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
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
10:46 am
MarkV, how many road contracts have you let? How many properties have you taken by eminent domain? How many budgets have you approved for sheriff’s deputies to patrol the roads? In short, what is your government service record that you can make a claim that I understand nothing about the government I actually worked in?
Thought so.
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
10:46 am
“Go on, go on, keep proving that you understand nothing.”
Hmmm, myself and others point out your hypocrisy with facts and you come back with a diversion.
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
10:46 am
“Speaking of surveys”
What survey?
Link please.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
10:49 am
Partisay, who do you think the Tea Party is going to align with?
Let’s see . . . a group of people who want limited government is going to align with:
A: The party that represents all government all the time, aka, the Democrats, or
B. The party that at least TALKS about limited government, even if they are inconsistent in their application of such?
I’m guessing – B.
Far easier to change the party that at least talks the talk, rather than the one diametrically opposite of your beliefs, isn’t it?
Junior Samples
February 15th, 2012
10:52 am
And Kyle would have us believe that the Republicans would never use social issues as a wedge during an re-election campaign.
Nice try.
And I loved the “Stephanopoulos was taking orders” and referencing Sean Hanity in the same paragraph. Because he certainly isn’t doing the same, right?
Partisay
February 15th, 2012
10:55 am
“Speaking of surveys”
What survey?
Link please.
Why should I provide a link? Tiberius didn’t when he referred to surveys saying that tea party members were NOT republican. Why don’t you ask him to provide a link???
MarkV
February 15th, 2012
10:55 am
Logic and understanding according to Tiberius:
A person or a group of persons have some funds. He has a fund administrator, who makes investments and whatever other actions he/she considers necessary.
Who owns the funds?
According to Tiberius’ logic, it is the fund administrator.
MarkV
February 15th, 2012
10:58 am
Tiberius @10:46 am
Thank you for confirming what I have written, by citing irrelevancies.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
10:58 am
“Women have a right to one kind of contraception and that is the right to say “no.” Any other form of contraception involves a product or service, which takes time and money.” – Neal Boortz
The line of the day. And sums up the whole “rights” issue succinctly. Remember that for something to be a “right”, it must be able to do without the need of someone else’s life, liberty or property.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
11:00 am
The definition of a MarkV argument: When you don’t have anything to come back with, make up what the other poster allegedly believes in.
Nice try, MarkV (well, not really).
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
11:02 am
“Why should I provide a link?”
Because if you had any common sense you’d know that posting other data without a link is plagiarism.
Also, if you don’t then we’ll all just consider you to be a liar.
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
11:03 am
” Why don’t you ask him to provide a link???”
Ok, link please.
Is that better?
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
11:03 am
“When you don’t have anything to come back with, make up what the other poster allegedly believes in.
This is MarkV in a nutshell: “I know you are but what am I? Nah nah nee boo boo.”
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
11:04 am
“Why should I provide a link?”
According to the rules of this forum, Partisay (as articulated time and time again by Kyle), cutting and pasting without attribution isn’t allowed, which is clearly what you did.
I, on the other hand, did not cut and paste from any source, but rather used my memory of a poll of Tea Party people done about a year ago..
Provide the link, please.
Partisay
February 15th, 2012
11:05 am
Partisay, who do you think the Tea Party is going to align with?
Well, according to your “surveys”, it’s republicans, democrats and independants. Your the one who tried to deceive everyone into believing the tea party is not republican. I believe your exact words were ” The Tea Party is NOT the Republican party.”
Make up your mind….do they align with the republican party – as you just said, or are they made up by the others, as your “surveys” say?
No, but they are made up MOSTLY by the republican party. Now you’re saying
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
11:07 am
Partisay
Post a link. Stop diverting attention away and post a link.
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
11:08 am
“No, but they are made up MOSTLY by the republican party.”
The Tea Party is made up of people who are pissed off at government spending.
cranky old man
February 15th, 2012
11:08 am
Man, it took ‘em long enough. The Republicans have been playing this game successfully for 40 years now. Get people upset about social issues, many of which are symbolic in nature, in order to distract attention away from their economic policies. Eventually, they get people to associate support for Democratic economic policies with support for some crazy nonsense like taxpayer funded sex change operations for death row inmates. The Democrats are slow learners, but they apparently finally caught on.
Partisay
February 15th, 2012
11:09 am
So if i had just stated a survey said 83% of tea party members are with the republican party, you wouldn’t have asked me for the link?
Nice try….
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
11:10 am
“Partisay, who do you think the Tea Party is going to align with?
Well, according to your “surveys”, it’s republicans, democrats and independants.”
No, no, no, Partisay, you don’t get to re-word my response to you. I did not say they “aligned” with a particular party – you did. I merely said that Tea Party members come from ALL political persuasions, which is not the same as alignment.
Partisay
February 15th, 2012
11:14 am
Tea Party members come from ALL political persuasions (who just happens to be 83% republicans), which is not the same as alignment.
Nice try again….
This is fun!
Partisay
February 15th, 2012
11:14 am
And be sure to let me know if I break any more “rules”…..
