says:

    @Jeff: I think you’re right.

    I also heard that the Duggar family has officially endorsed Santorum. I wonder if they realize that only a few of them are old enough to vote. Oh well, it’s that wholesome image that counts, right? “A Vote For Rick is a Vote For Jesus!” Jim Bob (aka “Jizz Blob”) Duggar hopes you will join the Pimps of the Perpetually Pregnant and vote for this Righteous Dude, and not that crazy Mormon cultist.

    I also heard that the Mormon cultist narrowly beat out Righteous Rick as of this morning. The Ever-Expanding Family must be gnashing their teeth right now. Fun!

  4. JB Mason Says:

    I’m frankly surprised you think it would be so easy for Romney to beat Obama. The polls don’t seem to back up your theory. Maybe I’m just hoping you’re wrong, but I think he lacks the charisma to get enough independent votes. If we get really lucky, one of these uber-batshit crazy candidates will run on a 3rd party ticket and split the fundie vote.

  5. Jeff Says:

    The Duggars have a new book out.

    Apparently, unlike their first book, this one goes into greater detail regarding their beliefs. (That requires an entire book? I’d have thought you could cover it in a brief paragraph.) It includes helpful links – one, for example, to a website that “proves” evolution to be impossible.

    It’s been out since June, and has 69 reviews on Amazon; 55 are five-star. Three reviewers gave it one-star, and the fundies queued up in line to attack them. Welcome to America.

    I wish I were dead.

  6. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I’m back from a ton of late year work and long vacation that kept me away and the top post has some delusion about Romney cakewalking to victory?

    For a variety of reasons, this will be a tough reelection for Obama, no argument from me. And if the Republican Party wasn’t so freaking insane, it might be a cakewalk for a candidate, but Romney is not just unappealing to the majority of primary voters, the more he opens his pie-hole, the more everybody hates him.

    Jesus, the man is a walking verbal gaffe! He hasn’t said much until recently (because he has smart advisors), but since Gingrich surged a few weeks ago (and now, Santorum, obvs), he’s had to talk more. And what does he say? He doubles down on Corporations Are People, he loves to fire people, he makes $10,000 pocket change bets, and he is defending every Bain Capital decision (which is a place I’m surprised that Gingrich went since all Republicans basically love the notion of rich people getting richer at any cost). We’ve barely begun and he is already digging his own holes.

    Also, I can’t leave it there with the liberals hate Obama meme. Shit when I have more time, I’ll find some links, but while Obama does not have level support of liberals as W had of conservatives (not surprising as getting liberals to agree on anything that they in fact actually agree is nearly impossible since every one has a different opinion about every nuance of the issue and will cry into the infinities of the internet (previously the Editorials) about how they were betrayed forever and ever, amen), there does not appear to be an enthusiasm gap surfacing yet. He’s exceeded fundraising goals, he continues a very strong liberal approval rating, and most importantly polling does not show a drop in likely liberal voter support.

    Does that mean all liberals like him or will even vote for him? Of course not. There’s always the Nader’2000 folks who will cut off their nose to spite their face. But it’s far from Jimmy Carter territory.

    Maybe this was your point, but it’s largely going to come down to (again) GOTV efforts. I also think, as many do, that the economy will be a big factor influencing voter apathy or even “hey this mormon jerk may be an asshole, but why not” type voting. But plain old door-knocking, phone banking GOTV is key in battleground states.

    In NC, the Obama campaign was running what basically was an incubator project to test various GOTV efforts by helping the local liberals in the local races. Well, the liberals won in a landslide across the state. Because of Obama’s infrastructure? I’m not saying they were the key, but from what I read in the local news feeds at the time, it was considered a resounding success.

    Bring it on.

  7. Infidel753 Says:

    Parrotlover77′s right. Admittedly there are some noisy ultras out there, but most liberals understand that (a) the President does not have dictatorial power and (b) Obama has faced the most obstructionist Congressional Republican bloc in modern history. He’s accomplished a lot. In no area did we get everything we wanted, but that’s pretty much always the case.

