Santorum: McCain can’t win

January 10, 2008

National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez argued yesterday, “I don’t see how [John McCain] wins the Republican nomination. I’m second to none in praising him on his surge leadership. But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us.”

Now, it’s become a little too common for Republicans to use torture techniques as a litmus test for Republican fealty, but putting that aside, I think Lopez’s other point — McCain just isn’t reliable to conservatives — has a certain political salience right now.

Rick Santorum — you remember him, don’t you? — chatted with conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt this week about his take on McCain.

“Look, John McCain looks at things through the eyes, on these kind of domestic policy issues, looks at it through the eyes of the New York Times editorial board, and accepts that predisposition that if you are not, if you stand for conservative principles, there’s some genetic defect. […]

“McCain will not get the base of the Republican Party. I mean, there was a reason John McCain collapsed last year, and it’s because he was the frontrunner, and everybody in the Republican Party got a chance to look at him. And when they looked at him, they wait well, wait a minute, he’s not with us on almost all of the core issues of…on the economic side, he was against the President’s tax cuts, he was bad on immigration. On the environment, he’s absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country. He is for bigger government on a whole laundry list of issues. He was…I mean, on medical care, I mean, he was for re-importation of drugs. I mean, you can go on down the list. I mean, this is a guy who on a lot of the core economic issues, is not even close to being a moderate, in my opinion.

“And then on the issue of, on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain every took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened.”

Hewitt, as an enthusiastic Romney backer, was certainly pleased to hear all of this, and piled on with criticism from former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson.

HH: Now Michael Gerson, you observed from the White House the battles over McCain-Feingold, and especially the Gang of 14. You know he voted against the Bush tax cuts. I admire John McCain a lot. I don’t like him at all. I mean, I really don’t like him. And as a result, you know, I will grudgingly throw in if he’s the nominee, but I don’t want to abandon my conservative Reagan-Bush coalition to John McCain’s leadership. Is this something you hear a lot from people?

MG: Well, it is on a couple of issues. I think the main policy problem John McCain has is that I don’t think there’s much evidence that he’s a convert on the pro-growth economic philosophy. When he opposed the Bush tax cuts, it wasn’t just that there was not offsets, and not sufficient cuts. He used our class warfare arguments, it’ll only benefit the top 1% and other things. I don’t think he buys the kind of supply side ideology that has really determined American economic policies the last 25 years, particularly under both Reagan and the current President Bush. And so that is, I think, the real problem. I mean, he has a soft spot for regulation in his record. He also is not really a supply-sider.

Here’s the thing: I’m delighted to see and hear all of these high-profile Republicans express their disappointment with McCain, but at a certain point, they’re going to have to pick a rival before it’s too late.

Talk to the religious right and you’ll hear, “McCain isn’t one of us.” Talk to the nativists and you’ll hear, “McCain isn’t one of us.” Talk to Club for Growth crowd and you’ll hear, “McCain isn’t one of us.” Talk to the pro-torture crowd and you’ll hear, “McCain isn’t one of us.” But ask who they do like and you’ll get quite a few different responses.

In 2000, we heard the same thing, but there was one viable alternative, who they all, in turn, rallied around. Now, there’s quite a few credible candidates.

It’s not an original point, but it’s McCain’s saving grace — he’s the least offensive candidate to a variety of factions, and his opponents have coalesced around anyone else.

“Now, there’s quite a few credible candidates.”

Really? Who are they? Fred Thompson? Rudy Giuliani? Mike Huckabee? Ron Paul?

OK, maybe Romney is “credible.” But he isn’t “quite a few.”

  • Why isn’t Santorum working for CNN like Ralph Reed? They both have equal credibility. (snark)

  • There will be a lack of enthusiasm for McCain if he is the nominee. No, Hillary hatred won’t compensate completely.

    He will not turn out the base (Fund. Christian) as well as Bush, perhaps only marginally less so – and that small amount will be deadly. Many will be furious if he is the nominee, and will be willing to show the party how much their vote matters. If anyone recalls, the last 2 Pres elections were a little bit close.

    I think evidence of this will be seen in how strong Huckabee remains thru the campaign.

  • McCain wins by taking Huckabee as his running mate.
    That balances the ticket perfectly for the right.

    Similarly Clinton could win by having Obama as veep.
    Hopefully… he won’t degrade himself.

