Bob Van Der Plaats is a good man and one of Iowa’s strongest social conservative voices. He was a major force in that successful drive to toss out three Iowa supreme court justices back in 2010 for legislating from the bench. But this week he’s making news for a story that makes little sense. Having endorsed Rick Santorum, which is fine and understandable, he reportedly phoned up Michele Bachmann to urge her to get out of the race. He apparently also wants Rick Perry to drop out, and also endorse Santorum.
As Bachmann is said to have pointed out to Van Der Plaats, she consistently polls ahead of Santorum. Perry does too. Perry also has far more money and a stronger organization than either of the others. These things do actually matter in politics. Contrary to the musings of some, all three candidates here have one thing in common: They’re all actual social conservatives with the record and rhetoric to back it up. The main difference between Perry, Bachmann and Santorum is that of the three, Perry has far more executive experience, has a much stronger record winning big elections, and has enough of a real libertarian streak to be able to win over independent voters. For what it’s worth, he has also helped wreck the Democratic Party in Texas over the past few years.
“But…Gardasil!” comes the response. Show me a state government that doesn’t mandate vaccinations. But I’ll show you a governor who listened when the legislature opposed him, and stood down. Gardasil is, in the grand scheme of things, a trivial issue and the stakes are too high to let it get in the way.
So what I want to know is, why does Van Der Plaats think Santorum is more electable than Bachmann or Perry? Of the three, Santorum is probably the least electable. He was great in Congress but has no national following, as Bachmann does have via the Tea Party. Santorum has no record of governing anything, as Perry has. In his last electoral foray, Santorum got trounced by a weak candidate running solely on his family name. How one transfers that into winning a national election against Barack Obama is mysterious, to say the least. Just for fun and to play the purity game, let’s also note that Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004. Specter returned the favor by knifing the GOP in the back.
The impulse to unite the social con wing of the GOP behind a single, viable candidate makes a lot of sense. I just don’t see any serious argument to be made that Rick Santorum is that candidate.
I see four tickets to stay in the race coming out of Iowa. Based on the polls plus money, organization and message, the likelihood that Rick Santorum gets one of those tickets is not high. But Rick Perry might, and social cons would do well to ponder that over the next couple of weeks.
Update: Bob Van Der Plaats was on Fox earlier, and says he called Bachmann (and Perry) on Friday to discuss the race, did not bring up the endorsement of Santorum, and did not call on anyone to drop out. Perry’s camp has confirmed that call, and says Van Der Plaats didn’t call on anyone to drop out.
So what gives? Did Bachmann misunderstand Van Der Plaats?
While he was on Fox, Van Der Plaats added that he thinks Santorum could be the Mike Huckabee of 2012. By which, he means Santorum could win Iowa before flaming out to the more “establishment” candidate? If that happens — if Iowa picks another non-winner — that’s not really good for Iowa going forward.
Your points are well made, but the overwhelming one is this. A heavy social con agenda is a big loser for the GOP in the general, NOT because the country isn’t socially conservative. Relatively speaking, it is. But because most people think these things are not government issues. Santorum, after he shut down Congress over Terry Schivo, lost his reelection big time. It’s the economy, stupid. Kee the private life private.
If only leftists believed in “keeping private life private”, eh?
I’ve decided to move away from personality politics and focus on fundamentals.
We need a president and motivated leadership devoted to:
- Jobs and the economy
- National security, including secure borders
- Energy independence for security, growth and yes, JOBS
- Freer markets to encourage business and innovation
- Smaller government
- A balanced budget with sound fiscal policies in place
- Active debt reduction actions NOW not 10 years in the future
I would wholeheartedly support any Republican who can deliver on these central issues. Perry’s performance track record and central running points are closest to this list. And, he’s put together smart, clear plans that demonstrate solid thought and real executive capability.
That said, I’m not voting Republican this time, I’m voting ABO.
Great list, but I’ll bite. What does ABO stand for?
I would add Believer in Federalism to your list, which would only enhance Perry’s lead.
But I also think the entire list is subservient to electability this time. The country can’t begin to heal until little lenin is evicted.
ABO – Anyone But Obama.
