1. "Santorum is only likeable because his negatives have not been driven up by a Romney barrage . . ." This is true in one sense, but Romney is limited in what weapons he can use against Santorum, and aren't available to a candidate--Romney--who is trying to appeal to GOP conservatives.
2. Santorum is only superficially likeable . . .
From the op/ed:
Independent voters, in particular, see in Santorum the friendly neighbor who loans his lawn mower and offers to drive the kids to Sunday school. Just don’t risk his disdain by mentioning your recent vasectomy. He’s that kind of family man.Of course, it wouldn't take a ton of ad money (from Obama's troopers--see #1 above) to strip away a veneer of "likeability" if it is superficial, but I think the cartoon with this op/ed inadvertently illustrates my point, (harried wife/mom looking wide-eyed at her husband's announcement, "Honey, meet Rick Santorum . . . he talked me out of getting that vasectomy!") . . . that Santorum is truly more of a persuader than a preacher (which is what troubles many Lefties).
Even if you are not a Santorum supporter, I think it is in the best interest of Conservatism not to go along with efforts to stamp or brand Santorum "UNELECTABLE" because of his ideas.
6 comments:
Santorum is earnest, and when you have two snakes like Romney and Gingrich going at each other, his earnestness shines.
However, there is a large difference between contrasting yourself with Governor Play-doh or Don Juan de Gingrich, and that of a personally likable President with convictions.
Fortunately for Santorum, the aspects of his candidacy that would be most unpalatable to a general electorate are untouchable in a GOP primary.
Well said Sean, though I disagree with any left-handed or diminishing insinuations about earnestness. And I have to point out that the Dems' demagogic characterizations of a given candidate may be unpalatable to the general electorate, though such characterizations are typically not accurate and do not have to carry the day. We'll see . . .
Ned,
Well, if supporters' demagogic characterizations were a factor in the election then our socialist-muslim-unamerican President would win by 80%.
Obama, being the man of better character than me, and his campaign will be slightly more tactful and respectful towards whomever the Republican to be is.
He lost his home state by 18 points in 2006. There's a reason for that. His extremism is not well suited for the palates of the general electorate.
I should probably look into it, but supporters don't generally demagogue anything about that which they support, so I think you missed my point on that. But I am not convinced that Santorum's failure to win a third Senate election in PA was because he was all of a sudden, de facto unpalatable to the general electorate. He's not running for president of PA. And it's not 2006. And he has a different opponent. I'd say it is safe to say that you and I have a different opinion of how a rational, informed "general electorate" will vote.
You don't really believe that David Axelrod (heck, or Obama) is of a higher moral character than you, do you?
I don't know about Axelrod, but yeah, I think Obama probably does have a stronger sense of morality than yours truly.
Naahh . . . I urge you not to believe everything in those campaign ads, Sean. As always, I appreciate you visiting and contributing.
Post a Comment