    While we’re relatively united, the Republicans have been conducting scorched-earth warfare against each other. Gingrich is putting in the effort and money of creating anti-Romney ads for Obama.

    And even if the Sane faction of Republicans rallies around Romney and wins him the nomination, he’ll come under pressure to choose a running mate from the Nutty faction, to unify the party. No Republican could have won in 2008, but Palin definitely hurt McCain. Just imagine Santorum or Perry or, Satan preserve us, Ron Paul as Romney’s running mate.

  8. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Thanks, Infidel753, I’m glad I’m not alone!

    Gingrich going scorched-earth on Romney really surprised me. I admit it. I expected the non-Romney de jour to attack Romney (and I expected Romney to also attack like crazy as well), but Gingrich framing Romney as an elitist one percenter as if it is a bad thing to Republicans shocked me.

    I fully expected all the primary attacks to be framed as if all the participants are not fellating the free market system enough, not for there to be a line of attack that basically points out the areas where the free market “fails” and might need protection/regulation. Sure, Gingrich isn’t and won’t be calling for any new regulation, but he’s setting up the framing that way unintentionally by pointing out how the free market allow Romney to be a mega-asshole to the working class.

    I’m looking forward to the 30-minute infomercial that is going to air in South Carolina. It will save Obama some money in the general!

    And speaking of running mates, I think Ron Paul is the sleeper Sarah Palin of 2012. Right now he’s enjoying some mainstream acceptance, but the man has so much baggage, it’s unreal. And while he’s “right” on several issues that liberals care about, he’s right for the wrong reasons. Anti-war? Good. Because killing is bad and should be avoided and we shouldn’t mess around in regions that have no strategic purpose for us? Nope. It just costs too damn much. I dream about how Biden would mop the floor of Paul in a debate.

    Time to pop some popcorn!

  9. Ron Britton Says:

    PL:

    You’re getting off light. This is a busy week for me, so I won’t pick apart all of your many fallacies. Actually, I admit that I occasionally go on an anti-Obama rant and that not everybody despises his pathetic job performance as much as I do. He may actually retain a chunk of the liberal vote. He’s not getting mine, and I don’t think he’ll be getting many independents.

    Romney has been around long enough that most of his skeletons are known. I think he’s the most viable of the crowd running, so I expect he’ll be the nominee. The convention is a long way off, so something could still happen to derail him.

    Romney is moderate enough that he’ll get the independents, and that’s really the secret to winning the presidency.

  10. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Wait… so you are going to abstain your vote this cycle in protest? Seriously? I have not met a real life person who was going to do that. Usually after all the complaining, when it comes down to it, people will “hold their nose.”

    So you think Romney will be equivelent or better as President? This explanation I have to hear.

    Because you have to know that your protest non-vote will not actually change anything. It will be a footnote in history, like Naderism in 2000.

    The most effective way to change the course of a presidency is to get better local representation. If it wasn’t for a pathetic wimpy congress, important issues that Obama gets blame for, like Gitmo, would be a settled issue. Same with the public option in the health care bill. I’m not sure which issues are most important to you, but for all of Obama’s failings, pressure from Congress would have changed the outcome of it all. The same can’t be said of a Romney presidency.

    Romney is just Bush the Third. A corporatist swine that will bend to all the corporate special interests and start new wars to get his buddies rich. Jesus, Fake-Maverick McCain is less corporatist than Romney and he was part of the Savings and Loan scandal!

  11. hndqltr Says:

    This just posted to Think Progress:

    NEWS FLASH
    BREAKING: SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES OFFICIALLY UNITE ON RICK SANTORUM AS ROMNEY ALTERNATIVE | Moments ago, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins announced on a conference call that social conservatives had officially settled on Rick Santorum as their preferred candidate for the Republican nomination. The decision was made today after three rounds of balloting at a meeting of more than 150 social conservative leaders and political activists held over the last two days in Brenham, Texas. Though the meeting was widely seen as an effort to settle on a candidate to stop Mitt Romney, Romney’s own campaign sent a representative to make an appeal to the group and Perkins said it was “not a bash Romney weekend” and “not a lot of time” was spent discussing him. Jon Huntsman’s campaign was the only campaign not to participate in the meeting.
    By Josh Dorner on Jan 14, 2012 at 12:36 pm

