Santorum: You're Soaking in It* (Or They Really, Really Don't Like Mitt)

- How the fuck bad does a field of candidates have to be for Rick Santorum, who lost his Senate seat by 18% of the vote in 2006, to possibly win the first primary election for the presidency?  He is neck and neck with Romney right now -- with 93% of the vote in, Santorum now leads by 45 votes -- who despite all of his money and endorsements still can't crack 25% of the vote.  Let me repeat -- this guy is a smug entitled prick who is not going to wear well over the long haul.  Especially once the voters realize that Mitt is paying 15% capital gains taxes on the millions of dollars he continues to earn from vulture capitalist frim Bain Capital.

- An electorate that looks like America: well at least America as it appears to me each morning in the mirror while I shave.  The turnout is in the Iowa caucus skews old (60% over the age of 50, 10% under the age of 30), white, and male.  And I am guessing needs to lose a few pounds.

- And it sounds like Rick Perry will be joining the great Texas tradition of electoral futility established by John Connally and Phil Gramm.  (All three incidentally turncoat Democrats.)

- Watching Ari Fleischer on CNN, it is apparent that he is doing his best to pull for Romney.

- Update:  Landslide Mitt's eight vote win is likely to be enough to propel him to the nomination.  Not that I think the party rank-and-file has much enthusiasm for him as evidenced by his inability to expand on his share of the vote, notwithstanding the collapse of theoretically more credible opponents like Perry and Gingrich.  Notwithstanding Romney's weakness though, I just can't see a way forward for any of his opponents.  Romney looks like he is headed for a big win in New Hampshire.  Santorum has no money, no organization, and little appeal beyond hard core social conservatives.  Gingrich also has no money and no organization.  Theoretically they could be competitive with Romney in South Carolina, but even if they are, the lack of money in big states like Florida or when the contests shift to multiple states on the same day will prove crippling.  Perry and Bachmann are done, Huntsman will be finished after next Tuesday.    Santoroum and Gingrich aren't even on the ballot in Virginia, a failure that is symptomatic of their inability to run a tuly national race.  It is pretty clear that the GOP money men have no interest in either of their candidacies.    Ron Paul will continue to do what Ron Paul does, but it will not be relevant.

It will be fascinating to watch this unfold as a race that has had a fairly high level of interest among the GOP's ultra-conservative core peters out into a tepid Romney victory procession across the country.  I have no doubt that in the end most of the right-wingers will coalesce around Romney as they badly want to defeat Obama.  Still, I can't help but believe that there will be enormous frustration with this outcome and that enthusiasm will be somewhat muted for a candidate who seems to lack all conviction, the thing that the party's faithful values above all things. 

*Reference for the under 50 crew here at Cog.

Your thoughts?

Comments

[Corvus9]

These guys are all rank amateurs. I know people say that Romney would be the toughest general election candidate, but really I see even him as fresh meat. Obama is just a better politician, and a better person, than all these guys. Whoever they throw against him will be destroyed. Remember, the best bet they have here is the guy who couldn't beat McCain. And McCain got destroyed.

There is a part of me that hopes it is Romney. Romney would basically force Obama to go all in on an economic populist platform, and I like how that would set up expectations for the second term. The reason I hope it isn't Romney is because I think I hate him even more than the other candidates. I don't think he deserves the nomination. He's a pandering snake oil salesman, and by god, if the right deserves anything right not, they at least deserve a champion who actually believes in something.

[Corvus9]

An electorate that looks like America: well at least America as it appears to me each morning in the mirror while I shave. The turnout is in the Iowa caucus skews old (60% over the age of 50, 10% under the age of 30), white, and male. And I am guessing needs to lose a few pounds.

I loved this. A truly merciless bit of self-derogation.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Corvus, as i keep pointing out, Romney would be the weakest of the candidates in the general election. Arguing that he woukd be strong implies two ideas that are, by now, obviously false.

