Byron York Doesn't Get It: EVERY Toss Up State Matters If Romney Loses Florida

Mitt Romney can take a loss in a New Hampshire or an Iowa, give or take, but if he loses in Florida he cannot. Romney absolutely must win in every single other toss up state if he loses Florida, from Iowa to New Hampshire to Nevada to Ohio to Wisconsin to Virginia to Colorado to North Carolina, in order to win.

Iowa doesn't have a special meaning, especially now if it's really true that Michigan moves into the toss-up column as Real Clear Politics says today. Rick Santorum did especially well here in Michigan with pro-life Democrats, who also helped pick Todd Akin in Missouri, and Romney's throat cut to Todd Akin today isn't going to play well with Santorum's supporters, an incident which post-dates the poll taking Michigan out of the leaning-Obama category. The broader point is that 56 percent of Republican primary voters in Michigan picked someone other than Romney: either Santorum, Gingrich or Ron Paul. Romney might have capitalized on the new poll had he not flubbed on Todd Akin. It just shows Romney is still not a skilled politician.

Mitt Romney has emphasized protecting Medicare in Florida as a matter of first importance because he knows Florida is the key to his victory in November. If he can convince seniors there, he can convince them anywhere. Florida makes it easier to win in this bad environment, but without it, it's going to be very much more difficult.

Misguided story here.

George Will Only Imagines Congress' Power Has Been Limited, But It Hasn't

Here:

If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power — the power to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior for whatever Congress deems a public benefit. Instead, the court rejected the Obama administration’s Commerce Clause doctrine. The court remains clearly committed to this previous holding: “Under our written Constitution . . . the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.”

The fact remains, however, that with the stroke of a pen the Court has changed the locus of unlimited power-seeking from the venue of commerce to the venue of taxation. Congress' power "to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior" hasn't been diminished one bit, just shifted.

I can now be penalized (!) with a tax (!) for not buying whatever Congress' decides. This used to be a power reserved to the States, which can force you, say, to purchase a gun. Now the Court has given that power over you to the Congress, by-passing the States.

The issue was well-framed for us already, in the dead of winter, during the Republican primary debate about RomneyCare, here:

One difference between the health care bills is that Romneycare is constitutional and Obamacare is not. True, Obamacare's unconstitutional provisions are the least of its horrors, but the Constitution still matters to some Americans. ... As Rick Santorum has pointed out, states can enact all sorts of laws -- including laws banning contraception -- without violating the Constitution. That document places strict limits on what Congress can do, not what the states can do. Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally. The only reason the "individual mandate" has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product. ... States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive. There's no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today's world to equip themselves with health insurance.


But now the Congress has this power, under the taxing authority, at least until some enterprising citizens challenge healthcare premiums they actually pay as a form of unapportioned direct taxation, and win.

Until then, we have no place left to hide. The whole country has become Massachusetts.

Safely Out of the Way, John Tamny Decides to Attack Rick Santorum

In the special pleading voice of one for whom conservatism is only conservatism when it is libertarianism:

"Santorum’s candidacy should have horrified conservatives."

Here, in Forbes.

The problem with libertarianism as argued by Tamny ("as human beings our natural rights are infinite and extend right up to when our freedom of action hurts others") is that both reason and nature tell us that it is not true.

Reason tells us that rights which extend only up to a certain point cannot be infinite.

And Nature teaches us that rights are not infinite. Otherwise the right to life would not end with the grave.

Thus the basic insight of conservatism is metaphysical: life has its limits, a man's got to know his limitations, government which governs least governs best, life is a mixture, into every life a little rain must fall, if it's got tits or testicles it's going to cause you trouble, simul justus et peccator.

Seven Days After Wisconsin Primary Loss, Santorum Packs It In

See the primary results to date here.

The New York Times here suggests that pressure was mounting from evangelicals for Santorum to quit in order to unite the party.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul remain in the race but cannot muster enough delegates in the remaining contests to deprive Romney of the nomination.

Folding like this before the contest in his home state of Pennsylvania suggests that Santorum knew he would suffer an embarrassing loss there. One can imagine not wanting to have to explain why Pennsylvania voters decided to reject him like they did in 2006 and have to quit the race in the wake of that anyway.

Santorum's Lead in Pennsylvania Shrinks from 30 Points to 2

As reported here:

Rick Santorum's home state advantage may be disappearing. According to a Franklin and Marshall College poll released Wednesday, the former Pennsylvania senator now leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by only two percentage points in the state. He led Romney by nearly 30 points in a Franklin and Marshall poll released in mid-February.

Al Hunt Blames Christian Anti-Mormon Bigotry For Romney's Troubles

Al Hunt for Bloomberg blames evangelical Christians for Romney's problems in this article:

Mitt Romney has a persisting Mormon problem. Less certain is whether this is limited to the Republican primaries or it’s a general-election worry, too.

