2012 Tuesday: Are Obama and the left baiting GOP into nominating Santorum?
It’s been a couple of weeks since the Obama administration announced it would force religious-affiliated entities such as hospitals and colleges — most notably those tied to the Catholic church — to cover contraception, abortifacients and sterilization in the health insurance plans they provide their employees. And ever since, much of the commentary (including some of my own) has focused on the apparent mistake President Obama was making in alienating a large chunk of the electorate. Why would he make such an unforced error?
Maybe he thinks he can bait the GOP into making an error of its own.
After a couple of years of hearing that social issues would take a back seat in this election to the country’s soft economy and dire fiscal situation, suddenly social issues are all the rage:
- There was the contraception mandate that came Jan. 20.
- While those flames were still burning hotly, the decision by Susan G. Komen For the Cure to stop awarding grants to Planned Parenthood clinics was made public Jan. 31. Note my phrasing here: “decision … was made public.” We now know the decision had been communicated to Planned Parenthood weeks earlier. I recommend re-reading the original Associated Press story breaking the news with that fact in mind: It certainly reads like a story prompted by information from Planned Parenthood, with Komen reacting to Planned Parenthood’s reaction to Komen’s decision. It would appear the decision was revealed at a time of Planned Parenthood’s choosing, and Planned Parenthood is not exactly known as a friend of the Republican Party.
The result, predictably and understandably, has been a circling of social conservatives’ wagons. And you know who they’ve circled around? Rick Santorum.
Now, think back a few more weeks. You might recall George Stephanopoulos invoked Santorum’s name and beliefs when launching the lengthy series of questions about contraception during a Jan. 7 debate in New Hampshire — a line of questioning that, at the time, seemed to be completely out of left field. Dick Morris, who certainly knows a thing or two about incumbent presidents trying to win re-election, has gone so far as to accuse Stephanopoulos of asking the questions “under orders.” He didn’t specify whose “orders,” but in the same interview (with Sean Hannity on Fox News) Morris referred to Stephanopoulos as a “paid Democratic hit-man”:
They want to create the impression that the Republicans will ban contraception, which is totally insane, but they’re floating it out and they’re bringing it out there. And this move on Obama’s part was part of injecting that issue.
To be sure, Morris did get one thing wrong: He said this “impression” arose “after Minnesota and Colorado which was [sic] Santorum’s victories.” On the contrary, Santorum’s triple victories (also in Missouri’s non-binding primary) came Feb. 7 — one week after the Komen decision was revealed and two and a half weeks after the contraception mandate was announced.
There are no smoking guns here. But if — I repeat, if — there was an intent by the left to give Santorum a boost in the GOP contest, with the premise that his social views would turn off a number of moderate and independent voters in November, the boost sure appears to have occurred:
- In Colorado, which Mitt Romney won by 42 percentage points in 2008, Santorum went from trailing Romney by 14 points on Feb. 4 to beating him by 5 points on Feb. 7.
- In Minnesota, which Romney won by 19 points four years ago, Santorum went from a statistical tie with Romney on Feb. 4 to an 18-point win on Feb. 7.
- In Missouri, where Romney ran a very strong third place (less than 4 points behind winner John McCain) in 2008, Santorum went from leading by 11 points in late January to winning by 30 points.
That’s an average swing of 19 points in Santorum’s favor within a week or two — the same week or two that just happened to feature the return of social issues to the fore of the national news and GOP primary politics. All three polls to which I referred were conducted by Public Policy Polling. Was the pollster simply bad? If so, it was a sudden drop in accuracy: In New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, PPP’s pre-primary polls proved very predictive of the final results. Even in Iowa, another state that held caucuses (which are harder to predict and poll than primaries) and where Santorum also was a surprise winner, PPP didn’t see anything like a 19-point swing.
Even if you don’t buy the idea that the Obama administration and its allies are actively nudging the GOP electorate in the direction of a social conservative like Santorum, they certainly aren’t doing anything to take social issues out of the headlines.
But would a Santorum nomination really be an error by the GOP?
Just today, the same pollster, PPP, published a national poll finding Santorum fares better against Obama than Romney does. It’s a small edge, and I’m not sure it even qualifies as an “edge”: He trails the president 49-44, whereas Romney is behind by 7 points at 49-42. But PPP notes that, even in this tumultuous GOP race, “Santorum’s the first insurgent to challenge Romney on [the electability] front.”