The first is that he will somehow win back the base that has shown how desperately it wants anyone else. But people who suddenly decided to vote for Rick Fucking Santorum, or Newt Goddamn Gingrich, half of the Paul supporters -- the ones who couldn't have told you what state he was from three months ago and still don't know quite what he represents -- are not going to finally embrace Mittens, or they would have already. Against Obama, they'll see it as 'Satan vs Satan" and stay home, or go behind a credible -- to them -- third party. Sure, some will go for Romney, but the defectors will represent a lot of people that he needs to make up, people who probably wouldn't defect if another candidate were running. (The 'dark horse' who, in fact, will eventually be the nominee.) And since the people we are talking about are less likely to be sophisticated 'ticket splitters' it won't be just Romney who loses them but down ballot candidates. (If Romney somehow does get nomibated, I hope somebody wakes up the DNC enough for them to realize that Santa has paid them a visit early.)

And remember, the Iowa Republicans probably have fewer of the type of Christians who would never be able to vote for a Mormon than do the states further South and redder. Those are hopeless, unless Romney can get a guest appearance in his commercials from both Joe Smith and Joshua (Yeshua) bar-Joseph.

And what about that supposed appeal to disaffected Democrats and Independents? Really? Huntsman and Gingrich, as underfunded as they are, did a good job of savaging him as the relentless liar and position changer he is. Give the Obama campaign two weeks and the whole country would be humming this every time they saw his face. (Bain Capital will only be the dessert to this meal.)

And the idea that he can attract independents and Democrats implies he will 'run to the center' but he can't afford to do that. He'll be trying desperately to hold on the what is left of the Republican base. Going "Ha, ha, I was only fooling, I really am the liberal my opponents tried to warn you about" is not the best way of accomplishing this.

So if he runs to the center, he loses base votes and the centrists won't believe he really means it, if he runs to the right, where's the centrist appeal -- and he's still lost at least 10-20% of the base vote.

And then, remember that whoever runs will have to run on the platform that this particular group of delegates, the ones that do get elected from this particular base, builds. Something tells me this will be our strongest weapon -- not just in the Presidential race (which we have alreayd won) but in the downballot races that will be even more important. But Rimney would be hurt by this most of all, because the others could pull a balancing act, Romney has to walk out on that limb.

Strongest candidate? Sometimes i wish I had the money to bet big, because this one's a sure thing.

[oddjob]

Romney is not the weakest of the GOP field by any means. In most cycles he would be a mid-field GOP candidate who wouldn't win the nomination, but this year the rest of the GOP candidates are just shy of certifiable (with the possible exception of Bachmann who may well indeed be certifiable). Romney isn't certifiable and he actually can lead people. He's not likeable if you want someone with a core that isn't negotiable, but he's not a weak candidate unless you view that particular character flaw as wholly intolerable.

You haven't experienced him as governor. I have.

[Sir Charles]

I've put my thoughts in above.

I think Romney pretty much became inevitable last night for the reasons I lay out there.

Romney is the strongest candidate in a really remarkably bad field. The idea that Santorum of all people would become the temporary default vehicle is indicative of just how weak this group is.

[MR Bill]

Good Morning, at last. Have been lurking some and avoiding the internets a bunch. Had some real work (remodeling) and got Tim to his SSI hearing (his atty thinks it's a shoe in but we haven't heard yet..) and it took a bunch of work, calling and letterwriting (to my folks Congressman, Schuler, D, NC 11, and the TVA Inspector General), to shake loose the family's money from the Solar Field, which had disappeared into an account at the local Electric Membership Corp..Still trying to find out who turned then dang thing off (in Aug. or possibly Sept...Looks like a disgruntled contractor, who then tried to blame it on the NC Dept. of Natural Resources..) Christmas was good, peaceful (my late ex died on Boxing Day, '04, the day of the Great Sumatran Earthquake/Tsunami, so most Christmas Seasons are gonna be better, in principle..)

AS of this AM, the Republican Raree Show in Iowa has yielded...a mouse. It was a joke from the start, an odd ritual of the political classes and the extremists..
Romney is going to have a real problem generating excitement (read "fear") among some of the wingers in the South, on the Mormon issue. I think Obama had a pretty good night in Iowa.
I'm lured back because it's too dang cold to work outside, and Obama has just called the Senate Republican's bluff on the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and is about to appoint Courdry. If only he would appoint the rest of the jobs languishing.
Still trying to get my head around the "Obama is killing out Civil Liberties so we must elect Ron Paul" thing....
A Belated merry Holiday and Happy New year.

[oddjob]

The idea that Santorum of all people would become the temporary default vehicle is indicative of just how weak this group is.

From what I gather while Santorum won the Iowa evangelical vote he lost the Iowa Catholic vote, despite himself being Roman Catholic.

