Yesterday Michigan voted and Mitt Romney duly squeaked the state of his birth ahead of Rick Santorum, someone assumed previously to be a joke – partly because of Dan Savage’s magnificent redefinition of his name, and partly because he’s the quintessential wingnut.
He’s come out against education, he remains a total homophobe, and he’s gone beyond opposition to abortion and into opposition to contraception, which he described as “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Rick, if God didn’t want us to use johnnies, he wouldn’t have let us work out how.
He also lost his own Senate seat in 2006 by 18 points. Normally getting humped in your home state isn’t the perfect setup for a run at the Presidency. Oh, and his sartorial sense reminds me of Ned Flanders, although even Ned would never lose the sleeves.
The vote in Michigan was closer than would have been imagined a few months ago, though, partly because of the momentum with which he’s been coming from behind, and partly because of #operationhilarity.
The Republicans themselves pressed to open up their nomination process in Michigan to independents and Democrats and make it an open primary. The Democrat blogs and network mavens, having no use for a Democratic vote in Michigan, pushed for a vote for Santorum instead.
The Daily Kos launched the idea two weeks ago as #operationhilarity. The logic is that someone so grotesquely odd and out of touch with the middle of American politics can’t possibly win a general election, so make him the Republican candidate and ta-da! Obama cruises to a second term. Also, watching Rick crash and burn would be truly first class entertainment. As Markos put it, “it’s freaking hilarious. I mean, Rick Santorum? Really? The Republicans have offered up this big, slow, juicy softball. Let’s have fun whacking the heck out of it.”
Rick even played along, having his campaign robo-call blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” to encourage them to vote for him. The combined result? Democrat participation up to 10%, and they split for Santorum more than three to one.
Mitt won anyway, but was this a good idea by Democrats?
On one level it illustrates the absurdity of the American electoral system. However, no amount of doing so seems to lead to change. In fact, the recent changes to campaign finance laws confirm the trend, as put by Michael Spence to the New York Times, that we’ve seen “an evolution from one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.â€
Another perspective, set out in a first class article by Jonathan Chait, says this is the Republican right’s last chance to hold the line on social issues against the coming tide of young people, gays, Hispanics etc. Obama dispatching Santorum would be a clear victory in the 1990s-and-onward reheated version of the 1960s culture wars, true.
But so too would Obama-Romney. Mitt’s made himself into a staunch wingnut that he now has to deny his best achievement in every debate. The outcome would surely be the same, ideologically and practically.
The downside of Rick Santorum being his party’s nominee might be more subtle. He’d bring the far-right theocrats out to vote in larger numbers in November, and the coat-tails effect on House and Senate races would mean disproportionately more of that particular crowd would get elected. No-one goes out to vote Republican in November because they’re passionate about Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney probably isn’t even passionate about himself. But a post-Santorum Congress could be filled with some pretty unpleasant material indeed.
pic is Rick made of gay porn
#1 by Osbert on February 29, 2012 - 1:08 pm
> if God didn’t want us to use johnnies, he wouldn’t have let us work out how.
James, I’m not disagreeing with the sentiment, but that’s a ridiculous argument – nuclear, GMOs, torture, FGM, etc. Or have I missed some irony?
All the best
#2 by James on February 29, 2012 - 1:12 pm
I take your point, but it makes sense to me as a non-theist. And my arguments against the things you list aren’t religious ones. But a smart creator surely wouldn’t have created a world with those things therein?
#3 by Iain Menzies on February 29, 2012 - 2:26 pm
how would it be possible to be good in a world where only good things can happen!?
#4 by James on February 29, 2012 - 2:28 pm
How would it be possible to be bad in such a world?
#5 by Iain Menzies on February 29, 2012 - 7:23 pm
if there is no possibility to be ‘bad’ then you cant be good.
#6 by Jeff on February 29, 2012 - 3:14 pm
As much as I agree with the general thrust of James’ post and that Santorum as, let’s be honest, a religious fundamentalist has no place being President so is the perfect ‘challenger’ to Obama, I’m with you here Osbert.
That ‘johnnies’ line is a poor one employing a child’s logic.
#7 by James on February 29, 2012 - 6:15 pm
Mi-aow! No-one sees the various levels of irony there, eh?