PPP goes on to note:
Santorum’s net favorability is 21 points better than Romney’s. Santorum’s at -7 (39/46), while Romney is at -28 (29/57). That’s mostly because Republicans like Santorum a lot better (+40 at 62/22 to Romney’s +2 at 43/41). But Santorum also does a good deal better with independents, coming in at -6 (40/46) to Romney’s -23 (32/55). In the head to heads Obama leads Romney by 9 with independents, but has only a 4 point advantage on Santorum with that group.
A close call with independents and a more-fired-up GOP base sounds more like the Bush recipe for winning in 2000 and 2004 than the McCain formula for losing in 2008.
We’ll see how Santorum holds up to the Romney attack ads that are coming. But there are signs that his emergence could overturn a lot of the conventional wisdom about him — including any desire by the left to see him as Obama’s opponent come this fall.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
239 comments Add your comment
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 14th, 2012
3:41 pm
Don’t usually post here but upon request, I am sharing this pictorial representation of Obama and the Dems outsmarting and baiting the Republicans. You may of course add your own evil laugh soundtrack.
Richard
February 14th, 2012
3:41 pm
Even if you convince people that Obama wants to control all of their money, just wait until they learn about how Santorum wants to control their sex life.
john
February 14th, 2012
3:42 pm
Oh, wait…that’s really Faux News and Rush that controls the minds of Republicans.
jconservative
February 14th, 2012
3:43 pm
“Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.”
This was the Komen mistake. This sentence. Saying the cutoff of funds was because of the congressional investigation.
They then changed the story that the reason was because of the failure of PP to upgrade their mammogram on site facilities. But then it was way to late. The damage was done.
——————–
I have no idea who the Republican nominee will be. The history of Republican nominations says the guy with the money and the organization and a two year head start will win. That is Romney.
I do not buy the Romney is to “liberal” argument. For every Romney liberal position you name I can name two liberal positions by Gingrich. There is not a Republican with a more liberal background in the nation than Gingrich. Yet Gingrich is the darling of the southern wing of the Party.
“It’s a puzzlement.”
Rafe Hollister
February 14th, 2012
3:43 pm
Santorum’s rise is much like Perry’s, Newt’s, Cain’s, and Bachman’s, short lived. Once people learn more about previous stands he has taken, he is done. It is hard to hide your record. Of course, Oblamer had no record, so Hillary and McCain had no offense assault and were limited to playing defense.
Oblamer now has a dismal record of failure and division, which Willard will pummel him with relentlessly and incessantly. All he needs are a few ads focused on the future, e.g., follow Oblamer down the rat hole of European socialism or return America to the prosperity we have always had. OR, return America to its Constitutional government or continue to allow Oblamer to dictate policy off the cuff.
Scooter
February 14th, 2012
3:55 pm
I just can’t understand why liberals seem to believe a person has a RIGHT to something invented, manufactured and brought to market by others. That thought process certainly seems to have an element of “slippery slope” to it. Sadly, it is that type of authoritative defining of rights – then dictating the costs in the market place – that will hasten political empowerment, which will eventually reduce our liberties and our rights as our society relearns that not even “altruistic” (sarc) politicians can make something cost nothing.
saywhat?
February 14th, 2012
3:59 pm
This is rich. The party of alleged “personal responsibility” wants to blame the Democrats for the fact that their candidates suck.
jewcowboy
February 14th, 2012
3:59 pm
“why liberals seem to believe a person has a RIGHT to something invented, manufactured and brought to market by others. ‘
Dunno. Ask the Republican candidates that are always using artists music without their permission or paying them royalties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/arts/music/romney-and-gingrich-pull-songs-after-complaints.html?pagewanted=all
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
February 14th, 2012
3:59 pm
Be afwaid, Kyle, be vewwwwy afwaid. That Obama is a regular Fischer, playing you Republicans like the pawns that you are.
@@
February 14th, 2012
4:06 pm
Anything’s possible. Morris, afterall, knows all about political strategies.
Santorum appeals to blue-collar Americans. His proposals re manufacturing hit home.
He’s a homebody in more ways than one.
Kyle:
Your son is adorable!!!!! “Owen” is pretty close to Otisbut I like it.
He was born “Owen” on the fed’s debt?
Ouch and (ISH).
Finn McCool
February 14th, 2012
4:07 pm
Another chapter in Conservative Victimhood.
So pathetic.
Who's there?
February 14th, 2012
4:10 pm
Santorum appeals to blue collar Americans, as long as they are American, Christian, straight and male. All others can just walk three steps behind.
reebok
February 14th, 2012
4:12 pm
Seems like my friends who vote Republican are actively hoping for a tanking economy and high gas porices so they can hang it on Pres Obama and get a Repub (ANY Repub) in the Oval office…negativity is not going to win out, my GOP-leaning friends…the more likable candidate wins…see Reagan-Carter, Clinton-Bush I, Bush II-Gore and Obama-McCain. No angry rich white guy is going to beat Pres Obama in November.