I guess being a pre-Vatican II Catholic will do that...

How backwards and lost in fantasy do you have to be not to notice when you want to live in an "America" that hasn't ever existed during your very own lifetime??? What in the world then can you possibly then be thinking when you claim that you want to be president to defend "America" in its societal sense????

It's just gobsmacking.

A day or two ago Sully mentioned that he's actually read Santorum's book It Takes a Family and he noted that it could be better entitled It Takes a Franco (not James, either).

[Sir Charles]

MR Bill,

Good to hear from you. It is unspeakably cold here today -- down to 17 this morning -- after we enjoyed a couple of 60 plus degree days around the holidays. Glad all is well.

oddjob,

Santorum is in many ways the heir to the Buchanan wing of the GOP. Buchanan was a big Franco admirer (not James either). The fact that Santorum has recently indicated that he thinks states should be able to make contraception illegal is indicative of just how far out there he is on this score. Obama would beat him by 20%.

[oddjob]

Santorum is in many ways the heir to the Buchanan wing of the GOP.

True that. The "America" they both wish they lived in was one where a woman's place was in the home and niggers knew their place, too (although it's Buchanan who's the one who honestly embraces that last aspect of it - I can't say that I've encountered any info. indicating Santorum has issues with African-Americans, although I also haven't really looked for such).

[kathy a.]

santorum has issues with african-americans needing welfare.

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

"Right," responded one audience member, as another woman can be seen nodding.

"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added, to applause.

***
While his reasoning about entitlement spending is normal by conservative standards, the fact that he singled out black people as the recipients of welfare is sure to raise eyebrows. According to CBS News, only 9 percent of food stamp recipients in Iowa are black.

This was not the first time racial remarks have rocked Santorum's campaign. Over the weekend a 2011 video surfaced showing Santorum criticizing Obama's abortion record on the basis of his race.

"I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,'" Santorum said.

[low-tech cyclist]

On another topic, I'm delighted that Obama has decided to recess-appoint Richard Cordray to the CFPB.

Given the willingness of the Senate's GOP caucus to block key (and not-so-key) appointments just willy-nilly, it's gotten to the point where Obama's Constitutional responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" pretty much requires him to put people in place to make sure that can happen, whether the Senate likes it or not.

What puzzles me is Obama's decision to take the extra step of waiting until today to make the appointment. He could have done so yesterday when the Senate was briefly in between sessions of the current Congress, but he decided to wait until today when the Senate was having one of its pro-forma 'sessions' where a few Senators are there for about five minutes. Seems to be going out of their way to rub their faces in it, which is extremely out of character for No-Drama Obama.

[Joe S]

@LTC- after only three years.

[Sir Charles]

Eric,

Well I'd rather be read and disagreed with than not read and agreed with.

oddjob and l-t c,

I assume that Santorum has the instinctive racism that lies at the core of most goopers, but probably has enough of an inner censor to avoid the truly egregious stuff that Buchanan says.

And l-t c,

I think Obama is getting into campaign mode. And I think campaign mode is going to require him to fight like hell with the congressional Republicans -- a thought that makes me quite happy.

[low-tech cyclist]

Never mind, I figured it out.

Article II, Section 2: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

The key word being next. Not the current session, but the one after that.

By waiting until the second session of the current Congress to appoint Cordray, Cordray's term extends through the end of 2013, not the end of 2012.

[oddjob]

Also, Obama (recess) appoints Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, & Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations Board.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

Very happy about that. I've known Dick Griffin for many years and he is an outstanding lawyer and great guy.

[kathy a.]

oh. my. god. it's like professional roller derby, or mud wrestling. and the republican primaries only just began. we may have misunderestimated the entertainment value here. hell, no -- wouldn't pay to see it on cable, but this here is free.

[beckya57]

I'm loving that Obama's finally making these recess appointments and Mitch McConnell has a sad. These guys need the sand kicked in their faces bad. Kevin Drum had a great post recently about how the obstructionism against the consumer protection bureau and the NLRB is straight nullification, in which the intent is to keep these boards from doing their jobs at all.

As for the GOP Clown Show, yes, Romney will be the nominee, and yes, that will force Obama to make the race about economic populism, primarily by holding up Bain Capital's record of making a few rich guys even richer by destroying a lot of non-rich people's lives for the country to see. Romney is actually a perfect candidate for this election, as he so completely personifies the bastards that got us into this economic meltdown.