Lots of folks, here and elsewhere, say they’ll stay home from the polls if “XYZ candidate” is the Repub pick. I want the best candidate possible, but in a pinch, ABO will do. We already know who the worst candidate is.
Yep, a commitment to Federalist principles is a good add-on. Thanks.
Isn’t Santorum polling higher in Iowa than Perry? I agree that RP is a better candidate than RS, but RP shot himself in the foot out of the box, and that is very hard to overcome. Logic would dictate that if a challenger comes out of Iowa, then it will be RP. Of course, the voters will be the final arbiter of that.
But there is an interesting dynamic going on among the three true conservatives. It’s a rock scissors paper thing. What will count more? Money, being a governor, formerly being a Senator, dogma, dogma lapses, being a House stalwart, spending six consecutive months in Iowa, losing a Senate race bigtime, conservative charm, or debating technique. From that list, I would guess the high to low order would eventually be Perry, Santorum and Bachmann, but we’ll soon find out what the people who count think.
And isn’t it a shame that none of the three has really proven to be a superb debater. Perry has certainly improved. Santorum can be good, but seems not to be charming enough. Bachmann is great 95% of the time, and then gets carried away and negates it all because she can’t bend on even the most minor issues.
“The main difference between Perry, Bachmann and Santorum is that of the three, Perry has far more executive experience, has a much stronger record winning big elections, and has enough of a real libertarian streak to be able to win over independent voters.”
One other difference is that Perry is pretty much an amnesty guy. He employs the standard dodge employed by most Texas establishment Republican’s on the subject. He talks a lot about security at the border but wouldn’t even think about forcing employers to verify immigration status. Count on him to sign a “comprehensive reform” if it contains some window dressing about border security and if the public is being inattentive.
One other matter. Bachman may have missed the point and looked silly by taking an anti-vaccination stance but that doesn’t mean Perry’s cames out of the whole controversy looking good. Aside from the parental rights issue, Perry acting by administrative fiat, apparently with the intent of bypassing the Legislature. Remind you of anyone? And then there is the cronyism implicit in connections between Perry associates and Merck. That sort of connection between Perry and the beneficiaries of his actions as Governor pops up with Obama-like frequency.
“That sort of connection between Perry and the beneficiaries of his actions as Governor pops up with Obama-like frequency.”
Indeed. Texas is heavy on crony politics. They just do not see anything wrong with it.
Another problem I have with Perry is his education (agricultural science). Everyone else running has an advanced degree of some type, except Huntsman, and Huntsman at least can point to the 4(?) foreign languages he speaks. This is the most educated slate of candidates ever in my lifetime, and Perry is the dullard of the bunch. He probably has the worst grades, too, with his C’s & D’s. The others are all far more articulate. I just do not need another Bush-like, bush league C-student (although at least Bush had his MBA).
Don’t give me that crap about him being a pilot, either. Effing McCain was a pilot, too, 4th from bottom in his class, barely passed. C’s & D’s. None too bright.
I’m supposed to vote for the class dunce? With all these intelligent, highly-educated, good-grade candidates available? Really?
I must say this sort of thing bothers me a lot. The idea that the grades you got in college 25-30 years ago tell anyone anything about how intelligent you are is short-sighted, to say the least. At best you get a general idea of whether a person is very smart, in that people who graduate from college summa cum laude or whatever are generally intelligent. The trick is that people who graduate with good grades don’t always turn out to be good at practical things. I can tell you, for instance, that West Point rankings (which are academic, and also include demerits for behavioral and disciplinary issues) are not always that reliable. Lee did well at West Point (2nd in his class) but the guy who was better than he academically was a guy named Charles Mason, who went on to a remarkably obscure career as a judge in Iowa. Grant, on the other hand, was a very mediocre student, more than halfway down his class’s rankings, and some other famous generals didn’t do well either. Courtney Hodges (commander of the U.S. First Army 1944-5) flunked out of West Point after a year due to academic difficulties.
My point is this. The smart guy, the one with the Ivy League education, Editor of the Harvard Law Review? He’s already in the White House. Smart academics aren’t what we need…it’d be good to have someone with some practical experience, who knows how to make something run. Whatever you think of him, you should remember Bill Gates dropped out of school.
