Event Alert: NFIB and Associated Builders and Contractors welcome Dr. Bob Graboyes to discuss health care issues in Albuquerque on Thursday, January 12 at 7:30 a.m. Additional events follow on the 13th in Santa Fe and 17th in Las Cruces for details visit the website here and be sure to register today.
As you probably all know by now, Romney squeaked by Santorum to achieve victory by a mere 8 votes yesterday. Today, Matt Welch has a compelling column at CNN on Why Romney’s front-runner status is nuts:
In the 2008 Republican Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney received 30,021 votes, 25% of the total, good for second place against a socially conservative evangelical (Mike Huckabee), who within seven weeks would become enough of a nonfactor in the presidential race that he appeared on “Saturday Night Live”mocking his own electability.
In the 2012 caucuses, after four more years of introducing himself to a recession- and Washington-weary America, Romney received 30,015 votes, 25% of the total, good for a razor-thin, eight-vote win over a socially conservative Catholic (Rick Santorum), who has acomparatively weak national campaign organization outside the early-primary states.
Yet Iowa arguably derailed Romney in 2008 while shoring up his front-runner status this time around. GOP politics have become so fluid, so unpredictable, so bizarre, that the main point of the game is more about survival than winning.
* * *
This may be enough to help Romney survive against three competitors who are more excitable. But it also sets up one whale of a paradox: After 39 months of consistent public hostility to bailout economics, after the rise of the tea party movement, after town-hall opposition to “Obama care,” after the long-shot Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, after the 2010 limited-government resurgence in the House of Representatives … after all of these unmistakable signs of public — let alone Republican — sentiment, the alleged party of limited government may be on the verge of nominating someone who is running to President Barack Obama’s left on Medicare, whohelped pave the way for the Obama policy Republicans hate most and who has no real plan for cutting the biggest growth items in the federal budget.
Over at Volokh, Ilya Somin declares Rick Santorum as “this year’s Mike’ Huckabee”:
This year’s election was supposed to be something new and different. However, Rick Santorum, the big winner in this year’s Iowa GOP primary is remarkably similar to the big GOP Iowa winner of 2008: Mike Huckabee. Like Huckabee, Santorum is a hard-core social conservative whose big government proclivities extend far beyond social issues. I covered Huckabee’s record in this December 2007 post. Santorum is remarkably similar, perhaps even worse. For the details on Santorum, see this post by David Boaz [HT: co-bloggerDavid Bernstein], and Jonathan Rauch’s thorough review of Santorum’s 2005 book laying out his political philosophy. As Rauch noted, Santorum rejects what he once dismissed as “this whole idea of personal autonomy,” not to mention “the idea that people should be left alone.” He doesn’t just think that freedom should be heavily regulated; he’s against “the whole idea” on principle.
Santorum does have chutzpah. Despite his record, he just gave a victory speech where he emphasized that the main issue in this campaign is “freedom.” If that’s really what it’s about, Santorum’s campaign will end up the same way as Huckabee’s did. I’m no great fan of any of the other remaining GOP candidates. But none of them is as much a big government conservative as Santorum is.
Read more here. Also on Santorum, a poster over at Red State explains some issues with Santorum’s view of the Constitution:
I see Santorum as being more a national activist than a constitutional conservative. Some might even call him a statist when it comes to his ideas about what is right and wrong. Being more a national activist than a constitutional conservative means Santorum is willing to impose his one size fits all ideals upon the whole country through the national government regardless of what the Constitution says. Here’s an example of Santorum’s very unconservative view of the Constitution:
Luntz: Should the states be able to say no to Washington?
Santorum: I’m a very strong supporter of the 10th amendment […], but the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong.
Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, states do not have the right to do wrong. And so there are folks, here who said states can do this and I won’t get involved in that.
I will get involved in that because the states, as a president I will get involved because the states don’t have a right to undermine the basic fundamental values that hold this country together. America is an ideal. It’s not just a constitution, it is an ideal. It’s a set of morals and principles that were established in that declaration, and states don’t have the right, just like they didn’t have the right to do slavery.