[Phil Perspective]

How the fuck bad does a field of candidates have to be for Rick Santorum, who lost his Senate seat by 18% of the vote in 2006, to possibly win the first primary election for the presidency?

Don't forget that the Frothy One lost that election to a cardboard cutout who is best known as the son of a former Governor and little else. I don't even remember what Casey raised or spent back then, but the Frothy One's poll numbers never moved back in '06. Not one inch. That tells you something about how much Pennsylvania, and remember what Carville said about PA, wanted Little Ricky gone.

[Phil Perspective]

I'll wait till after South Carolina before I jump on the "Romney is inevitable" bandwagon. The corporate media will ignore N.H. because Romney is expected to kick ass there. South Carolina, as it usually has been, will be the key to see if Mittens can really seal the deal.

[low-tech cyclist]

When's the last time someone's won a major-party nomination without winning Iowa or NH? Excepting one year where they basically skipped Iowa, that would be 1972.

[MR Bill]

Frankly, looking at just how rightwing and christianist South Carolina Republicans are, I think Mitt may just have some trouble there.
I'm betting Perry and Gingrich do well.
And a friend in SC who's not exactly the hippest guy in the world knows what 'santorum' means, so that meme has actually penetrated the Bubbasphere...

[oddjob]

Romney is expected to kick ass there

Given that he's a former MA governor who owns a home in NH & that he tends to avoid religious/cultural issues in favor of talking policy, if he doesn't kick ass in New Hampshire that failure will be a big story.

[Paula B]

And, oddjob, I think we could both agree he's much more popular in NH than in MA, and for good reason. He doesn't stand a chance in Massachusetts. I think he still owns a house in Belmont, right? One of his many...

[oddjob]

I think he's sold the Belmont home (or was it Brookline?) I don't think he owns a home in Mass. anymore.

I've long thought it a little odd that he ran for governor of Massachusetts instead of governor of New Hampshire. He would have easily had two terms and them wishing he could run for more.

[Paula B]

IT was probably a huge ego trip for him to break through the entrenched blue line in Mass. I think he likes the sport of forcing himself into situations where he's not welcomed (as in France, of all places, as a Mormon missionary). NH would have been too easy. People from elsewhere might assume Massachusetts is solidly Democratic, but it has had a string of (very moderate) Republican governors, some quite likable. Except for him.

[oddjob]

It also has a distinct streak of blue collar Reagan Democrats and that population is not small. Stephen Lynch is in Congress thanks to them, and Dapper O'Neill was on the Boston City Council for forever thanks to them, too.

[oddjob]

(For that matter, so also is Scott Brown in the Senate.)

[Phil Perspective]

Given that he's a former MA governor who owns a home in NH & that he tends to avoid religious/cultural issues in favor of talking policy, if he doesn't kick ass in New Hampshire that failure will be a big story.

That's just the thing. Where did Perry say he was headed? Not to NH, but to SC. SC has been the key for a while now. That's what sealed it for Cranky McSame. That's what sealed it for Dubya. Remember, the winner of Iowa usually doesn't win NH and vice versa.

[oddjob]

You're right about that, at least for the last few cycles where SC has been prominent (not so much before then to the best of my recollection).

At this moment I have no idea how Romney will do in South Carolina this time around. I have no doubt that given a viable alternative (& I don't really regard any of this year's choices as viable in the sense that I'm thinking of for this comment) Romney would lose soundly, but with this particular set of losers?

I have no idea.

[low-tech cyclist]

With SC, the sample size is really 2 - 2000 and 2008. And it's just on the GOP side. But I still think it'll fill its so-far-usual role of being the place where insurgent GOP candidacies go to die, and the establishment favorite nails it down. So I'll put my money on a Romney win in SC, given the opportunity.

The combined effect of Iowa and NH from 1976 on, though, is really quite impressive. I'm sure there'll come a time when someone wins a major-party nomination even though they lost in both Iowa and NH, but it's not the way to bet.

[Sir Charles]

It's funny because I think Romney is both quite weak and more or less inevitable -- the latter simply because there isn't a serious candidate running against him. I just can't see either Santorum or Gingrich being able to get the money or organization together needed for a successful challenge. And Perry, really the only one who had the fund raising potential, just destroyed himself in the debates. I've never seen anything like it in big time politics.