    Conversely the real question is: Who would Obama’s veep be?
    Hillary?
    LOL. Too many negatives.
    I guess that’s why she makes a good president contender eh?
    No…
    Right now I can only think of one possibility: Obama/Edwards.

  • So according to Santorum, the problem with McCain is that he disagrees with the batshit insane conservative positions? It’ll be interesting to see how far these purity tests go. In state politics here in VA, we’ve seen the GOP reject dissent more and more as they lose power. They seem to believe, despite the fact that they keep losing, that the people really care most about tax cuts and gay marriage and immigration, rather than education and roads, and if they just excommunicate anyone who questions that, they’ll win for sure.

  • It makes Baby Jesus cry to hear gasbags like these refer to “conservative principles” when you know that what they really mean is robotic obedience to whatever they’re told to support such as torture, economic ruin, military degradation, and a complete violation of every constitutional ethic that this country has ever known.

    And they just don’t even see it. Pitiful, just pitiful.

  • McCain/Huckabee would be strong except for one thing: economic conservatives would have a fit. Neither McCain or Huckabee are to the right nearly enough for them.

    And the GOP does NOT want to piss off economic conservatives. Social conservatives will usually cry if they’re foiled, but line up on November anyway to vote for whoever the GOP’s picked. But when economic conservatives are crossed they will gleefully spit in the GOP’s face and go 3rd party, or stay home, or even Democrat. They did it in 2000 and they’ll do it again.

  • hmm. looks like a complicated conspiracy by the Republicans to actually make me think McCain might be acceptable. Must resist! 🙂

  • ROTLMAO,

    McCain wins by taking Huckabee as his running mate.
    That balances the ticket perfectly for the right.

    Not for the Club for Growth people. And they are the ones with the money.
    Not for the nativist/tancredo wing.

  • Mr. Carpetbagger,

    McCain just isn’t reliable to conservatives — has a certain political salience right now.

    Does this affect your view from yesterday that McCain is very competitive in the general election? it would seem to move you more in Drum’s direction.

  • Hewitt, as an enthusiastic Romney backer…

    Wow, the only phrase I have heard less frequently than “enthusiastic Romney backer” is “enthusiastic Clinton backer.” I mean, I love my good looks, but I would never admit to anyone that I am an “enthusiastic mirror lover.”

  • ROTFLMAO,

    McCain-Huckabee? The tax-dodging “Club for Growth” would go ballistic. Romney would keep some of the “Christian Right” home. From the Republican point of view, they have some choices–none of them good! And King George has destroyed the Bush brand for brother Jeb. ROTFLMAO, indeed!

  • I’m torn here.

    If there’s any faction in the country I’d like to see totally marginalized, it’s the Greed Gang. The theocrats sound scarier, but they’re also easier to resist. The neocons *are* scarier, but they’re also at a low ebb of credibility. The Greed Gang has the most power, they’re the hardest to smoke out in terms of proving the harm they do–because most people don’t understand economics and budget trade-offs, and their rhetoric is appealing to the uninformed–and because people somehow think the best way to get rich themselves is (in effect) to let the super-rich do whatever they want.

    So in that sense, I’d like a McCain-Huckabee ticket. Even if they won, so long as the Democrats kept Congress there would be a clear limit to the harm they could do, and they’d create a strong counter-weight to work with President McCain on issues like process reform and global warming.

    At the same time, I do think that McCain is the only Republican candidate with any serious chance of winning. So if these scumbags–and remember, the likes of Hewitt and Sick Rick Santorum are, like Bush, avatars of all three repellent strains of Republicanism–can take him down before the summer, that advances the Democrats’ chances a great deal.

  • But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us.

    Jeez – does anyone else feel a sheer wave of fear when they read stuff like this?

    I should hope I never, ever, ever become one of them!

  • ROTFLMAO,

    Conversely the real question is: Who would Obama’s veep be?
    Right now I can only think of one possibility: Obama/Edwards.

    There are lots of possiblities for an Obama running mate. Biden and Richardson are two if you want to only pick from the 2008 hopefuls. Expand it more and the choices really open up. IIRC, a leading dem from Indiana has been floated as a potential VP candidate. Webb from VA would be viable. Ford from Tennesee would be interesting (an all-black ticket with good regional coverage). The Dem governor from Tennessee. General Wesley Clark would also be a great choice, IMO (now that would be a VP debate I’d love to watch)

  • the only phrase I have heard less frequently than “enthusiastic Romney backer” is…

    How about “enthusiastic Fred Thompson backer”? I was in traffic behind a guy with a “Fred Thompson ’08” bumper sticker on his car – crazy.