Congrats on the blessed event, Kyle, glad you are back!
Intown
February 14th, 2012
4:19 pm
Between the Planned Parenthood conspiracy theory, the Santorum conspiracy theory and the Chrysler Super Bowl conspiracy theory, I sense a very deep level of insecurity on the part of conservative talking heads about this upcoming election. Good stuff for Obama!
arnold
February 14th, 2012
4:21 pm
The republicans don’t seem to have a functioning mind.
Jefferson
February 14th, 2012
4:22 pm
Hey grandpaw, what’s for supper ?
saywhat?
February 14th, 2012
4:23 pm
“Between the Planned Parenthood conspiracy theory, the Santorum conspiracy theory and the Chrysler Super Bowl conspiracy theory, I sense a very deep level of insecurity on the part of conservative talking heads about this upcoming election. Good stuff for Obama!”
_____________________________________________________________
Sheesh, I think you may be right. Its only a matter of time before they start hijacking the Truthers and confabulate 9/11 as another Obama plot.
Finn McCool
February 14th, 2012
4:24 pm
Dick Morris?
Now there’s an angry man! Clinton didn’t throw him a bone and Morris never got over it.
arnold
February 14th, 2012
4:25 pm
SaywhatL 4:23pm
“Sheesh, I think you may be right. Its only a matter of time before they start hijacking the Truthers and confabulate 9/11 as another Obama plot.”
I thought they already determined everything was an Obama plot.
ld
February 14th, 2012
4:28 pm
The GOP truly do N E E D to get the “social issues” back on the front page to rev up the “values voters”
–w/o the votes of the “values voters”, the GOP LOSES big in 2012, and
there are simply not enough voters in the 1% to get the GOP slate of candidates elected based upon GOP economic polices that are, increasingly, primarily geared toward helping the 1% investor employer class.
The Republican National Committee urgently NEEDS to get Mitt Romney OFF the economic issues because they FEAR that his basic “instincts” are not as (economically) conservative as the 1% moneyed actual decision makers within the GOP.
the RNC does NOT want Mitt to scare away the $uperPac$ and all their campaign contributions, and
the RNC is deathly AFRAID that Mitt might make slip up at a campaign stop and make a promise that helps the worker class that Mitt might then feel compelled to keep in order for him to get reelected
the RNC wants to make sure the moneyed class are the only ones that can pull the strings of the puppet they elect –
the money decision makers w/i the RNC want Mitt to be their puppet –not some primitive minded superstitious nutjob that actually WOULD try to put in place policies that are the wet dreams of the hardcore “values voters” and by doing so
thereby alienate the vast majority of women .
Who's there?
February 14th, 2012
4:32 pm
arnold
February 14th, 2012
4:25 pm
“I thought they already determined everything was an Obama plot.”
Let’s not forget that Obama was a community organizer back in the day. Do we know what community he was organizing before 9/11?
Fire J NOW
February 14th, 2012
4:33 pm
Only a fool would vote for Rick Sanitarynapkin!
ld
February 14th, 2012
4:33 pm
A Rick Santorum GOP nominee could result in massive numbers of young fold registering and voting for the first time on the birth control issue alone–
girls and boy, men and women
think freedom to choose their own lifestyle and
think child support.
Ernest T. Bass
February 14th, 2012
4:38 pm
Ernest @ 2:44: Right, that’s why the GOP has 29 governors and controls both chambers of 27 state legislatures and one chamber in seven other state legislatures.
Boo hoo it all you want but its true. The more to the right the republican party moves the less influence they will have outside of the south.
Jay Bookman
“Among white voters, Obama leads or is tied against Romney in every every section of the country except one: The South, where he trails by 36 points, 29-65. ”
Wonder why that is ????
Is there one unique thing about this president that might cause such radical numbers ?
One wonders ?
Hmmmmmmmm
ld
February 14th, 2012
4:38 pm
fold, sic–folk.
The more extreme the GOP nominee will be, the less extreme Obama will seem.
Youth of today ALL OVER THE WORLD, including in the US, want to choose their own future. If the GOP is really that B A C K W A R D as to nominate someone that wants to dictate the lifestyle of everyone else, Obama could, potentially, win in a very real landslide w/Congress in tow.
ld
February 14th, 2012
4:44 pm
Regardless of what they might say in public,
and even if they have been “values voters” on the issue of abortion,
will Catholic women, IN THE PRIVACY OF THE VOTING BOOTH actually vote for someone that wants to take away their right (and their daughters’ right) of choice on the issue of contraception?
