Rick Santorum: Winnner (Blog Right Again)

No, I don't know whether Rick Santorum "beat" Mitt Romney in Iowa by a few votes or "lost" by a few votes. As this blog told you, the Rick Santorum story was the BIG story coming out of Iowa before the vote counting ever started on Tuesday night. It is IRRELEVANT who "won" Iowa. Unlike the Presidential election, NOTHING is at stake on determining the winner (which is why there is NO RECOUNT). No delegates. As it has turned out, the election is a TIE (from any realistic point of view) between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.


But look at what athis blog told you IN ADVANCE. This blog told you that Rick Santourm was already the winner, no matter what the actual votre count between Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, IN ADVANCE (in foresight, as usual). However, this blog did not stop there. Before New Year's, this blgo told RUSM LIMBAUGH that he needed to SUPPORT RICK SANTORUM, or else make the same mistake he did in 2008 (when Limbaugh BETRAYED conservatives by failing to come out AGAINST McCain in time to make a difference--ironicallly , of course, by failing to endorse Romney when this blog endorsed Romney in late 2007).


What this blog told you, in foresight, was that Rick Santorum was the ONLY conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, and worth suporting on that basis (even if not the "perfect" conservative candidate). This blgo endorsed Rick Santorumm for that reason.,


This blog was only SLIGHTLY off in one respect: Gingrich and Perry did SLIGHTLY worse than I thought they might. I had their POSITIONS right. I jsut did not know whether they could get up close to 15%. Newt Gingrich did, at about 13%, but Rick Perry was right at 10%. That meanst that Iowa acutally MEWANT a little more than I thought it might. Michele Bacmann did not even reach 10%, or even close, and Rick Perry did so badly that he is "reassessing" his campaign (almost always a death signal). Perry and Bachmann are therefore OUT (whether they make it official or not), and the Iowa vote has MAYBE narrowed the field to Santorum and Romney (Ron Paul never having any chance for the nomination, and still having no chance, even though his percentage of the vote in Iowa was respectable enough to keep him in the race if he actaully ever was in the race).


Gingrich has not been eliminated. McCain got the same percentage of the vote as Gingrich in Iowa in 2008, butMcCain had put NO effort into Iowa. The other thing that Iowa accomplished was to make GINGRICH a mortal ENEMY of Romney. Everyone hwo listented to Gingrich's speech on election night recognized that Gingrich is ANGRY at Romney (deep anger, and not just irritation). There is no doubt that Gingrich is right that Romney ENCOURAGED a massively negative campaign against Gingrich in Iowa,. This, in fact, is perhaps the most meaningful thing to come out of Iowa. It AMYU cost Romney dearly in the end. Gingrich seems to have developed a MISSION to TAKE ROMNEY DOWN (even if Gingrich hurts his own eleciton prospects--now slim--in the process). This is one of the downsides of really massive NETATIVE CAMPAIGNING in the nomination fight, and Romney may rue his decision to go so massively negative agaaisnt Gingrich., Make no mitske here. Romney DID make such a decision, even if the worst "negative ads" were from a Suerp PAC not directly under Romney's contgrol (although supporting Romney, and pretty much established by Romney).


Yep. This blog supported Romney in 20008, although that had a lot to do with McCain. However, my opinion of Romney has gone DOWN almost every day of this electin season, as Romney has made it clearer every day that he is all about "politics as usual", and not abut any conservative principles. Thus, I am no longer sure that Romney is ANY better than McCain (who is set to ENDORSE Romney this week--a fitting epitaph for Romney as a "conservative"). If Romney is any better than McCain, it iis not by much. Further, as my older daughter (who lives in Boston) told me while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, Romney is anobvious ELITIST, patrician establishment figure with almost NO ability to connect with the "common man". That is why I discount the idea that Romney is the best bet to DEFEAT Obvama.


In his speech tonight, Santorum showed more ability to CNNECAT with people than Romney ever has. Sure, if the election were held TODAY, Ropmney would probably have a better chance to defeat Obama than Santorum (who is hardly known) . But the Presidential election will NOT be held today, and will not be held until next November. Is Romney really able to run a better CAMPAIGN agaiinst Obama than Santorum? I don't think so, although it is up to Santourm to SHOW this to be true now that he will be getting attention.


What people who say Romney is more "electable" really mean is that they think Romney is "politics as usual" enough (slick enough, in otehr words), that he will not be easy for Obama to TARGET. Those peop;le think Obama will be the ISSUE, and they just want an establishment nominee who the media will have trouble making the issue (instead of Obama). Problem: This has NEVER really worked. Dole failed. McCain failed. George H. W. Bush failed (after winning once, based on Reagan's legacy). Gerald Ford failed. Even George W. Bush LOST the popula vote to that stiff, Al Gore (George W. Bush NOT being a conservative, although he had a more conservative image than Romney or McCain). The ONLY GOP candidates to be really successful were Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Nixon was a special case, winning a landslide over the wort Democrat candidate of all time (George McGovern), after being handed victory over Hubert Humphrey by the Vietnam War and Democrat division In other words, the Democrastes self-destructed with Nixon. The ONLY GOP candidate who has gone out and actuallyWON a Presidential election substantially, on his own merits, was Ronald Reagan (in my lifetime). And Reagan was NOT supposed to be "electable". George H.W. Bush was supposed to be the "electable",, establishment candidate. Now I have said I don't think Santorum is another Reagan, but this idea that a "politics as usual", estalbishment GOP candidate is automatically the most "electable" is not supported by history. Yes, Barry Goldwater got swamped, but that was mainly because of the Kennedy Assassination, helped by GOP estalbishment SABOTAGE. Absent such sabotage, Santorum is probably at least as likely to beat Obama as Romney, and probably more likely. Again, Romney fails to CNNECT with people.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). As this P.S. is being typed (a later edit, after Ityped the main body of this article, it appears that Romney was declared the "winner" of the Iowa caucuses. That does not change a single word of the above article, or the headline. Indeed, I think it confirms that the media are composed of The Stupidest People on Earth that they kept their "live coverage" going to the MEANINGLESS "bitter end", long after it was obvious that the result wsa effectively a TIE. If this had been a "rfeal" election, as distinguished from these caucuses where the "winner" gains nothing over the person finish;ing second, then there would be recounts, controversy and uncertainty extending over WEEKS,. But it simply does not matter who the technical "winer" is, since the only real thing at stake here is WHO is going to be the conservative who challenges Mitt Romney. That is now most likely to be Rick Santorum, although it is always possible that Santorum will "falme out" like Cain, Bachmann and Perry. I don't include Gingrich, both because he is not QUITE out, and because he is NOT really a conservative (althuogh WHAT he is I am not sure--Gingrich sort of being an unprincipled man of ideas, which is a very strrange kind of politician).