You’re exactly right. George W. Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School and was considered an idiot. Obama graduated from Harvard Law and despite a complete lack of evidence, is considered super intelligent.
Bill Gates (co-founder of Microsoft) dropped out of Harvard.
Paul Allen (other co-founder of Microsoft) dropped out of Washington State.
Steve Jobes (co-founder of Apple) dropped out of Reed.
Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple who actually designed their first computers) dropped out of Berkeley. Years later, he returned and earned a bachelor’s degree in engineering under an assumed name.
Larry Ellison (co-founder of Oracle) dropped out of college.
Bill Lear (think LearJet) dropped out of the 8th grade. By the time he died, he held dozens of patents in electronics and aviation.
Jack Northrop (as in Northrop-Grumman) was a high school graduate.
The Wright Brothers never attended college.
Too many people equate college degrees with wisdom. If that were the case, academics would be the wisest people on the planet. Sadly, that just isn’t the case.
Larry, I’ve been noticing the same thing. Some of the smartest people who provided us with the most valuable inventions had little to no advanced education. Instead, they had brains, talent, determination and will. The Wright brothers and Edison are two outstanding examples.
If Obama is an endorsement for the power of higher ed … well, hmmn.
In the real world, some of the smartest folks I know have no advanced education. Some of the dumbest folks do.
There are different kinds of intelligence. IQ doesn’t map very well to success in life.
School grades map pretty well to IQ and also to a conforming type personality.
Real-life intelligence encompasses a lot of things that aren’t measurable. Politicians typically have high social intelligence. Many people with high IQ
‘s are even aware of the things that people with high social intellignece navigate effortlessly.
The thing that bothers me about Perry is that he seems to focus only on his base constituency. That works well in Texas, but he doesn’t seem aware that to be elected president, a person has to broaden his appeal. Of course, that is also what pisses a lot of people off about politicians who know that. I think Perry has the ability to do it, because he is kind of a cool dude (which also demonstrates a kind of intelligence), but so far at least, he hasn’t been able to leverage that appeal; probably because he has had to concentrate so hard on reversing his poor debate performances.
If Perry is pro-amnesty, how did he get Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s endorsement?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-perry-nabs-sheriff-joe-arpaios-endorsement-in-new-hampshire/2011/11/28/gIQASoQs8N_blog.html
Perry, Romney and/or Gingrich need to relentlessly hammer Obama on all the jobs he and his minions continue to squash, delay, postpone, defer ranging from the XL pipeline to the delayed Ohio energy effort to every single small business startup or expansion effort in America.
Thinking outloud, if I were Perry I’d be setting up a ticker/clock/calculator that tabulates the number of jobs “Blocked by Obama” and start referring to him as the “unemployment” president. Also perhaps, track and highlight the real rate of unemployment.
To cap it off, Buzzsaw Monkey could provide lyrics for the Obama jobs/economy/business policy set to the song, Every Breath You Take (by the Police). Seems like a natural fit.
Who knows? The sheriff may be desparate. He is under attack on all sides. Maybe he was snowed. Perry is very practiced at using a “tough on border enforcement” shtick as a diversion.
Perry’s quote on the Arizona immigration enforcement law was “that just wouldn’t be right for Texas” or words to that effect. He was against a border fence. He supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens. [But he now say the illegal aliens involved should be on a path to citizenship to qualify. Is that what the law says?]He is against requiring E-verify.
His speeches include a lot of talk about border enforcement (emphasis on border except for the fence of course,) including fantasies about using unmanned aerial vehicles (I guess it would be diverting to watch the border crossers come in even if we aren’t going to make a effort to stop them.)
Perry is a Texas establishment Republican and that means he won’t rock the boat of his financial supporters, many of whom are in industries, such as construction, that benefit from the labor of illegals.
One of Robert Novak’s last columns was a glowing account of how Perry had gladdened the hearts of a crowd of grandees in Mexico City by making it clear he thought this idea of deporting illegal aliens was silly. Novak expanded on this by saying Rick Perry was wise enough to know we need the illegal aliens to support the Social Security and Medicare system for our aging population. I wonder who told him what Perry’s thoughts on that subject were?