So even if Mitt loses SC, he is probably the only one capable of making a major push in Florida, Nevada, and then the multiple state weeks coming up. I understand he bought $800,000 in air time in Florida yesterday. No one else can even get commercials on the air for the most part -- except Perry, and I think that falls into the throwing good money after bad category.

I wonder how often Tim Pawlenty kicks himself in the ass?

[oddjob]

Probably pretty often, but I doubt Pawlenty would have done much better than he already was doing had he stayed in. He very much struck me as this cycle's Fred Thompson or Lamar Alexander.

[oddjob]

I also still think that, except for his surname, the only real heavyweight who had a chance to walk away with it all was Jeb Bush.

[Joe S]

In case anybody wants to read something funny, New York Magazine had an Iowa Caucus entry for Tim Pawlenty kicking himself in the ass. It's pretty damn hilarious.

[Crissa]

Why is Perry done? He never stood much chance with the tea-liban crowd so... crowded in Iowa. It's not like he's far down; he manage to get almost half of the vote of Mittster.

Personally, this is why I don't have much use for horse-race reporting. Perry is done because no one is going to report on him now, even if Santorum and Gingrich - his actual opponents - go nowhere.

[Sir Charles]

Crissa,

I just think Perry is so damaged by his debate performances that he cannot rehabilitate himself.

He actually spent a bunch of money in Iowa to very little effect. And that was a constituency tailor made for him.

And he's still going to be competing in South Carolina with Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul.

I don't think the media failed to report on him -- indeed, many, like me, viewed him as a presumptive front runner. None of us imagined that he was quite as stupid as he proved to be.

[big bad wolf]

Perry is done because he underperformed even my oft-stated low expectations for him. he proved to be even less capable in public than his public record suggested he would be. in this, he has done texas proud.

[oddjob]

OT (but nowhere else to put it): A Kennedy from the next generation arises.

[low-tech cyclist]

None of us imagined that he was quite as stupid as he proved to be.

Indeed. That was easily the most surprising aspect of the oft-surprising 2007 portion of the campaign. I expected I'd hate almost all of what Perry stood for, and I fully expected him to be no brighter than Dubya. But damn, he was dumb. I think the proverbial box of rocks would have more of a clue than he does, three times out of five.

I maintain that, in addition to wanting a candidate that agrees with them on essentially everything, the wingnuts still want a candidate that is at least capable of credibly portraying a President on TV, whether he's actually up to the job or not. I think Perry was an embarrassment to them, even in their own minds. His soft-on-kids-of-illegal-immigrants stance gave them permission to see this, but once it really hit home with them just how dumb he was, their support for him tanked.

Many of us figured that he was a sufficiently astute pol (having won three terms as Texas governor, and all that) to move into this weak field and dominate it. Boy howdy, were we ever wrong.

It's a shame Molly Ivins isn't with us any longer. If she were still alive and writing, I'm sure she would have clued us in ahead of time.

[low-tech cyclist]

Apparently it's a bit too late to get a bet down on Romney in SC, at least at any sort of decent odds. He's jumped to 37% support in the latest TIME/CNN/ORC poll (since when did orcs do polling?), with Santorum and Gingrich at 19% and 18%, respectively.

So it looks as if SC will reinforce its role as the place where GOP insurgent candidacies go to die.

This thing is over.

[Paula B]

>>>the wingnuts still want a candidate that is at least capable of credibly portraying a President on TV, whether he's actually up to the job or not

Maybe they should call on Alex Baldwin.

RE: Molly Ivins. With all the rich meat Texas offers a political columnist, it's shocking an Ivins replacement has not surfaced. Who's down there? BBW?

[oddjob]

If she were still alive and writing, I'm sure she would have clued us in ahead of time.

Laughing so hard the tears were rolling down her face as she did so.

[oddjob]

...“Right now, if Romney gets in, I am so disgusted that I will probably vote for Obama and I detest him,” Wells says. “Anyone who is willing to put a predatory capitalist in office deserves to get Obama.”...
- Politically conservative Missori resident and layoff victim of the Romney era at Bain Capital

[big bad wolf]

y'all, if y'all really were surprised perry to be smarter than he showed himself to be, i'm hurt

[oddjob]

The stupid hasn't stopped:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has named embattled Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio his Arizona campaign chairman....