Still, “thrust”.
#8 by Iain Menzies on February 29, 2012 - 7:23 pm
and there was me thinking this was a wholesome ‘family’ blog….
#9 by James on February 29, 2012 - 8:32 pm
I’m afraid it’s a haven for perverts and the like (I mean just me, I don’t want to speak for the other editors).
#10 by Holyroodpatter on February 29, 2012 - 1:31 pm
Ugh the contraception stuff brings home to me the inherent hypocrisy of these loons. Apparently a ‘big government’ is bad and wants to tell you what to do, but it’s ok for Santorum to ascribe what is and isn’t appropriate in your bedroom. Surely people even in his own party will think”what I get up to in my own ‘sexual realm’ is my own business thank you very much”
#11 by Malc on February 29, 2012 - 2:16 pm
Getting into dangerously smutty territory here, but in any other context a “sexual realm” would likely have distinctly different overtones. I’m not sure I want to think about them…
On topic. What Ross says. How can these “small government is good” people really be saying the constitution doesn’t extend to freedom in your own home?! Way to step on your own argument.
I’m sorry to say (from my economically centrist position) that the Republicans seem to be throwing this election. The serious ones (Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Kay Bailey Hutchison) are holding out until 2016, when Obama can’t stand again.
#12 by Aidan on February 29, 2012 - 4:15 pm
I think it’s easy to underestimate how reality denying and ideologically tied up a lot of America is, and how powerful the vested interests manipulating that are. Even if Romney takes a pasting I’m not sure I see that changing.
I mean, they got Bush elected *twice* (well, once and a successful court case) and the man can barely tie his own shoe laces.
#13 by Jeff on February 29, 2012 - 5:45 pm
Fully agree Aidan. I had never heard of the Koch Brothers until a few days ago but their power and influence in the US over who gets elected makes Murdoch look like a child jumping up and down trying to get noticed at the big boys’ table.
Pretty terrifying, and where we’re headed to if we don’t sort out voting systems, campaign funding, House of Lords etc etc…
#14 by James on February 29, 2012 - 6:15 pm
I think both Bush elections were fraudulent. One through the Supremes, once through the voting machines.
#15 by Angus McLellan on February 29, 2012 - 5:51 pm
Not nearly so many lulz if Santorum ends up in the White House though. And weird shit happens. Probably best to have the least bad Republican candidate, just in case.
#16 by Craig Gallagher on March 1, 2012 - 1:30 am
The real tragedy of this Republican primary is that they can’t find a single decent challenger to take on the most vulnerable President since Jimmy Carter. I’m completely in favour of Obama over any of his possible challengers, but at the same time, if John McCain (the 2008 version) were running again I’d be hard pressed to not want him to win.
Obama has been pushed around pretty heavily by the Republicans in Congress; he’s spent much of his Presidency ratcheting up the US military’s role overseas; and his unedifying habit of caving on just about every issue of controversy, to John Boehner as well as to organisations like the American Catholic Church, in order to further his reputation as a moderate and a mediator have been very counterproductive for the country as a whole.
He’s been at his best when backed into a corner by a genuine threat to his credibility, as when he held firm over the debt ceiling crisis last summer and when he vetoed the absurd Republican attempt to strip-mine the US countryside from Texas to the Canadian border. A real opponent would move him out the place where he’s least effective – his comfort zone – and into that where he’s most – namely when fighting for his political life.
On the other hand, a second term is a freebie, so maybe they’ll let Bartlett be Bartlett and set about with the genuinely positive social agenda they’ve been threatening to undertake for the last four years.
#17 by rullko on March 1, 2012 - 12:52 pm
The Santorum vs Romney dilemma is a good case study of a favourite philosophical question: what’s morally worse – someone who advocates an evil doctrine, but does so sincerely and is willing to sacrifice personal gain to realise it; or someone who espouses banalities, but only because they think that’s what will get them ahead, and doesn’t believe a word they say?
I reckon the latter is morally worse, but would probably make for a preferable president.
#18 by Allan on March 1, 2012 - 7:01 pm
The problem with james argument is that the USA have form in electing what on the face of it were Unelectiable right wing politicians. Ronald Regan & George W Bush are testiment to that.
Still, I suspect that Obama will still win in November.