Santorum: GOP donors don’t know the “first thing about what it takes to win”
In accounting for the GOP’s loss, Santorum emphasized Romney’s inherent limitations as the GOP standard-bearer. “He ran the campaign he could,” Santorum tells National Review Online. That was a campaign focused primarily on the economy, rather than on the three major issues that fueled the tea-party movement in the wake of President Obama’s election and drove voters to the polls in 2010: Wall Street bailouts, Obamacare, and cap and trade. As the founder of Bain Capital, and having instituted a universal health-care program and proposed joining a carbon-fee regime as governor of Massachusetts, Romney was poorly positioned to capitalize. …
Santorum’s dissatisfaction extends beyond the general election to the primary process from which Romney emerged victorious. “What I found out in the Republican primary is that the donor class of Republicans are different from the donor class of Democrats,” he said, in that Republican moneymen are more reluctant to put money behind dark-horse candidates. (Though casino mogul Sheldon Adelson did spend $16.5 million backing former House speaker Newt Gingrich before donating millions to the Romney campaign.) Santorum said that Republican donors “want a return on their investment,” but that “most people who are giving that money don’t know the first thing about what it takes to win.” Santorum lamented that they take their cues from political pundits who are similarly ignorant and “live in big blue counties,” to boot.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Neither does he .
Lucano on November 17, 2012 at 8:30 AM
From way back in March:
Truer words hath not been spoken.
Stoic Patriot on November 17, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Again, from back in March:
Santorum’s words were dismissed at the time as merely anger at his own defeat. Yet in hindsight they speak a plain and obvious truth.
Stoic Patriot on November 17, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Right, the GOP should have nominated an angry zealot who thinks the government has a legitimate interest in whether people use birth control.
Basilsbest on November 17, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Um, Rick, you had your chance and lost.
rbj on November 17, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Still bitter, Rick? If he thinks he would’ve done better, he’s delusional.
changer1701 on November 17, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Santorum wouldn’t have won either. And in a year where Romney didn’t suck the oxygen out of the room by getting all his ducks in a row back in 2008, a more competitive Republican field might have produced a candidate capable of embracing a Tea Party agenda. Which would likely NOT have been Santorum.
Sekhmet on November 17, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Looks like a strong signal that he won’t try to run again. You don’t start out by spanking the golden goose….
ElectricPhase on November 17, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Nice words, loser. Even a stopped analog clock is right twice a day.
.
And, no, I am not going to support a third party led by you and social cons who have nothing else to offer except social conservatism. Learn some math and learn some economics.
ExpressoBold on November 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Santorum is wholly and vividly correct, except for the implication that Rick Santorum could have done a better job.
Romney ran the campaign he could, which was never going to be good enough because he could not say one word about Obamacare. Obama’s side obliged this, of course, because they didn’t want to talk about it either. As a result no one breathed a word about the most important domestic issue in generations for 7 months after Romney clinched.
But nobody in that GOP clown car was beating Obama. Santorum demonstrated he would have imploded – he was essentially challenged by the GOP electorate in January, “OK, prove you can run a campaign primarily on issues that are important. Prove to us that you’re not obsessed with gays and can deflect the media baiting and you’ll be the nominee,” and he lasted about 3 weeks. He might have gotten Akin and Mourdoch elected by warning them off the trail or maybe just overshadowing them.
HitNRun on November 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Exactly this. Romney had a chance at defeating Obama, Santorum never did. All of the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world doesn’t change that. Santorum’s getting his toldyaso moment- good for him, but it doesn’t mean would have done any better. Far from it.
Priscilla on November 17, 2012 at 9:11 AM
Santorum would have run a good campaign too. Who knows whether he would have won or not, but he wouldn’t have been making stupid statements like ” I will reach across the aisle” in the last week of his campaign.
Why haven’t any of these brilliant people who analyze all the possible reasons why Romney lost ever mention that? Romney was the man who birthed socialized medicine. The GOP nominated as their candidate the man who gave ObamaCare it’s blueprint. And no one wants to admit that had a thing to do with his loss. Instead.. we need to be more like the Democrats. Well heck.. Romney was more like the Democrats than he wasn’t! There are youtube videos out there where Romney is delcaring how much he is pro-choice. Where he is calling Ted Kennedy his friend as he signs the blueprint for ObamaCare, RomneyCare, into law.
Yeah, he was a nice guy. He’d come out hard one day and they next three he’s kissing liberal butt. And in the last week when he thinks he’s going to win, he starts playing it safe, saying he agrees with Obama in almost everything and spewing “I’m going to reach across the aisle” What do you think that made those 3 million GOP voters who stayed at home feel like? It made me cringe and I voted for Romney anyway. But to a lot of people it probably sounded like “Freaking great.. Democrat light! He’s a freaking poser and thinks we’re all stupid”
JellyToast on November 17, 2012 at 9:15 AM
Santorum wasn’t wrong in his warnings about Romney, but he would’ve fared worse in the general election. He would’ve raised far less money and the “war on women” narrative would’ve destroyed him once Achin’ and Mourdock opened their pieholes.
Remember, Romney did get evangelicals to the polls. So it’s not like Santorum would’ve done much better in that area. And Romney won indies by 5 points. I don’t see Rick doing any better. The problem is we didn’t get our base out to the degree we needed and I don’t envision a Santorum candidacy making a difference in that regard.
The key in 2016 is to field a candidate who’s A)solidly conservative(we have a deep bench), B)knows how to discuss social issues without scaring off voters(we’ll see how they fare), and C)isn’t so wealthy that they can be easily demagogued by the Democrat/media complex(shouldn’t be a problem based on the early contenders).