“This nomination would be in the bag if it weren’t for the Mormon factor,” says John Geer, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University who works on the intersection of religion and politics.

The exit polls from a plethora of primaries confirm that. Romney, a deeply devout leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gets clobbered among white evangelicals and those who believe the religious views of a would-be president matter a great deal. This has caused him to lose a few primaries and denied him decisive wins in others.

The trouble with this argument is that it is wrong and ignores the fact that Mormonism is a bigger impediment in a candidate for Democrats than it is for Republicans, who might well realize this and instead want someone without this baggage who can also garner Democrat votes in the general election.

Last June's Gallup poll is a case in point: 27 percent of Democrats are unwilling to vote for a Mormon, compared with 18 or 19 percent for Republicans and Independents.

But there is another reason for Romney's woes, a candidate with far superior organization and much more money than any of the rest: proportional primaries.

Joseph Curl discusses the advent of proportional primaries in the Republican Party here, in the wake of the 2008 candidacy of John McCain:

[T]his is ... the scenario Republicans set up in 2010. Party leaders felt the process was too front-loaded, tilted too far to establishment leaders. So, to extend and open up the nomination, the leaders moved from mostly winner-take-all primaries and caucuses to proportionate distribution of delegates based on popular vote.

“There were a lot of people on the [Republican National Committee] and other places who were not very happy after ‘08,” David Norcross, chairman of the party’s Rules Committee when the changes were made, told the Daily Beast. “We didn’t think it was right that four or five states got to pick the nominee. It was slam, bam, thank you, done - and I think we were not helped by that. In fact, some of us think [Sen. John] McCain was not helped by that because he was not forced to sharpen his candidate skills. It was over and he went on to wait for the Democrats to produce a candidate. Just sitting around waiting.”

The new system established hefty penalties for any state that sought to move up on the calendar, in essence halving the number of delegates a state could award if it were so brash. It didn’t work; Florida moved its primary up anyway, with disastrous results.

But the new system also suggested the stakes be ramped up after April 1. The idea was for states holding primaries and caucuses after that date to be winner-take-all. But many of the late-date states wanted the nomination battle to still be alive when their date came up, so they stuck with the proportional setup.

That is why, almost into April and just halfway through the primary calendar, front-runner Mitt Romney has less than half the 1,144 delegates needed to secure the nomination. And while everyone’s math differs, it looks as if he has to win about half of all delegates from now until the final primary in Utah on June 26.

With 1099 delegates still to be apportioned as of today in the rest of the primary contests, Romney needs 576 more to capture the nomination. Santorum needs 871.

But under a winner-take-all scenario, Romney would possess 625 delegates already and could theoretically clinch the nomination by winning the next thirteen states through May 15th. It would take Santorum through May 29, winning all sixteen of the next contests to add to his would-be current total of  461 under winner-take-all, including such places as Maryland, DC, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Oregon and Texas. A dubious proposition.

Presumably the dynamic of the race under those conditions would look far worse for Santorum because of Romney's natural advantages in boots on the ground and money. What is keeping Santorum viable today, however, has little to do with what Christians believe about Mormonism. What keeps Santorum alive is proportional voting.

Santorum needs to capture 79 percent of the still available delegates to win it, which is crazy. And if he thinks he's got a snowball's chance in hell of carving out a role in any future administration after the things he's said this season, he's even crazier than I think.

Let's hope he puts us out of our misery and gets out before Pennsylvania humiliates him on April 24th.

Why Can't Rick Santorum Imagine A Republican Worse Than Mitt Romney?

"Pick any other Republican in the country. He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama."

Santorum made the statement in Racine, Wisconsin, quoted here.

How about John McCain, for example? He actually lost against Barack Obama, as I recall. Wouldn't he be a worse candidate today than Romney?

Or how about Mark Foley?

Or Duke Cunningham?

There must be scads of Republicans who would be worse candidates than Mitt Romney, but Rick Santorum can't seem to muster the proper perspective to imagine who they might be or where Mitt Romney fits in the scheme of things Republican.

Rick Santorum has proven before that he exercises bad judgment from time to time, say by encouraging Democrats to interfere in Republican primaries, or by writing-off mainline Protestants, not just from electoral politics but from Christianity itself. This is yet one more example of an ill-considered opinion best left unexpressed.

And those sorts of things make him an incendiary candidate who cannot win against Barack Obama.

I'd say that makes him a worse candidate than Mitt Romney.

Santorum The Weasel On Display Again

When confronted recently about things he wrote in his book about radical feminists, Sen. Santorum blamed them on his wife, even though nowhere in the book does she get credit as a co-author.