    Anyway, looking at Rick Santorum to say who is going to be a “winner” seems a bit odd, though I tend to agree with the overall thrust. McCain pissed off a lot of “conservatives” in 2000, and the “Manchurian Candidate” and “Secret Liberal” memes that went around then have re-appeared. Anecdotes are not data, of course, but the conservative family members I have who hated McCain in 2000 STILL hate McCain and don’t want to have to vote for him – they hate that the press loves him (how can he be a conservative when the press loves him?), they hate his “pandering to liberals”, they hate his support of campaign finance reform – everything about him that the press and the moderates love they despise.

    McCain’s only saving grace is that there isn’t a single Republican in the field who is any better. My wingnut brothers are in a slump because every single candidate is either (in their words) stupid, insane, or John McCain. Fred Thompson was supposed to be their saviour, and he fizzled faster than a wet firecracker.

  • I get the sense that a lot of Republicans don’t like McCain, simply because many Dems do like him. But then the Dems liking him is for the ridiculous perception that he’s a “maverick” and a closet liberal–he’s actually neither.

    So, on the one hand, it’s frustrating to listen to liberals talk about how they like McCain, but on the other, it’s also a key to eroding his base.

  • Gerson: He used our class warfare arguments, it’ll only benefit the top 1% and other things. I don’t think he buys the kind of supply side ideology that has really determined American economic policies the last 25 years, particularly under both Reagan and the current President Bush. And so that is, I think, the real problem. I mean, he has a soft spot for regulation in his record. He also is not really a supply-sider.

    It just blows me away that this kind of talk can go on and on as if it’s serious, when Stockman himself, the guy who dreamed up supply-side “economics,” admitted that it was all a scam to funnel more money to the wealthy. It speaks volumes about Americans’ ignorance that this sort of thing can be asserted without somebody jumping up and calling bullshit on them all. Talk about a mass delusion!

  • The question that still remains, though, is if (a big if) McCain gets the nod, how much love will he get from the independents? And will it be enough to overrride the GOP voting for the Dem candidate or not at all?

    I should also note that the GOP criticism of McCain has never made any sense to me. There are strikingly few issues he breaks with the party on in rhetoric, and even then he usually winds up voting with the party anyway.

    If those three things are all it takes to generate such intense hatred on the right, that party is screwed. Seriously. If they have become such slaves to fealty that a guy who voted with the GOP more than Santorum himself did, they’re hosed.

    And yes, that thought put a smile on my face. 🙂

  • Hey you assholes, it’s my damn turn to be president! I’m an old fucking man, and this is my last chance. Besides, people like me, goddam it! I’m a folk hero, just ask my press buddies who secretly want to be on my campaign. And if I gotta flipflop on taxes or global warming, just say the word, watch me do a backflip like a 20 year old. You think I can’t do a backflip, you chickenshit? You watch. I did backflips all around Baghdad without a flak jacket, you fucking punk.

    And all you media stooges, clean up all that shit I just said so I sound like a nice maverick, OK?

    I gotta go.

  • Santorum chatting with Hewitt. Gotta hand it to Hugh, he really draws GOP movers and shakers these days. Probably has Macacallen lined up to handicap the SC primary,followed by Wide Stance for an analysis of the Log Cabin Republican vote.

  • Obama/Schweitzer
    Obama/Strickland
    Obama/Webb
    Obama/Cleland
    Obama/Powell
    Obama/Salazar

    And I am sure there are many more that make as much, if not more, sense than Obama/Edwards.

  • Man-on-Dog-on-Spew…now there’s a frightening example of Reskunklican “menage et tois” perversion if there ever was one….

  • And the absolute dream ticket, IMHO, for purposes of making wingnut heads explode throughout the land: Clinton/Carter.

  • The “McCain can’t win because he’s not one of us” argument from the likes of Lopez and Santorum leaves out something – that he could, possibly, have enough appeal to moderate Republicans and independents that he could peel off votes from the Demcoratic candidate. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not.

    And, please – no Blue Dog democrats for VP who have sold us out over and over again. Please.