Hat tip, TPM.

[Paula B]

OJ--words fail.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

It's a big tent party -- that is to say, a party that wants to put all of the people whom it hates into a big tent and keep them there.

l-t c,

You pretty much nailed it on Perry. He was too stupid even for people who are contemptuous of smarts.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I am still the last hold-out -- still insisting that a Romney victory would be wonderful for Democrats and would -- assuming anyone is actually awake in DNC Headquarters, a highly dubious assumption -- give us shots at House and Senate seats we've already written off, but still doubting it is going to happen. I know his opposition has been ridiculous, but the fact that you still see little switching from the drop-outs to Romney shows how much he is simply hated by a large proportion of his own party.

I agree that SC is the key. If he can get over 35% there, he can probably (well, maybe) put together a barely winning majority -- actually a series of plurality wins. I expect he'll take NH, but by less than people are expecting, but SC is maybe the angriest group of Republicans out there. These are the people who dumped Bob Inglis, one of the strongest Christian Conservatives in the House, because he disparaged Glenn Beck. These are people who -- if you read local papers and the comments and interviews -- think Lindsey Graham is a RINO. If they can swallow Romney, I guess the rest of the Party will, and hallelujah.

Meanwhile everyone is ignoring Nevada, so I thought I'd chec out my favorite local bloggers, and the first thing I found was Blue Lyon discussing a rumor that is apparently running around, about Santorum's wife having a partial-birth abortion. This is not true and Blue Lyon gives the true story -- she's another of the local bloggers who gets things right -- which is actually quite heartbreaking. But the story is out there to cut him down and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. (I also love BL's willingness to attack the Savage 'redefining the name' campaign as itself bullying, and quoting Melissa at Shakesville to do it. I never liked the trick myself, but considered it was an irrelevant attack on a minor and forgotten annoyance until Santorum resurfaced. I also like Melissa's point that the name-slur is, intself, playing to the homophobia that many liberals try to bury but can't help expressing -- the same ones that loved making Larry Craig jokes -- and it depends on people seeing anal sex itself as gross.)

One more point here, and then to Sir Charles' 'inevitable Thermidorean Reaction' from the other day. (I know why you said it, but -- as with Steve Benen -- you started off the year with the dumbest comment I expect you to make ths year.)

Before I try and get to that, let me deal with Corvus' point in the first comment, that 'Romney would basically force Obama to go all in on an economic populist platform'. The trouble is that Romney is the only candidate who wouldn't do that. Romney will be a punching bag as he runs farther to the right to keep what he can of the base, what with Bain Capital, 'I'll be more liberal than Teddy' and his other statements that will kill him. Obama could defeat him witout taking a single positive stance on anything. (And if the DNC and the blogosphere do a repeat of 2010, they'll wind up with a President who is at least arguably liberal -- but who can do nothing but veto bills. We have become so used to the "Imperial Presidency" that we forget how little power the President actually has against a united Congress. We have got to concentrate on the Congressional races, realize the opportunity we have, and hopefully will also use that advantage in even further 'down-ballot' races.)

One result of a Romney candidacy that no one is talking about is the inevitable reaction from Republicans that he will have lost 'because he wasn't Conservative enough.' Which means we'll get candidates that make this crew look moderate next time. Unless we are smart enough to put a full-scale blast on the Congress as well, and defeat some of the arch-Conservatives running.

(And one question I'm going to want to discuss more fully (stop groaning!) soon is the whole question of Mormonism. As an atheist I may consider all religions 'truth-free' but Mormonism seems in a special category. Because it was created, in America, in historical times, when we actually have newspaper accounts and the like of the founders, and because it doesn't take more than -- literally -- a fifth-grade American history book to disprove the book -- simply by reminding pupils of the fruits and vegetables that came from Europe and never existed in American but which are eaten by the "Lamanites," because of the total lacking of any archaeological evidence, because God's golden tablets are writen in a sub-literate attempt at 'Biblical English,' and because of the various proven stories about Joe Smith, it is so much harder to defend an intelligent person embracing such easily provable nonsense. And I can assure you that a Romney campaign will produce hundreds of articles and blog posts on just this aspect of Mormonism -- one reason why I doubt if the Elders are so happy to have Romney become the "Mormon Al Smith" -- only the stories will be much truer.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Now to Sir Charles and the 'Inevitable Thermadorean Reaction." (You used the phrase in the Ron Paul thread, but -- since my pice there got eaten -- I think we could bring it up here.) My apologies to someone I respect as highly as I do you, but God what a cop-out, what a wonderful Get Out of Jail Free card. We don't have to ask each other what mistakes we made, we don't have to re-examine our thinking, redesign our strategy to take advantage of the opportunity we've gotten (and Presidents 'run away from their party' anyway, at least Democratic Presidents and candidates).