  12. Sue Blue Says:

    Some synonyms for “religious whackjobs”, “incipient theocrats”, “batshit crazy motherfuckers” and “walking, talking assholes”:

    • Social Conservatives
    • Republicans
    • Tea Partiers
    • Texans (okay, just some Texans)
    • Any organization with “Family” in its title
    • Tony Perkins

    ……and the list goes on. The irony inherent in these Republican electoral free-for-alls is so delicious my mouth is watering. Christians don’t like Mormons. Crazies don’t like other flavors of crazy, not realizing that they’re all friggin’ crazy. I actually see hope in the possibility that the race to scrape the bottom of the crazy barrel may lead to a complete implosion of the Republican party.

  13. Ron Britton Says:

    PL:

    Wait… so you are going to abstain your vote this cycle in protest?

    I never said I was going to abstain my vote. 2008 was the first year I ever voted for a major-party candidate for president. I’m going back to voting Green.

    I have not met a real life person who was going to do that.

    I don’t know anyone personally who has abstained. I know lots of people who have voted for other candidates, though.

    Usually after all the complaining, when it comes down to it, people will “hold their nose.”

    You’re hanging out with the wrong people then.

    Because you have to know that your protest non-vote will not actually change anything. It will be a footnote in history, like Naderism in 2000.

    Not true. The purpose of third-party candidates is to apply pressure to the major parties. If the major parties run candidates too close to the center, they risk a splinter candidate, such as Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. Any strong third-party candidates that emerge are entirely the fault of the major parties themselves. The votes those candidates ultimately receive send a strong message to the party.

    Voting for a major-party candidate that you disagree with is a vote for the perpetuation of the corrupt system of party politics as is.

    The most effective way to change the course of a presidency is to get better local representation.

    I agree with that, but it doesn’t exclude voting for a candidate you believe in for president.

    If it wasn’t for a pathetic wimpy congress, important issues that Obama gets blame for, like Gitmo, would be a settled issue.

    I agree that Congress is at least 50% to blame for Obama’s ineffectiveness. His biggest failing, which he is 100% responsible for, is his civil liberties record. I’m trying to put together a short article on that. Maybe by tonight tomorrow.

  14. Jeff Says:

    I’m going back to voting Green.

    I can’t do that. If we had proportional representation, perhaps – but our system is set up for winner-take-all. Taking a vote away from the Democrats means handing it to the Republicans.

    And I wouldn’t validate the Greens, either. I’m still angry over their absolutely abysmal, childish behavior two campaigns ago. The Dems approached Nader some weeks before the election and pleaded with him to step down, offering Progressives more of a voice in exchange. He refused. I still remember that a day or two after the election, I saw a young woman on the news saying, “We have nothing to apologize for! We aren’t disaffected Democrats; we’re Greens!” Really? That isn’t what their boy went around the country saying for months prior. Meanwhile, they split the Democratic Party and gave us eight years of Bush and a trillion-dollar war.

    Spoiled, selfish little rat bastards. The conservatives aren’t entirely wrong about them.

  15. Ron Britton Says:

    Nader isn’t Green. He was using them. He ran on some other ticket four years later.

    As I said elsewhere, I always vote third party. I’m not taking a vote away from the Democrats. They never had mine.

    The Dems approached Nader some weeks before the election and pleaded with him to step down, offering Progressives more of a voice in exchange. He refused.

    I don’t remember that. I’m not doubting it. He’s a selfish prick out for his own interests.

    That’s the whole point of a third party. To get concessions out of a major party. If that’s what they were offering, they should have grabbed it.

  16. Jeff Says:

    If that’s what they were offering, they should have grabbed it.

    Sure. That’s how I see it. Even if they were lying, he should have taken the chance. Look at the alternative we got stuck with.

    And no one seems to blame Nader. Of course, I’ve been angry with John Anderson for thirty years – and no one ever talks about what he did, either.