  • Bubba, I’m glad to see someone else bringing up the prospect of Obama/Schweitzer. I seriously hope that the Obama campaign (and the Clinton campaign, if she gets the nomination– but I’m hoping for Obama) will put Schweitzer on the short list. He is definitely NOT a Blue Dog– he is a real, honest-to-goodness progressive who knows how to connect with voters so that they actually DO end up voting for their own best interests, rather than for the slick packaging of the GOP snake-oil. Schweitzer would help put the Mountain West into play, and that, NOT the south, is the place where Democrats can make the greatest inroads.

    Getting back to McCain, he still worries me, simply because of the masses of unaffiliated voters– those who don’t tune in to politics until the day before the election– who are somehow under the delusion that he is a sensible, moderate candidate. Remember, the hardcore Rethugs who follow this stuff as avidly as we do are not the bulk of the electorate.

    So, with that . . . Go Romney! Win Michigan! Can’t wait to kick your sorry tuchus into oblivion come November!

  • Unfortunately, whilst McCain seems the sanest of the bunch to us over here on a whole bunch of issues, when you look at his record it is mostly very conservative.Campaign Finance Reform and the Bush tax returns were the most glaring non-party lines. But he caved on torture. And admit it, he’s b&tsh*& effing insane on the war.

    Though to answer ROFLMAO @#5, i read somewhere earlier that Bush kept himself alive these last 7 years by having hideous Cheney as Veep, that no lefty would ever kill him because what we’s get would be 10 X worse.
    So keeping that in mind, this person suggested Obama pick Hillary as running mate, then none of the right-wing militia types would ever kill him, because they hate her even more.

  • McCain has been consistently in the top 10% most conservative in the Senate. This is smoke and mirrors designed to pull more independents towards McCain and reinforce his unearned maverick misnomer.

  • Wow….banning the reimportation of pharmaceuticals from Canada is a “conservative” position? Since when? What does this rather small issue have to do with ‘conservative’ or conservative positions at all. That’s it’s important enough to make Santorum’s list tells us a lot about Santorum — willing pawn of American state-corporate interests — but that’s all.

    If anything, you’d think that so-called conservatives, who often talk about something called the ‘free market’, would oppose all restraints on trade, such as the ban on reimporting drugs.

    But then, what do I know about ‘conservatives’?

  • i read somewhere earlier that Bush kept himself alive these last 7 years by having hideous Cheney as Veep…

    That’s what they used to say about Bush The Elder and Dan Quayle – though obviously for different reasons.

    That said, Cheney has made a formidable “impeachment shield” for the Boy King, hasn’t he.

  • Both “Man on Dog” and Mitt making that same argument.

    “McCain voted against BUSH’S Tax Cuts and is wrong on Immigration.”

    McCain supports the SAME Immigration Policy as Boy George II. How can the Press not call them on this? What kind of f**king wimps are these guys? Bush’s Tax Cuts are holy but his Immigration Policy is not?

    Ricky, you don’t know squat from s**t.

  • A two-Senator ticket on either side will reek of “Washington insiders!” If the nominees are smart, they’ll pick a governor or a general. I’d bet my house that if Hillary is the nominee, she picks Wes Clark. And Obama could rock the country and the world by picking… Colin Powell, especially if Powell were willing to go nuclear on the the Bush administration, which you have to admit would be his best revenge.

  • dalloway, i agree that Gen. Clark surely has the inside track to be HRC’s running mate. Richardson would actually be a decent choice for her as well. She needs to go outside of the northeast, male, left of her on a least some issues, and probably not a Senator, although obviously a Clinton/Obama party-unifying ticket would have appeal (not unlike Kerry/Edwards, and an even more obvious “understudy” situation aiming for 16 years).

    Obama’s choices are a little more interesting. He needs someone with experience – either administrative or foreign policy, yet who is still consistent with his message of change. Even trickier, he would benefit from someone seen as standing up to Republicans, yet not undermining his positive, “post-partisan” appeal. I’m not sure he has to avoid Senators as much, and the only geography to avoid is upper midwest. Sen. Webb comes to mind quickly. Gov. Schweitzer of Montana is a nice play for the near-west. A gutsy move would be to heal any race versus sex issue by picking Gov. Sebelius, a very impressive Democrat who has done very well in a red state, but that may be too much “change” for this country in one election (a comparable move by HRC would be Powell, but in my mind he is irredeemably poisoned by the UN speech). Biden would be a possibility, but you risk a Dukakis/Bentsen problem where, over time, people start seeing the VP candidate as the one with the gravitas and it undermines the Presidential candidate.