Do what??????
February 14th, 2012
4:46 pm
Oh goody, all the Bookman loser trolls have come over here to stink up the place. Run along now, trolls.
That means you KUTGF and jewcowboy.
Ernest T. Bass
February 14th, 2012
4:46 pm
Youth of today ALL OVER THE WORLD, including in the US, want to choose their own future.
But we should just do what the Catholic church says.
They have been denying people condoms in poor countries for years and that has worked out beautifully.
Also they have a great Priest to young boy mentoring program.
And the scientific breakthroughs they are responsible for !!! Its a list that goes on and on !!!!
Do what??????
February 14th, 2012
4:47 pm
“Clinton didn’t throw him a bone”
He was too busy throwing it at underaged girls.
ld
February 14th, 2012
4:48 pm
firejnow:
Sanitarynapkin, lol, or
cast iron ChastityBelt?
Ernest T. Bass
February 14th, 2012
4:48 pm
will Catholic women, IN THE PRIVACY OF THE VOTING BOOTH actually vote for someone that wants to take away their right (and their daughters’ right) of choice on the issue of contraception?
No they will not. Most Catholic women already use condoms.
As usual their church is waaaay behind the times.
They might get around to considering condoms in 500 or so years.
Ayn Rant
February 14th, 2012
4:49 pm
Good idea, Kyle! I’ll be voting for Santorum in the primary. I hope everybody with common sense will. There’s no point in voting a democratic ticket in the primary, so let’s give the Republican “establishment” a jolt.
The Republican self-serving elite have been able to win elections by throwing red meat to the loonies. Now, the loonies are threatening to take over the GOP. Ha! Ha!
Who's there?
February 14th, 2012
4:50 pm
Do what??????
February 14th, 2012
4:47 pm
“Clinton didn’t throw him a bone”
He was too busy throwing it at underaged girls.
Well, there’s a new allegation? Care to elaborate? With some proof?
ld
February 14th, 2012
4:51 pm
Read somewhere the enabling and cover-up of the Catholic Church’s mentoring program cost them more than the billion$ that were donated in support of Mother Theresa. Would really like to see the numbers on that.
Do not understand how any member who is a parent stayed in that church when the truth became undeniable.
ld
February 14th, 2012
4:57 pm
Who’s There has hit the nail on the head.
Not unlike the Muslim extremists, the evangelicals & other right wing :
“values” extremists believe women are to be submissive to men–to obey them–as in ownership and control.
Sincerely hope there are not that many dull-witted women cleaving to males of the sadists ilk out there.
ld
February 14th, 2012
5:03 pm
The BEST choice to give the GOP a jolt would be a vote for Ron Paul
He’d scare the sh*t outta the military/industrial/congressional complex — especially those that have been making mega bucks offa these mid-east wars
which have also NOT been co$t-free
they’ve been costing taxpayers considerably more than a few pills would
Big Pharma and the War Industry would tie themselves in knots!
@@
February 14th, 2012
5:05 pm
I wouldn’t expect Santorum to abandon his personal principles. His credibility lies in the fact that he’s faced life’s loss and the challenges that come with life, delivered.
Too often, people choose to do neither. They’re not up to the challenge.
Scooter
February 14th, 2012
5:09 pm
Jew Cowboy, nobody has a right to anything that someone else provides or produces, period. Only a liberal can rationalize it to be anything other than making the provider or producer a ward of the state. Keep believing altruistic politicians can make something costs nothing and we’ll get only what they give us.
ld
February 14th, 2012
5:12 pm
@@
Re: Santorum’s proposals re: manfacturing … hit home
more like OP proposals will put many more working class folk into a manufactured home–IF they can afford even that.
I don’t particularly care for Obama (especially after he repeated W’s bailout the private for mega-profit banks idea) but, d*mn,
the alternative S T I N K S!
Then there’s the Supreme Court to consider.
Can you imagine the disaster for girls/women w/what the current crop of GOP right-wingers would put on the Court?
That there is no VIABLE alternative to the current GOP & DEM presidenital candidates makes me almost physically ill.
Linda
February 14th, 2012
5:18 pm
The Born Alive Infants Protection Act went into law in 2002, passing unanimously in the US senate. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at abortion.
Earlier that year, a similar bill was debated in the Ill. senate. Regarding the issue of having an additional doctor, other than the abortionist, being able to assess the viability of the child, Obama said that it “would burden the original decision of the woman…”
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
I value women’s rights, religious rights in the constitution & the rights of babies. Anyone who thinks a woman’s right to a successful abortion trumps the rights & protections of a viable baby is beyond belief.