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
11:17 am
Looks like Partisay’s “survey” can’t stand up to public scrutiny.
Typical.
Who did in come from, Partisay? Media Matters? MoveOn? Or maybe that bastion of balanced reporting known as MSNBC?
What
February 15th, 2012
11:45 am
B. The party that at least TALKS about limited government, even if they are inconsistent in their application of such?
What limited government?
- Department of Homeland Security
- Medicare Part D with no negotiating prices of drugs
- Terri Schiavo
- etc
Partisay
February 15th, 2012
12:06 pm
“used my memory of a poll of Tea Party people done about a year ago..”
So, who did the survey? I’m sure you can remember.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
12:12 pm
Partisay, once again, I was not the one who cut and pasted from another site without attribution – YOU did.
Man up and post the link.
GT
February 15th, 2012
12:29 pm
We own the roads, meaning the state which requires the insurance or the feds who subsidize most of the roads that are claimed by the state?
It is mandatory to insure cars because so many accidents were occurring with people who had no insurance, and victims were having to pay for the damage to their cars. We have that same problem with health care. There is a moral obligation to save life if it is dumped on our doorstep, not any different from the logic used to stop abortion by the right. We spend a lot of time defining morality, and conceptual life but I think a dead man or woman ,you could have saved, lying on the front steps of you house or community is a moral obligation.
I am always lost with Republicans and where these things they stand for take them. We have wars we can’t win, whether they are drugs or in some desert over the ocean. We trade today with Vietnam, but not with Cuba. We leave billions if not trillions in Iraq for the luxury of our enemy as we leave an unfinished job we should not have started in the first place. We don’t want to take care of the poor, yet we are scared to death of terrorist overseas that got to us during the first Bush administration, had not before and it is my bet will never again. We disenfranchise the poor and they don’t have a ocean, or immigration to fight to get here. We can’t win every war we are going to have to learn to live with different people, no matter what your party tells you, the times they are a changin.
Teri
February 15th, 2012
12:34 pm
Santorum isn’t a Tea Party Candidate. “Santorum opposed the tea party and its reforms in the Republican Party and conservative movement just a couple years ago saying, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party … to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/why-i-chose-newt-over-santorum/
MarkV
February 15th, 2012
12:39 pm
GT, one cannot debate with people like Tiberius, who does not know or understand we drive on PUBLIC roads, not government roads.
GT
February 15th, 2012
12:40 pm
Good for you Teri, though I am afraid we look at Santorum as a Tea Party Candidate and that has killed your party for this season anyway. This country gets out of whack with it’s political balance about once or twice a half century. It always finds itself and will this time. We need a strong Republican Party or we will have a weak Democratic Party ruling. The state of Georgia has been a one party state one side or the other since history began, it has done nothing good for us.
Teri
February 15th, 2012
12:48 pm
Santorum is so totally off what the Tea Party is all about it isn’t funny. His record is anti Tea Party. Once ALL of his record comes out, people will see how much like Mittens he really is!
Who's there?
February 15th, 2012
1:24 pm
“The Catholic nuts typically vote for Democratic candidates. You guys are stuck with the pope worshipping clowns.”
Another glowingly insulting, specious, flat out wrong diatribe from the MiltonMan. Seriously, dude, what is wrong with you?
Who's there?
February 15th, 2012
1:26 pm
Oh, I forgot “vile”.
Partisay
February 15th, 2012
2:18 pm
According to the rules of this forum,……
Can somebody tell me where these rules are posted?
Partisay
February 15th, 2012
2:55 pm
I found them!
Uh oh….#2 says No Name Calling….
Do What???? at 10:16 started his comment with “Hey, Idiot left wingers….
Somebody’s going to get in TROUBLE!!
gjb5528
February 16th, 2012
1:39 pm
Why did you cut of my response to your article, I didn’t repeat myself at any time, but you cut me off,
maybe you didn’t like my answer. That to me appears to be the same kind of talk that the left deals in, I won’t bother to post anything on this biased forum again, Thanks for nothing but intolerance to a persons opinion.
sue
February 16th, 2012
7:57 pm
Ron Paul for president!! He is the only true conservative running.
The ‘regional’ GOP is being won outside the South | Kyle Wingfield
February 17th, 2012
6:14 pm
[...] when social issues returned to the fore of the national debate, with both the Obama administration’s health insurance mandate for [...]
duh
February 18th, 2012
7:13 am
Contraception should not be turned into a political issue and cost either party any votes. The government has always provided free contraceptive services through your local community health department. Anyone can get condoms, birth control pills, venereal disease testing, etc. through the health department. That includes any young girl who is menstruating, she can walk in there and get birth control pills without her parents knowledge or consent, and the health department will give her a permission slip to get back into school. Wake up public! The public health departments were in existence long before Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood is not the only answer. We are supposed to have a separation of church and state in this country. Our country leaders should be focusing on big issues – like how to cut the budget so our children and grandchildren will not be living under the mess of debt we created over their heads rather than force religious institutions to provide contraception which is already provided by the government health departments! Wake up public!