Above all else, we MUST prevent the establishment from pushing another moderate down our throats. That means Jeb Bush or Chris CRISTie are unacceptable and this must be made clearly before we get to the first primary debate.
Doughboy on November 17, 2012 at 9:21 AM
I will never get tired of watching republicans blindly grope their way through the political wilderness. It’s been hilarious.
ernesto on November 17, 2012 at 9:23 AM
The value of Santorum’s comments is not in evaluating his candidacy, but in evaluating the potential of future candidates. The field of candidates in 2015 and 2016 might be very different from the last set.
Dextrous on November 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Romney would have won if the very people on the right who are now savaging him had supported him.
Basilsbest on November 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM
Yes. In the end, the ABR’s defeated the ABO’s.
Priscilla on November 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Agree completely with HitNRun on this one. What a pitiful field we had to pick from this cycle.
I’m pretty socially conservative, but not overall impressed with Santorum, especially when his tax returns came out and his charitable giving was so pitiful. Its like his money wasn’t where his mouth was and I wasn’t comfortable with him representing the “religious right.” At least Mitt was above reproach in that regard, I would like more candidates like that, that are just quietly good people and understate their social conservative values, that it’s the stances they take, but not the reasons they are running, iykwim.
Also, so turned off by politicians that haven’t accomplished anything outside of Washington and politics. I was hopeful Mitt’s private sector accomplishes would bode well for us with him as chief executive. Santorium and Newt politicians is just a turn-off to me, get out in the real world a bit.
But it’s true Mitt just couldn’t speak to fiscally conservative issues well with his background. In retrospect I just don’t think he believed it and it was him. He kept saying stupid things like 47% and that he was worried about the poor because they had the social safety net; we really need someone that can explain why limited government benefits everyone and is good for the health of the country as a whole, even if it bleeds into social values like strengthening families, etc.
Another thing Santorium had going for him was he was voted out spectacularly in 2006 and wasn’t there when the financial crisis went down and didn’t face the TARP vote, I have no doubt he would have voted for it, but not being there he could speak the tea party talk, but if you looked at his voting record when in Congress he wasn’t all that fiscally conservative, just another big government republican. That was just lucky timing for him but he shouldn’t take it to mean he’s some big grass roots favorite.
Anyway, I really got excited about Mitt being our candidate near the end, and I think I would have spent the campaign just feeling defensive about Santorium had he been nominated, and not really excited about him. I don’t think either of them were stellar examples of what republicans really would want representing them, but with our media the standard has to be so high, and no one is going to be perfect, it’s a little daunting thinking about it.
rose-of-sharon on November 17, 2012 at 9:34 AM
santorum would be defeated on social issues. he would be an akin at presidential level.
nathor on November 17, 2012 at 9:36 AM
You are generally an enlightened commenter but if you think you can have an effective party without an establishment then you are delusional. The establishment did not pick Romney. The party picked him. Unlike the Democrats, the party has too many people who are not team players who would rather fight the party they pretend to support rather than the enemy.
Democrats have putrid policies but they know how to win even with a candidate as abysmal as Obama. The fact a man as good as Romney did not have the enthusiastic and unqualified support of his party even after he won the nomination is more of a reflection on the party than Romney.
Basilsbest on November 17, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Thread winner!!! Seriously, Santorum is an angry zealot who could have been easily tied in with Akin. He would have probably lost the popular vote by 10%+. Also, Santorum is apparently under the delusion that he’ll actually be the nominee next time around. Jindal, Ryan, and Rubio are all much younger and more culturally attuned than Santorum (over a decade younger than he is). Both Jindal and Ryan hold similar positions on abortion to Santorum, but unlike Santorum, they have a much more moderate tone. I’m not sure Rubio’s position on abortion.
See.. snotty self-involved liberals like you are why I’m close to reconciling myself with Rubio’s inevitable nomination. Rubio is airy fluff, but beating the Ds at their own identity politics game would be fun. Plus, the endless evil gloating I’d get to engage in would be hilarious^2.
Illinidiva on November 17, 2012 at 9:47 AM
No. This is not what happened. Romney won over most of his critics on the Right. What happened was that folks were so enamored of Romney back in 2008, and gave no thought to how the intervening four years were used against Romney. Was the modeling of 0bamacare on Romneycare an accident? Occupy Wall Street was spontaneous?
Sekhmet on November 17, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Lucano is right. The retort here is…
WORLD: Neither does Rick Santorum
deadrody on November 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Where is the exit polling that shows this was a factor anywhere but in your mind ?
Romney is ultimately going to exceed the McCain/Palin vote totals. The “conservatives stayed home” meme is a complete and utter myth. Romney did not lose because he was tenuously connected to Obamacare. Did you NOT see the polls that are now showing OBamacare with much higher approval ratings ? Did you not know that of the 55% opposed to Obamacare that some 15% actually wanted it to be worse, as in single payer ?
Stop perpetuating BS.
deadrody on November 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM
The best thing that can happen with O-care is to LIB. It seems like it is going to be a mess, especially considering over half the states are going Galt with the exchanges. If it turns out to be messy, the electorate will be begging for a repeal in 2016. Also,it’ll be amusing to see the little bratty millenials whine when they realize they are going to be shelling out lots of money to pay for old people rather than being able to use the Treasury as an ATM.
Illinidiva on November 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM
I wish I hadn’t read that.
There are too many former narcissistic politicians who couldn’t be re-elected to the position they once held! but magically think they can leap into the Presidency.
Marcus on November 17, 2012 at 11:14 AM