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:21 pm
Dear Kyle @ 3:08, ha, I concede. I’ll still vote Santorum Super Tuesday, but I will not have any difficulty voting for Mitt in November. He says he will encourage repeal of ObamaCare, and that is specific enough for me to distinguish him from the undistinguished current Oval Office Occupy movement.
ld
February 14th, 2012
5:21 pm
If Santorum were to become president and put in place laws and policies that actually do make his two wet dreams (no contraception; no abortion) come true, he will then have succeeded in doing for the women’s votes w/regard to the GOP what the civil rights legislation did for the southern white male vote w/regard to the Democrats–
and the GOP would lose its most effective tool, if not tied w/ then at least second only to unlimited $$$$$$$
Jefferson
February 14th, 2012
5:24 pm
I’m voting 2 times in the primary this year.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 14th, 2012
5:31 pm
I think our first hurdle would be the dummycrats actually having enough brains to dream something like this up.
Put’s an end to this theory, don’t it?
If it doesn’t have anything to do with spending up all the money that United States can borrow from China or turning over the Middle East to al Qaeda, the liberals are like, uh, what?
Intellectual road kill at best.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 14th, 2012
5:42 pm
Slaughtering unborn children in their mother’s womb, hating on the church and other such savagery are what the dummycrats desire the most in their empty headed, mindless existences, and obozo is just trying to hook these dimwits up wit duh red meat.
Notice how exited they get with each new abomination?
Come on, Kyle, you should know these things.
ld
February 14th, 2012
5:42 pm
Linda
define “viable”?
live on its own w/feeding and care of full term healthy baby? — then I could be convinced to agree w/you, BUT
—if kept alive only by machines and/or in hospital for many months and/or after birth w/lifetime of mental and/or physical defects? often addicted and unwanted? NO.
just how many of these ‘damaged’ babies have you adopted? or regularly volunteered YOUR time to provide love and care? and/or are for which you are willing to pay $ubstantial sums for a lifetime of financial support?
Neither the GOP leadership nor the rank & file will put its time and/or love and/or money where it’s mouth is on the issue of unwanted children AFTER birth. The current foster-care program is underfunded, poorly and/or under staffed–generally abysmal.
Affordable, accessible contraception and sex education is the best way to substantially decrease the numbers of abortions–but the GOP is against that, too. (in pursuit of a massive cauldron of cheap labor, perhaps?)
I can see why some would not want their tax dollars spent on abortion–but I can also see why others would not want their tax dollars spent on war, or to give subsidies to international corporations, or to make up the difference in tax dollars spent for police and/or fire protection as a result of presence of tax-free church property in their community.
Either the so-called “values voters” should presume their particular dollars go for purposes w/which they do agree
Or state-wide or national charities to aid the impoverished in obtaining needed abortions–w/i guidelines with which contributors can support (incest, rape, health of mother) could be set up?
BUT until the GOP is more consistent w/regard to providing $, etc., to deal w/the consequences of the EFFECT of their stated anti-abortion (and anti-contraception) policies
the HYPOCRACY of the GOP on the issue of unwanted children R E E K S !!
ld
February 14th, 2012
5:47 pm
hey, I report…
Sometimes the GOP is so out of touch w/the reality of what Nixon called the “silent majority” that it just gives a gift to its competition.
This year they should have wrapped their entire slate of presidential candidates in bows.
ld
February 14th, 2012
5:56 pm
The democrats rejection of Hillary could have been just such a gift to the republicans in the last election EXCEPT
Oprah’s following was strong among both white and black women,
Race matters–some voted outed of pride;
and others, w/o regard to other qualifications, voted to make a point,
W had proved the label “conservative” could be a serious misnomer
w/regard to financial matters (two off book wars and bailout)
w/regard to those “wet dreams” of the most extremist right wing “values voters”.
AND, most importantly, the GOP rank and file rejected the republican insider whose “turn” it was to be the nominee.
Do what??????
February 14th, 2012
6:08 pm
“Oprah’s following was strong among both white and black women”
Wonder what became of her?
Linda
February 14th, 2012
6:08 pm
ld@5:42, Maybe you should read the site I cited. The definition of “viable” was to be corroborated by 2 doctors, not just the abortionist, & certainly not me.
Before you “judge” my lack of compassion, perhaps I should share with you the fact that my father never walked a step in his life.
There is such a demand for children in the US, that wanna-be parents are adopting from other countries.
The GOP is not against birth control. Contraceptives can be obtained for free or bought for a mere $9 per month.
Why should the fed. govt. OR the GOP pay for abortions? Don’t women’s rights include responsibilities?