    Salazar should not be near the list. He has flaked off way too many times. (Come to think if it, maybe a “no Group of 14 members” rule should apply.)

  • …(a comparable move by HRC would be Powell, but in my mind he is irredeemably poisoned by the UN speech).

    In my mind as well. He needs to “go nuclear” on the neocons and the W administration before he is redeemed.

  • I adore Jim Webb and he would be a horrible vp. He changed parties, he is way too intense and opinionated to be a vp. I can’t see him following anyone’s lead especially if he thinks it’s wrong headed. Keep him in the senate and groom him for Majority Leader. He can replace Chris Dodd who should replace Harry Reid.

  • Honestly, I only think there are four Republican candidates:
    McCain [conservative/sellout]
    Romney [big business/sellout]
    Huckabee [‘compassionate’/evangelical]
    Paul [texan/crazy]

    They’re trying to come after Bush [sellout/texan] but really none can be everything he was.

    Tancredo-Hunter-what’shisname are all [xenophobe] and [evangelical] or [crazy] and are all pretty indistinct. Huckabee will get most of their votes happily, much like Bush was able to court the [xenophobe] and [evangelical] votes. Of course, there’s the dark horse (no insult to horse, black or otherwise) Giuliani [sellout/criminal] who is really in style the most close to Bush, but he just can’t court the [crazy] [christian] [‘compassionate’] or [texan] votes at all.

  • Oh, and I wouldn’t say no to an Obama/Clinton ticket any more than a Clinton/Obama one – though I think the latter would be to their strengths more, somewhat like the Bush/Cheney is upside down.

    Edwards, I love ya, but I think we need you in the Senate if we can’t get you on top of the ticket.

  • Schweitzer or Strickland would be decent VP choices for Clinton, but I’d guess her team would see Wesley Clark as an even better balance. I could also see them picking Webb.

    I suspect Obama would try to find a modern equivalent to Dukakis’ Lloyd Bensen (elderly WASP statesmen with gravitas, strong re military), or JFK’s LBJ. Dodd, Biden, or Richardson could have worked, but they all did poorly in this presidential cycle. Wesley Clark might come closest in this regard. I don’t suppose there’s any way Gore could be talked into being VP again. Powell is too damaged from his work for Bush. Kerry would have been great if he hadn’t run for president and lost last time around. Tim Kaine (Virginia governor, early Obama supporter) might work.

    Obama or Janet Napolitano could be interesting veep choices for Edwards.

    On the Republican side, I would so like to see a McCain – Lieberman unity ticket go down to defeat.

  • The best Obama VP would be Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Talk about bringing out the women vote in droves! She is truly a remarkable politician and a popular governor in a red state.

    Edwards: no; he’s the past (Remember: Obama is all about breaking from the past).

  • Pingback: How did support for torture become a test of Republican fealty? : Global Dashboard

  • For those trumpeting Sebelius, all I can say is: YES!

    I live in KC, and even some strong Republicans I know from the other side of State Line Road are impressed with her ability to get things done as a Dem in a reliably red state. She manages to get some very progressive things done by showing the benefits of such actions to those in the GOP — no small task.

    Richardson and Clark would also be good VP choices for any of the candidates. although I still think Richardson would be the best choice due to his experience, likability, strength of conviction, and appeal to Hispanic voters.

    Webb is too damn good in the Senate to be taken out of it — jen flowers nailed it in post #44. Same with Biden, who is simply too mouthy and could cause more harm than good on the campaign trail.

    Powell is a very interesting choice, but I’m not sure he has any desire to put his life out there in the open. He seemed a reluctant Sec. of State, and I just can’t imagine him opening his personal life in a way required of someone on a presidential ticket.

    Just my 2¢ … keep the change. 🙂

  • Wow! Santorum doesn’t like McCain. McCain will get a boost in PA from that! One of the best results of the last election in Pa was getting rid of screwballs like Santorum.

  • Obama’s VP will be McCain. Ops I’m sorry that was Kerry that McCain wanted to be VP for. McCain is just plain unelectable. He has too many probelms with Reps and Dems. There going to bury him. It will be Goldwater all over again.

    • Comments are closed.