I have to ask, am I the only one that wonders if Santorum has actually ever read the 10 amenmdment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Prior to the 13th Amendment, the states did have a right to allow slavery to exist in their territory, and it is only that amendment that denied them that right. I wonder is Santorum trying to revise history too? For him to suggest that there is some other shadowy list of natural principles or ideals that actually prevented states from allowing slavery, sets us all on a slippery slope where the Constitution’s meaning is based less on its historic textual meaning, and instead is more open to arbitrary interpretations and revisions inspite of and contrary to the text. If we disregard our written Constitution in favor of unwritten natural law, then the future of our rights will be even less certain, and establishing what is or isn’t our (natural) rights will be increasingly determined by (as in cases of establishing the terms of verbal contracts) judges rather than the people.
Full column here. From the libertarian-leaning side of the GOP, a few words on Ron Paul:
For Ron Paul’s most ardent supporters, last night’s third-place finish in the Iowa caucus was anundeniable disappointment. The dream of boomeranging from an Iowa victory to a New Hampshire resurgence to an anything-is-possible Super Tuesday has now gone to re-write.
Being exposed as a state front-runner for three tantalizing weeks proved about two weeks too long, as the media and Paul’s competitors hammered away at his foreign policy views, his support among and alignment with non-Republicans, and his foul old newsletters. Exit polling showed clearly that late-breaking voters broke hard away from Ron Paul.
But Paul fans and supporters of limited government more broadly have many reasons to be cheered by last night’s results. Here are seven:
1) Paul more than doubled his vote over 2008, while Mitt Romney’s stayed exactly the same. Seriously, Romney got 30,000 votes (25 percent of the total) in 2008, then 30,000 votes (25 percent of the total) in 2012. Paul vaulted from 10 percent to 21, from 12,000 votes to 26,000. His message of freedom, limited government, attacking the Federal Reserve, and ending wars foreign and domestic is undeniably on the grow.
2) Paul’s delegate- and caucus-focused strategy means that he will likely punch above his electoral weight. The campaign focused not just on doing well at the caucus, but making surePaul-friendly humans get nominated as county delegates, so that when the 25-delegate pie is eventually divvied up Dr. No will get more than projected.
Read all seven reasons here.
Last night’s results have already clearly narrowed the field as Bachmann announced the end of her campaign and speculation that Rick Perry will do the same soon (although according to Perry on Twitter, not just yet). The WSJ described the overall Iowa contest in today’s editorial:
Iowa’s corner of the electorate cast the first verdict of the 2012 Presidential campaign Tuesday night, and the results look more like an opening skirmish than the coronation for Mitt Romney that much of the media had prepared.
As we went to press Wednesday morning, the polls showed a dead heat between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, with Ron Paul a close third and Newt Gingrich a distant fourth. Mr. Romney retains a huge lead in New Hampshire, which votes January 10, but his failure to win a larger share of the vote than he did in 2008 suggests that GOP voters don’t view the former Massachusetts Governor as inevitable.
Many Republicans—especially party elites—have been coalescing around Mr. Romney as the most “electable” candidate, by which they seem to mean the one with the fewest obvious flaws. But electability is a slippery concept, especially 10 months from November. Democrats said the same thing about John Kerry in 2004, while the media were convinced that a right-wing former movie actor was unelectable in 1980. Voters would do better to drop the pundit game theory and choose the best potential President.
On that score, Mr. Romney deserves credit for his doggedness and discipline. However uninspiring, those are useful traits in a candidate or a President. The man who rescued the 2002 winter Olympics has proven he can assemble a team and adapt to the blows of a modern campaign. He has been ruthless in attacking the competitors who were his biggest threats, Rick Perry and Mr. Gingrich, attacking from the right or left if it worked.
Yet Iowa’s flirtation with so many “non-Romney” candidates shows that a majority of Republicans still find him less than convincing. The media want to attribute this to anti-Mormon bias. But the polls show that Mr. Romney’s Mormonism is a much bigger issue among Democrats than within the GOP.
In an exception to our normal policy regarding Political Diary, here is the post-game analysis from the diary:
Romney’s Iowa Paradox
The paradox of the Iowa caucus result is that Mitt Romney showed political vulnerability but also may have strengthened his prospects for the nomination. This is one more sign of the relative weakness of this GOP field.
While Mr. Romney won by eight votes in the end, he failed to exceed his share of the vote from 2008. Iowans knew him very well, yet three quarters of voters kept looking for an alternative, moving from one disappointing conservative hope to another. Mr. Romney did well among older voters, moderates and those who said they were somewhat conservative, according to the entrance polls. But he did poorly among young people, tea party supporters and independents. The former Massachusetts governor has some major coalition maintenance to do if he wins the nomination.