We didn't lose because of the incredible series of blunders from the White House, the DNC and the blogosphere, we lost because it was *ta-TAAAAA!* "inevitable."

Inudderwoids 'We were smart, it was only the stupid voters who were so dumb.' (Well, they in fact were, but we gave them every encouragement to BE dumb.)

Only this was a monumental defeat. I looked at the 'first elections for a newly elected President' since 1920, when the Congress had stabilized at 435 House members and the confucions of the Progressive Era were over. There have been 15. (I didn't count 1946 for Truman but 1950, and ignored 1974 because Ford was no elected and had only been in office a couple of months.)

Who else suffered that "inevitable Thermidorean reaction?" Well, Obama lost 64 seats in the house. Only one President has lost more, that faqmous fighting liberal, Warren Gamaliel Harding. (He lost 75, but his majority was so gigantic -- 300 seats in 1921 -- that the Republicans still controlled Congress.)

Two more managed to lose over 50 seats, Herbert Hoover (I wonder why) and one other I'll keep in reserve. Other than that, the only ones who surpassed Reagan's 25 seat loss were Lyndon Johnson (47 -- but Vietnam, the anger of Kennedy supporters -- anybody else remember MACBIRD? -- but mostly the switch of parties by the segregationists) and Truman (29, beginning of Cold War and McCarthyism, and the fluctuating view the electorate had of him.) Even Carter only lost 15, and Kennedy 4. FDR and GWB actually gained seats.

The Senate is different -- but inly because wide swings were common in the first part of the period. Harding and Hoover both lost 8 seats, and Coolidge lost 7. both above Obama's 6. (But without Mike Castle, Linda McMahon and Sharron Angle, would it have been higher?) Only one President surpassed them all with 9, the same President I 'reserved' above. And Truman tied Obama with six. No other President topped 4, and JFK, FDR, and both Bushes actually gained seats.

So we have two Presidents who have suffered that "Inevitable" reaction, Obama and the reserved one -- who was, you should have figured out, Bill Clinton.

Hmmm, Clinton, the 'liberal' creating the 'Thermidorean reaction'. The liberal who was the father of DOMA, DADT and "Welfare Reform," who had run away from his party in his election, whose advisors included Dick Morris and David Gergen, who was known for 'triangulation' and consulting every poll available before taking a stand.

And then there's Obama, who also 'ran away from his party' if not so obviously, who seemed unwillimg to announce anything until he'd negotiated with Republicans, who never issued a simple order implying that Government and Defense Department funds could be better spent on other things above enforcing DOMA and DADT, who backed away from end-of-life counseling even after the 'death panel' cry, who continued to cry 'post-partisanship' in dealing with te most partisan Republicans since the post-Civil War Era, and who, after running on 'health care reform' for two full years, not only didn't have a plan 'ready on Day One' but took so many different routes to coming up with one nobody knew what was in it -- a standard technique for most of his legislation. He's also been totally quiet on gun control, never spoke up against the hate speech -- except for bullying -- running rampant, and has done not one thing I can think of -- other than the ACA -- to help those below the Middle Class.

Oh yeah, and he also has accepted 'deficit reduction' and spending cuts as equally important to stimulus and true 'job creation;' has never shown he understood anything about Keynsian economics, and there was that "Plan B" thing.

Themidorean reaction to fighting liberalism? Really? I think the reaction was simply a refusual to excite those who voted for him, a much less nuanced understanding of Washington than we expected, and a blind spot in economics. The reaction was not to the Thermidor, but to the Lobster in it.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I shouldn't have used the term inevitable, but historically liberal-left programs have only been sustainable in short bursts.

Johnson did not lose seats because of the switch of segregationists in 1966. Very few Southern seats were taken by Republicans then -- it was a pure backlash vote in other parts of the country -- and no, I don't believe it had anything at all to do with disaffected Kennedy backers. It was a response to urban unrest filled with racial motives, but largely not a southern phenomenon.

