Political Animal
Blog
It’s been an implicit part of the rules of engagement in the GOP presidential race that no candidate can be criticized for being too conservative, particularly by Mitt Romney. Thus Rick Perry drew fire not for flirting with secession and nullification theories, or for complaining about “lucky ducky” poor folks who didn’t pay taxes—but for expressing sympathy for the children of undocumented workers. Similarly, Newt Gingrich never got attacked for his anti-Muslim demagoguery or his regular descriptions of the president as a “secular-socialist”—but for once professing belief in the climate change “hoax” and criticizing Ronald Reagan.
The game has continued up until now with Rick Santorum, whose wacky views on cultural issues have never drawn a breath of complaint from Romney or other Republicans. No, instead they want to talk about Rick’s fiscal “liberalism.”
That’s why it’s very interesting today that two of Mitt’s highest-profile enablers, Matt Drudge and Jennifer Rubin, seem to have broken the seal on a whole new line of attack—on Santorum’s faith-based zaniness.
As I write this, the top of the Drudge Report has one of those screaming headline “stories” about Santorum’s “Satan Warning”—along with excerpts from the 2008 Ave Maria speech that us liberals have been discussing for the last several days. Drudge very specifically includes a quote from Santorum’s disparagement of mainline Protestants as having left “the world of Christianity.”
Meanwhile, WaPo blogger Rubin has a long, inflammatory post calling Santorum a “reactionary”—not a term you hear often in the Right Blogosphere these days—for talking about theology and contraception and in general “seeking to obliterate the national consensus on a range of issues beyond gay marriage and abortion.”
Now perhaps these are unrelated developments, and Drudge and Rubin are not acting as surrogates for Romney in this case. But I really doubt either of them would launch this particular type of attack on Santorum if they thought Team Mitt would disapprove. Could be that Romney is rattled enough by the Santorum Surge, and concerned enough about what might happen in MI and AZ next Tuesday, that he’s approved a Second Front designed to undermine support for Rick in those segments of the Republican electorate where loose talk about Satan and “un-Christian” mainline Protestants and contraception really isn’t that welcome.
Facebook
Twitter
John B. on February 21, 2012 5:10 PM:
Rubin, at least, has been all but a spokesperson for the Romney campaign for a few weeks now, so her post isn't entirely unexpected.
Jeff In Ohio on February 21, 2012 5:10 PM:
Rubin not acting as a Romney surrogate.. .when RIck the Douche didn't had an ass of a chance at the nomination, Rubin had nothing but praise for the courage of his convictions. What a hack.
Neil B on February 21, 2012 5:12 PM:
Too many Scotch moneybags afraid of the little soldier for THe Church, they really really want the cardboard corporate hack in his place - but the hydra has its own preferences! If Dems and others are not too compromised themselves, they can pull out a big embarrassment against the God versus greed -rent GOP, it may be the last chance for awhile.
smartalek on February 21, 2012 5:19 PM:
Yes, I know it's picayune and superficial of me, but still -- I know you know it's "WE liberals have been discussing."
Reading the wrong-case "us" there is almost as grating as hearing Pres Obama trying to sound less intelligent by dropping the "g"s from his gerunds.
(And then WE liberals wonder at the ease with which the Publicans and the corporate media portray so many of US as "out-of-touch, elitist know-it-alls." When GW dropped his "g"s, he wasn't faking it.)
zeitgeist on February 21, 2012 5:34 PM:
I appreciate Rubin's candor that she (and presumably her fellow travelers) think it is perfectly acceptable to "obliterate the national consensus" about legal abortion (and the growing consensus on marriage equality).
It is a good thing she wrote this rather than giving it as a speech, because I'd love to hear her respond to pushback about the principled line between when it is ok to obliterate a national consensus and when it isn't.
But it is a little hard to feel sorry for her that the various henchmen of Greater Wingnuttia that she helped empower and enable got on a roll with all the obliterating and now she can't rein them in.
Jasperinboston on February 21, 2012 5:44 PM:
*****Now perhaps these are unrelated developments, and Drudge and Rubin are not acting as surrogates for Romney in this case.******
Of course they're acting as surrogates for Romney. Both Rubin and Drudge -- like most of the rest of the GOP establishment -- have been supporting Romney for many months. They're terrified at the prospect of a Santorum victory in Michigan because such a turn of events could precipitate the general collapse of the Romney candidacy as we head into Super Tuesday. You can add Sheldon Adelson to the list -- as Adelson is rather obviously keen on splitting up the non-Romney vote by keeping Newt in the running.
I'd love to see Santorum leap into the front-runner's position en route to taking the nomination. Obama would win 42 states. But I've been careful not to get too carried away by Santorumania, because it's obvious Republicans will do everything in their power to stop it. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, Michigan isn't a must win for Romney. It's a must win for Rick Santorum. I believe if Mitt manages even a two or three point win in Michigan (assuming he also wins Arizona that day), it's all over. So far Mitt has taken all the "must win" contests so far -- if he manages another one, money and votes will begin to dry up pretty quickly for his opponents.
Mitt's Magic Underwear on February 21, 2012 5:45 PM:
Yeah, bring on religion, Mitt! Good move!