Yet Mr. Romney continues to benefit from the failure of any of his competitors to consolidate the conservative vote. Ron Paul has collared the free-market libertarians and many right-leaning independents. He can’t win the nomination, and he has probably reached his high-water vote total at 21%, but Mr. Paul can continue to take 10% or more of the vote that might go to another non-Romney.
Rick Santorum is the latest to have a chance to emerge as the main conservative alternative, and he’ll get a fresh look from voters. But he’ll have to compete with Mr. Paul and Newt Gingrich, who plans to stay in the race. The former speaker is a double-edged sword for Mr. Santorum. Mr. Gingrich may help Mr. Santorum by targeting Mr. Romney, but he’ll also make it harder for Mr. Santorum to get Mr. Romney in the one-on-one match that would give the Pennsylvanian the best chance to win.
Perhaps the main question is whether Mr. Santorum’s message can galvanize enough voters to begin to unite the social and economic wings of the GOP. He’ll win the social wing for sure, but the economy is this year’s biggest issue — even in culturally conservative South Carolina, where the jobless rate is 9.9%. My colleague James Freeman (see below) thinks Mr. Santorum began a successful economic pivot on Tuesday night. To win the nomination, he’ll have to press the issue and persuade voters that he’s a better economic messenger than Mr. Romney. Otherwise, Mr. Romney’s divide-and-conquer strategy will carry the day.
– Paul A. Gigot
‘Game On’
With those words Rick Santorum began his speech in Iowa last night, and the former Pennsylvania senator quickly made clear that he is ready to play well beyond the Hawkeye State. Dismissed by pundits as a social-issues candidate playing to a narrow base of religious voters, Mr. Santorum gave the strongest speech of the night as he pressed for policies to revive American manufacturing. He even managed to maintain rhetorical momentum while describing plans to eliminate major federal regulations. Summing up President Obama’s economic policies, Mr. Santorum said, “This administration is crushing business.”
Particularly intriguing for economic conservatives, and perhaps disturbing for the White House, Mr. Santorum effectively tied heavy government burdens on business with the loss of middle-class jobs. He also spoke movingly of his working-class background as an immigrant coal miner’s grandson and made an explicit pitch to blue-collar workers in the industrial Midwest. If nothing else, Mr. Santorum demonstrated that if he wins the GOP nomination, he will force an overhaul of Mr. Obama’s campaign message. Mr. Santorum will strike no one as a Wall Street plutocrat.
If anything, his economic plan tilts too far toward Main Street factories, with its zero federal income tax rate for manufacturers. But other businesses would also catch a break, as their tax rate would be cut in half, while there would be just two individual income tax rates of 10% and 28%. As for the latter, Mr. Santorum noted that if it was “good enough for Reagan, it’s good enough for me.” No doubt it will also be good enough for many Republican primary voters.
– James Freeman
Team Obama’s Spin
Wednesday morning quarterbacks on Team Obama said they take comfort in Mitt Romney’s eight-vote victory over Rick Santorum in Iowa last night because it revealed a lack of enthusiasm for the former Massachusetts governor.
Mr. Romney “started the race with a quarter [of the caucus vote]. Ended it with a quarter,” Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod told Politico. “Four years later, he didn’t add any votes despite a vigorous commitment of time and money down the stretch.” Jim Messina, who serves as President Obama’s campaign manager, wise-cracked, “Where’s the enthusiasm?”
Compared with four years ago, Mr. Romney has spent very little time in Iowa, a place where retail politics is rewarded. Yet he managed to best rivals like Mr. Santorum, Ron Paul and others who focused much more on the state. The question isn’t why didn’t he break 25%. The question is why was he able to do as well as he did before while giving Iowans much less face time.
And while it’s true that Mr. Obama won the Iowa caucuses in 2008 with record turnout of 239,000, or roughly double the number of people estimated to have voted last night, it’s also true that Democratic voters are not nearly as excited about the president today as they were when he was a candidate four years ago. If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, he will face a president whose current approval rating (42%) is lower than his disapproval rating (50%), according to a Gallup Poll taken last month. That’s the lowest approval rating ever recorded for an incumbent president at this point in his first term.
Perhaps the Obama campaign ought to be more worried about enthusiasm for the president.
– Jason L. Riley
Reason.TV has an interesting post-Iowa video up with its usual Ron Paul focus (click here to view in YouTube):