Now he's protesting, as reported here, that his words suggesting we will end up voting for the real deal, Obama, instead of a paler version, in Romney, have been misunderstood as self-referential:

Santorum's original comment came Thursday in a San Antonio speech, in which the candidate said Obama and Romney had so few differences that "we may as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk" with Romney.

Santorum argued that when he used the word "we" in his comment, he was referring to the general public. But he said people mistook his remark to mean that he personally would vote for Obama over Romney.

"No, I was saying the people may not vote for someone they don't see as different," Santorum said.

What Republicans should and do find objectionable about this, contrary to Santorum's explanation, is that a high profile Republican such as Santorum seems to be campaigning for the Democrat opposition.

Indeed, he's given evidence that he's more interested in crossover votes from the Democrat Party, e.g. in the Michigan primary, than he is in Republican votes. Moreover his bashing of Protestants unfortunately legitimizes bashing Mormonism, which will come back to haunt, and hurt, Romney in the general election when PACs unleash a torrent of criticism on Romney's strange beliefs.

It's disloyal and dispiriting for Santorum to speak this way in public. Independent voters will lose, not gain, respect for Santorum as a result, not that it matters much. His is a negative campaign anyway, lock, stock and barrel. We all know the many things Santorum is against. The trouble is, we don't know what he's for.

Santorum should withdraw from the presidential contest.

Santorum Self-Destructs By Urging Real Liberal Obama Over Also Liberal Romney

Oops!

The reasoning makes sense, and is also correct, but that's not how you win in politics, let alone preserve your position for a future run.

Talk about a tin ear.

The LA Times has the story here:

"If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch-A-Sketch candidate of the future."

I think that spells the end for one Rick Santorum.

Romney Again Defends TARP, Says Bush, Not Obama, Prevented Depression

Romney's complete and utter nonsense from yesterday, quoted here:

"There was a fear that the whole economic system of America would collapse -- that all of our banks, or virtually all, would go out of business."

"In that circumstance, President Bush and Hank Paulson said we've got to do something to show we're not going to let the whole system go out of business. I think they were right. I know some people disagree with me. I think they were right to do that."

"I keep hearing the president say that he's responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression."

"No, no, no. That was President George W. Bush and Hank Paulson that stepped in and kept that from happening."

Never mind the stock market nose-dived after TARP was passed, millions more lost their jobs, housing went into the toilet and stayed there, and 2008-2009 were back-to-back years of GDP declines. A small depression, but a depression nonetheless.

And never mind that George W. Bush himself characterized his own actions as abandoning free market principles in order to save the free market system. As senators, both John McCain and Barack Obama voted for the measures Bush signed.

This was liberalism in action, not conservatism. And Romney the corporate raider is just fine with it, as are over 4 million Republican primary voters to date.

But over 6 million Republican primary voters to date disagree, voting for Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul. Still others have voted for candidates not named Romney who have dropped out of the race.

Romney seems bound and determined to subdue the base of the Republican Party, as John McCain before him.

Therefore he will lose to Barack Obama. 

A Marine in Missouri Will Vote For the Republican Candidate, But Gives $ Only to Newt

From the LA Times, here:

Jim Crossland, a retired Marine handing out flyers about the national debt after a Santorum speech in northern St. Louis, shrugged when asked about the candidate, the apparent local favorite. “In Pennsylvania, his nickname was ‘Tricky Ricky’ -- talks one way, votes another,” Crossland said. “But if he’s elected for our side, I’ll get behind him.”

“I’m still sending money to Newt,” he confessed. So what if it’s Romney, like a lot of people predict?

Crossland paused. “I’ll vote for him,” he said, “but I won’t send him any money.”

Powerline Blog Says Santorum Was A Three Term Senator, Fiscal Moderate

He was a two term senator, not a three. How do you get that wrong?

But it's true Santorum lacks credibility as a fiscal hawk, and Romney is correct to go after him on that score.

The story is here.

To Date Republicans Prefer A Conservative To Romney, 3.8 Million to 3.2 Million

The only problem is, they are divided over which conservative.

For every Romney voter to date in the Republican primaries, another 1.2 voters prefer either Santorum or Gingrich.

Santorum has the edge with 1.9 million voters to Gingrich's 1.8 million, as shown here:

And On What Will Santorum Run If The Supremes Find The Mandate Unconstitutional?

Sen. Santorum believes the issue of this election season is authoritarianism in government, as quoted here in The Weekly Standard:

". . . Obamacare. That is the biggest issue in this race. It’s an issue about fundamental freedom. It’s an issue about whether you want the government to take your money, and in exchange, give you a ‘right’….But, of course, when the government gives you a right, they can take that right away. And when the government gives you that right, they can tell you how to exercise that right. And they do — not just what doctors you can see and what insurance policies [you can buy], or how much you’re going to get fined if you don’t do what the government tells you to do, but even go[ing] so far as to tell you how to exercise your faith as part of your health care....If the government can go that far with Obamacare, just think what’s next.”

