I think Rick Santorum woke up this morning wishing he could have a do-over, but in politics, there is no such thing. And worse yet, soundbites and media frenzy will continue to extend the life of last night's nightmare debate performance.
 |
| Photo from The New Yorker |
For Santorum, last night was a disaster. By all accounts, he was the clear loser. He came into the debate with a huge advantage--namely surging poll numbers and the coveted media buzz highlighting the excitement surrounding his candidacy. Advantages that for two weeks, Santorum effectively drained away from his rivals.
But in politics, everything can change in a day...
***
Today, Rick Santorum's popular message of being the "only true conservative" is no longer effective. This message got muddied up last night and oddly enough, Santorum did it to himself.
Santorum walked on stage with the advantage and yet, he wasn't able to profit from any of it. His rivals were able to effectively portray him as a product of Washington DC--an overspending politician who over and over puts party before principle. Santorum spent most of the night rambling on about why voted for bills he opposed. It wasn't good. He left the stage a bruised and weakened candidate.
 |
| Photo from Politico.com |
When questioned about some of his votes, Santorum said, "I have to admit, I voted for that (No Child Left Behind). It was against the principles I believed in, but you know, when you're part of a team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader, and I made a mistake."
Hmm. This didn't exactly help his war cry of being an individual that is "consistently" and "courageously" conservative.
His weakest moment came when he tried to defend his position on earmarks. He once again defended the practice of earmarks and said that "Congress has a role of allocating resources." He defended his $1 billion earmark record, but not very well.
He became so tangled in his explanation that he actually ended up helping Mitt Romney. He tried to point out that Romney had secured earmarks for security measures for the Salt Lake Olympics. His tangled attack however, made Romney's Olympic earmarks seem valiant and a justified federal expense. The nail in the coffin came when Romney pointed out that Santorum had actually supported Mitt Romney's earmark effort when he voted to approve federal funds for the Olympics.
To make matters worse, CNN reported today that during the debate, Google searches for the word "earmark" spiked 2300%. (click to read CNN article). Yeah, I am pretty sure that Santorum is not thrilled that an increase of 2300% means more people are better educated on the controversial spending habits of our politicians.
Some of the strongest zingers of the night came from Representative Ron Paul. The moderator John King asked Paul about his new campaign ad depicting Senator Santorum as a "fake fiscal conservative." When asked why he depicts Santorum as a "fake," Ron Paul responded, "Because he's a fake." He portrayed Santorum as a typical candidate--one who overspends as a politician, but as a candidate, claims to be fiscally conservative, one who suddenly advocates to repeal all the expensive bills he had voted to approve.
Ron Paul made Santorum look like a hypocrite. Unfortunately Santorum's record compared with his campaign message shows that he is.
***
We are now five days from the pivotal Michigan and Arizona primaries. Mitt Romney, the clear winner of last night's debate is campaigning today with a swing in his step. On the other hand, Rick Santorum is campaigning, but will undoubtedly be stuck in his now muddied message. Will it resonate? Has his turn at the top expired?
Santorum is desperate for some big name endorsers to spin attention away from his damaging remarks, but as I mentioned here, Rick Santorum doesn't have any big endorsements. No colleagues, no senators, no representatives, no governors have endorsed him. No one, but Santorum can rally to his defense. Is it going to be enough?
(On a day like today, it is clear that endorsements matter).
This process has been a volatile roller coaster ride, but one thing has remained constant and that constant is Mitt Romney. Despite the resistance to his candidacy, attacks from all sides, and rejection from the ultra conservative base, Mitt Romney continues to survive. He continues to rise to the top.
 |
| Getty Images |
***
The purists continue to reject him and even if Romney wins on Tuesday, the purists will still resist and continue seeking the anti-Mitt candidate. However, I would be willing to bet that Mitt Romney will survive...again.
Why? Mitt Romney survives not because he is clever or because he has a better organization, he survives because Mitt Romney is a remarkable candidate. A remarkable leader whose experience makes him unique. A candidate whose successes make him different, whose skills make him valuable. Mitt Romney will be a weapon for our party. He will be an invaluable asset to our country.
I think it is time to rally. Time to rally behind the candidate with the best chances of beating Barack Obama. Time to rally behind the candidate whose conservative principles won't alienate independents, whose statements won't fuel a social ideological war. It is time to rally behind the candidate who has been prepared for the fight to save America and has the skills to actually be successful.
 |
| Photo from planetromney.com |
Purists, it is time. It is time to rally behind Mitt Romney.
What I found particularly interesting about the earmark discussion was that go
ReplyDeleteGrinch a Romney were mostly on the same page. They both feel that earmarks are okay (as do I) but only if presented on a requests own merits, voted on and places in an independent and separate bill dealing only with that request. Santorum's view is to allow it in conjunction with a bill rider on a bill that has to pass. Without the line item veto, this type of earmark appropriation is just wrong.
I also loved when both Ron Paul and Romney pointed out that Santorum is on the record for supporting Ttle 10 funding for planned parenthood. It was hard for Santorum to spin his way out of that.
Where I was supremely disappointed with Romney was his answer to the last question. I think his answer should have been an actual answer. I think his biggest misconception is that he is egotistical and out of touch. His refusal to answer the question and to get defensive just validated that opinion of him. I was so disappointed in that answer. But overall I think he pulled off a good win.
Kara, I completely agree with you. Mitt's answer to that last question was a HUGE missed opportunity. He was given a rare chance to be a real person, show his sincerity and win some points on being "real." Instead his attempt to "get" John King came across as awkward and it was VERY ineffective. Anything would have been better than what he chose to say. His image problem is real. People don't understand him or relate to him. Mitt needs to figure out how to connect or the base will continue to justify a rally behind the unelectable, but "likable" candidate Rick Santorum.
Delete