Roosevelt did not suffer a similar defeat until 1938, but his ability to pass prgressive legislation was effectively lost by then.

Truman only lost a relatively small number of seats in 1950 in large part because the Republicans had so crushed him in 1946. (Historically it has been that sixth year of a presidential term that has been deadly except for Clinton and Obama.)

As for Obama, you have written the stimulus package out of history, which included things like a massive COBRA subsidy for unemployed people and extended unemployment benefits, in addition to its job creating and preservation aspects, which here substantial even if inadequate.

You have also made ACA seem far less important and progressive than it is, particularly for low and low middle income people -- with its massive expansions of Medicaid and community health centers in addition to substantial leavels of premium support that will be coming.

I think you are also unfair about not having had a plan ready -- Obama clearly learned the salient lesson of the Clinton years, which was that trying to jam a bill through Congress without sufficeint buy-in by both vested interests and the Congress was a fool's errand. ACA is not perfect, but it is far better than the status quo.

I am surprised that you would criticize his handling of DOMA and DADT -- with respect to the latter, the legislative victory will prove to be far more durable than would have been an executive order. The decision to stop backing DOMA will I think also prove to have been done in a wise fashion.

I am not by any means a defender of all of the Administration's tactics nor a fan of its lack of urgency and toughness in many respects. But I think you are not being completely fair in your assessments.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I think Romney is quite beatable, but I do think he is about to settle into inevitable territory as far as the nomination. He wins SC -- and it looks like he will -- it's game over.

He will crush everyone in Nevada. He's very strong there and no one else even has a campaign there.

I think we can take back the House too and should try like hell. Sadly the massive losses in 2010 have resulted in very unfavorable redistricting, which is why we need to stop losing off year elections that occur at a decade's end. It's the kind of thing that can easily cost you ten to twenty seats.

The Senate is really going to be tough though. As much as everyone liked to pick on him -- for justifiable reasons -- the loss of Ben Nelson is not good for us.

[kathy a.]

LTC, paula, and oddjob -- molly's been gone for a bit, but she did in fact warn us about perry. not exactly in the context of running for president, but he always was "governor goodhair," his hair being the nice thing she could say about him.

i'm sure we agree that molly did her time warning us about shrub. she did not believe him to be as stupid as many of us did, but "born on 3rd and he thought he hit a home run" seems fair. with perry, as she did with shrub, she would have been very straightforward about his terrible positions.

[beckya57]

I thought "born on 3rd and thinks he hit a triple" was Ann Richards' line. Did she steal it from Molly?

If you want to be energized for the campaign, check out the Washington Monthly cover story (available on the website) that runs down opinions on all of the awful things that will happen if a GOP president is elected. They make it very clear that it doesn't really matter which GOPer it is, as they're all captives of the Tea Party and the 0.01%. They also are quite convinced that even if there's a backlash against their radicalism in 2014 the damage will have already been done and will last for decades. Far-right judiciary, no ACA, no EPA, Medicare and Medicaid hopelessly crippled or gone entirely, additional huge tax cuts for the rich, more lunatic wars, etc. Obama really, really has to win, and progressives need to put aside their differences with his administration and fight like hell for him, or we'll be a 3rd world country in pretty short order.

[kathy a.]

actually, i think molly and ann richards both used it; molly attributed the home run quote to jim hightower. such a good line should be widely shared. ;)

ann was better known for saying bush sr. "was born with a silver foot in his mouth." senior reportedly made ann a little silver pin of a foot, which she wore proudly, according to molly. those were the good old days.

i hate to even imagine the kind of gift that gingrich or santorum would cook up for, say, nancy pelosi, but it is safe to guess there wouldn't be any self-deprecating humor in it.

here's a dose of molly for what ails ya. almost as good today as it was over 5 years ago, especially since newtie has surfaced again.

[oddjob]

In 2012 vote for the Canada Party:

America, but better.

:)

Hat tip, Sully.

[kathy a.]

oddjob, did i ever mention that i heart you?

[nancy]

oddjob --me too. ♥

[oddjob]

Awwww shucks.......

[kathy a.]

over at EotAW, there is a santorum post.

[nancy]

kathy -- lol. ciao, ricky. arrivederci! again.