Rick Santorum deserves credit for his impressive primary victories in Mississippi and Alabama. Newt Gingrich led us to believe he would win both states. He didn’t, but he has vowed to fight on as the “real” conservative candidate, as opposed to Mitt Romney who only “says” he is a conservative.
Romney still has a substantial lead in delegates, but lags in one vital category: enthusiasm. If candidate Barack Obama gave his supporters the political equivalent of a sugar rush in 2008, Mitt Romney is broccoli. It’s his Mormon faith; it’s his perceived liberal tendencies while governor of Massachusetts; it’s his inability as a very wealthy man to connect with average voters; it’s all of the above and probably more.
Rick Santorum is the Latin Mass in an age of contemporary Catholic worship. He is an Underwood typewriter, not an iMac computer. He is the U.S. Postal Service, not email. Santorum believes deeply in God when many others either do not, or focus more on themselves than on any higher power. He is a family man in an age of divorce, cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. In short, he may be too good for us; too picture-perfect; too religious and too much of a scolder.
Voters want to know where the country has gone wrong, but they don’t want to believe they are responsible for steering it in that direction, or that they made a mistake four years ago in putting so much faith and trust in President Obama. They want more of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 slogan “we can do better” and less of “you could do worse than elect me.”
President Obama’s latest slide in the polls — from 50 percent approval to 41 percent, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll — presents a delicious opportunity for the eventual GOP nominee. But if the candidates continue to squabble and divide the vote, the president could eventually get his act together, perhaps approving a slightly diverted Keystone pipeline, causing gas prices to lower or producing a stunning foreign policy success, though that is less likely given that so much of the Middle East seems beyond his control.
Nothing is predictable this political season and what seems true today may flip and become less true, even untrue, tomorrow.
Santorum’s latest victories tell us nothing about the general election. Any Republican can expect to win Alabama and Mississippi. Equally, Mitt Romney’s victory in Hawaii tells us nothing, because that state is mostly Democratic and can be expected to vote for Obama in November.
Newt Gingrich vows to fight on until the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, but he can only be a spoiler now. The calendar does not favor him and the voters seem to have decided that while he may have some great ideas among the flood of them he regularly disgorges from his fertile mind, for him, there appears to be no clear path to the nomination. Gingrich hasn’t won a primary since Georgia, the state he represented in Congress, and he probably won’t win another.
It’s down to Romney and Santorum and with no new debates scheduled — the last formal debate was Feb. 22 — voters are likely to remain divided, which delights the Obama campaign.
As of now — and one must always qualify — Mitt Romney still seems the likely Republican nominee. But the real question for Republicans is this: If Romney is having such a difficult time beating Rick Santorum -- and to a lesser extent Newt Gingrich -- how will he marshal the forces necessary to beat President Obama in the fall? Next week’s Illinois primary will say a lot about Romney’s rebound strength. If he doesn’t win there, he could be in serious trouble.
Republican opposition to the president could be enough to overcome their lack of enthusiasm about Romney, but it’s a poor campaign strategy and it could well backfire. At least the Obama campaign is hoping it will.
CAL THOMAS, Tribune Media Services, 2010 Westridge Drive, Irving, TX 75038. E-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.



Comments (4)
Add commentH0w many pe0ple really flip
H0w many pe0ple really flip flop every week? 0bama l00sing appr0val is his perf0rmance, pretty sure m0st can see that by n0w hence the l0w appr0val, I find it sad pe0ple say Sant0rum is t00 g00d f0r the j0b, well peeps, in a nutshell that answers the question asked in the letter stated ab0ve , Where did 0ur c0untry g0 wr0ng? Pretty sad we even have t0 talk ab0ut h0w bad the pe0ple we elected are and talk ab0ut h0w any0ne else can beat the pers0n we all kn0w is a c0lasal failure, m0ney, m0ney wins y0u a seat in 0ur br0ken G0v
Its's funny
It's funny good old Cal chose to just use one of this week's polls which show that the President's approval rating has dropped down from the 50% ratings in February. And also funny the poll he chose to highlight was the New York Times/CBS poll(41%), which had the lowest rating. There were other polls out this week and they to show a drip in approval for the President.
The Washington Post/ABC poll has a 46% approval rating and the Rasmussen poll has a 49% approval rating.
Isn't it nice when more data can be used to see if there are any anomalies in the data.
tig
He probably chose the NYT/CBS poll because historically they have presented the president more positively. The point being, you know things are bad when your own cronies even report you in a bad light.
So is it our objective to
So is it our objective to read about it, talk about it, and then post about it? You are right when you said "we elected" and we sure did! Since "we" did it then we should change it. Look at all these policies and issues we are letting people (who obviously have no regard for our opinion) continue to work and tweak for the best interests of themselves. If this is about government spending and government wasted dollars shouldn't we the people come up with a plan to limit their spending on themselves? At this point it doesn't matter who we vote in as president or any position for that matter, even if they themselves have any type of moral or values the amount of greed influencing any idea for change, a "good person" in office might have, would certainly tie the hands of that "good person" leaving it impossible yet again for change, leaving everything the same for tomorrows newspaper article. What if we put a limit on how rich a politician could be prior to running for a poltitical position? Would the poor people be educated enough to understand that the rich are only thinking about the rich so they can take care of the rich and then be there for the rich? Look at the quarter of a million dollars per month Crow Wing County is raking in keeping children in out of home placement and thats not even the highest number. Yes per month, you don't think an "industry" like this will be going away anytime soon do you? Lets face it, the rich protected themselves when they allowed our industrial nation to prostitute itsself out to save a buck shipping large companies overseas causing turmoil to the american economy. Has it gotten so far out of control that our children are the only means to fill this bottomless piggy bank?