Santorum Bashes Everyone But The Prime Culprit: George W. Bush

Here.

Why bash John McCain, Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush?

I don't recall any of these claiming to redefine the Republican Party like W did. And all three of them served honorably in war, one as a prisoner of war, one maimed by war, and one a practised parachutist under fire. W did none of that. And neither did Santorum. 

OK, maybe Herbert Walker came close to an ideological make-over with that kinder, gentler, shtick, but we all know he didn't really mean it. He was not really into that vision thing. But W was full of hubris and said the conservative movement was OVER and that HE would establish a new meaning for it going forward, which boiled down to nothing more than personal loyalty. He must have learned that from the Democrats.

And I don't recall any of these also-rans abandoning free market principles to save the free market like W did. You can rightly say the objects of Santorum's ire represented tax collection for the welfare state, but at least they made a show of being capitalists. George W. Bush, a failed capitalist before he became president, ended his presidency the same way.

W was a knee-jerk liberal on immigration, welfare for the poor and for seniors, and on exporting the American way. A real conservative ought to say so. Rick Santorum never will.

Santorum Voters in Michigan Heavily Self-Identified as Democrats

By a margin over Romney voters of 35 points, according to FoxNews exit polling here:

Santorum voters were also union members by 15 points over Romney voters.

Only 24 percent of Santorum voters thought abortion should be legal, and 77 percent of Santorum voters thought of themselves primarily as abortion issue voters, with only 13 percent of Romney voters seeing themselves that way.

Deficits and the economy mattered more to Romney voters than Santorum voters by 16 and 17 points.

Despite Santorum's view that mainline Protestants aren't really Christians, Romney and Santorum pretty much split that vote with Santorum winning Protestants by two points. But Santorum lost the Catholic vote by a 7 point margin.

Romney excelled among females, the over 65 demographic, those making over $200,000 a year, college graduates and post-grads, the somewhat conservative, those somewhat opposed to the Tea Party and those favoring legalized abortion.

Self-identifying moderates went for Romney 45 percent to Santorum's 31 percent. The somewhat conservative went for Romney by an even larger spread, 50 to 32.

The Washington Post here reported that 1 in 10 Republican voters yesterday self-identified as Democrats:

Early exit polls in Michigan seemed to show that the negative campaigning had weighed on the state’s Republicans. Less than half of voters there said they backed their candidate “strongly.” About one in seven said they made their choice because they dislike the other options — four times the proportion that said so in this political season’s first votes, at the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.

The polls also showed that a large number of Democrats had, in fact, crossed party lines in Michigan. About one in 10 of Tuesday’s voters identified themselves as Democrats in exit surveys. That was a higher figure than in any of the other early GOP contests.


About 978,000 votes were cast in Michigan's primary yesterday.

Wins in Michigan and Arizona Give Romney 2 to 1 Lead in Delegates over Santorum

The Wall Street Journal here provides a handy delegate tracker:

Rick The Chameleon Santorum: Slams Cross-Overs in January, Courts Them in February

What a difference a few weeks can make, as reported here:

In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.

"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."

At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was [sic] out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state [of Michigan].

Rick The Snake Santorum Wants MI Democrats To Pick The Republicans' Candidate

So reports The Detroit News today here, claiming Santorum is making robocalls to Michigan Democrats to get them to turn out and vote for him:

"Michigan Democrats can vote in the Republican primary on Tuesday," said an unidentified man on the call, which Talking Points Memo said was left on someone's answering machine in Trenton. "Why is it so important? Romney supported the bailout for his Wall Street billionaire buddies, but opposed the auto bailouts. That was a slap in the face to every Michigan worker, and we're not going to let Romney get away with it. On Tuesday, join Democrats who are going to send a loud message to Massachusetts' Mitt Romney by voting for Rick Santorum for president.

"This call is supported by hard-working Democratic men and women and paid for by Rick Santorum for president."


Isn't Santorum's opposition to auto bailouts a slap in the face to Michigan workers?

Can't Criticize Mormonism? Sen. Santorum Opens Door By Trashing Protestants

If Santorum is free to say the following about Protestants, Democrats will feel free not only to attack Santorum over his religion if he's the candidate, but also Romney over his:

"[L]ook at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

There is nothing qualitatively different about that statement from Christian Evangelicals' charge that Mormonism is a cult, not Christian, or some leftists' view that Mormonism is too weird to abide. At least Obama ditched Rev. Wright. But Romney is proud of his heritage, and so is Santorum pledged to defend all his beliefs in the public square.

Santorum has just played into the hands of the left and handed them a huge opening.

Thanks a lot, pal.