Was Santorum Right About Romney All Along?

Although he's been soundly rejected by voters in his own state and by Republican voters nationally, Rick Santorum clings to the hope he can still have a remunerative career in right-wing politics. This past weekend he was a speaker on behalf of the Romney family-- who were afraid to show their faces-- at the so-called Values Voters Summit. It was like a Star Trek convention, except for Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter fans... and Santorum was in his element. In the video above he was caught telling Illinois Republicans why Romney's nomination would be a catastrophe and how Romneycare and Obamacare are identical. But he had something altogether different to say at the Summit Saturday when he asked attendees to back Romney: "If ‘ObamaCare’ is implemented, if the foreign policy of this president continues, we will live in a world and in a country that is fundamentally different than the one that we have lived in for the past. There’ll be a realignment in the world and America, and the values that built this country over 230 years will be very different that we hand off to our children.”

Unlike what he told Illinois primary votes a few months ago, he told the right-wing Trekkies that Romney “shares” the values of religious conservatives and, tacitly acknowledging that Romney is losing the debate over the economy-- where most voters now trust Obama more than Romney or the GOP-- he insisted there's “more at stake in this country than just economics. ” (This was also when he congratulated right-wing lunatics that they would never have the support of the media [apparently defining Fox, Hate Talk Radio, the Wall Street Journal, the dozens of corporate owned newspapers and weeklies as something other than "the Media"] or “elite, smart people” on their side. Not sure what he means by elite-- apparently his definition isn't based on income-- but he's sure right about smart people. Smart people, by definition, don't get sucked in by right-wing snake oil salesmen like Romney, Ryan and Santorum... otherwise they couldn't be called "smart."

Other Republicans-- primarily actual elected officials who, unlike Santorum, have to face real voters in November-- are decidedly less sanguine about Romney. Republicans running for Congress are already sensing a reverse coattails effect that could sink many of their careers. And panic is beginning to set in. Although Mormon right-wingers and extremists like Buck McKeon don't sense anything is wrong, more than a few Capitol Hill staffers are starting to tidy up their resumes and ask around about openings on K Street. One high-ranking congressional aide, on the condition of anonymity, told me last night that Romney is going to lose so badly that he would probably guarantee that the Democrats keep the Senate and that if Steve Israel wasn't so utterly inept, lose the House to boot. "Romney will probably go down pretty badly outside the Deep South and the Mormon states and he's going to drag down a lot of our Reps as well. Nominating him was the worst mistake we could have made; Santorum was right about that all along. Now it's too late." I'm not certain if this was someone who works for one of the senators or congressmen who spoke with The Hill about the need for Romney to change his campaign and his messaging immediately. An increasing number of Republican electeds are "grumbling" that he's better change course and change it fast. "Some GOP senators are worried," writes Alexander Bolton at The Hill that Romney has yet to give voters a clear vision of what to expect if he is to become president... Lawmakers spoke to The Hill about Romney’s campaign on background to avoid publicly criticizing their party’s nominee."

Two legislators said Romney’s image as a seasoned Mr. Fix-it is undermined by the perceived vagueness of his policy agenda.

Romney has taken hits from conservative allies and media critics alike for not fleshing out his positions on tax reform, entitlement reform and the war in Afghanistan with more detail.

“If you’re going to bring it to the American people, you’ve got to show details,” said the lawmaker who questioned what he saw as efforts during the GOP convention to cast Romney as a warm and fuzzy candidate.  

Members of the tax-writing committees are pleased that Romney has limited his tax proposal to a broad sketch. This gives them more freedom to craft the details of a tax-code overhaul, just as Obama left Congress wide discretion to draft the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

But lawmakers who are more concerned about Romney’s campaign progress than protecting their turf, privately say the lack of detail on taxes could become a liability.

Another member said he fretted that middle-income voters may feel popular tax breaks such as the mortgage interest deduction under threat from Romney’s tax plan.

Romney’s performance on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday failed to impress lawmakers who thought it lacked sufficient detail.

When pressed by host David Gregory about the details of his tax plan’s math, Romney answered vaguely.

“The specifics are these which is those principles I described are the heart of my policy,” he said. “And I’ve indicated as well that-- that contrary to what the Democrats are saying, I’m not going to increase the tax burden on middle-income families. It would be absolutely wrong to do that.”

Romney did not help his relationship with GOP lawmakers by criticizing the deal they struck with Obama and Democrats to cut the deficit in exchange for raising the debt limit. It led to an awkward exchange between Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and reporters Tuesday.

“Look I don’t have any interest in getting into a debate with the nominee of our party,” McConnell said. “You’ll have to ask him why he said that.

GOP senators by and large agree with conservative pundits who have criticized Romney’s communications strategy.

The Weekly Standard published an open letter to Romney from contributor Peter J. Hansen urging him to be more specific in his policy prescriptions. Conservative media titan Rupert Murdoch this week tweeted: “Romney must draw clear line: offer specific path to restore American dream versus ugly Obama class war with jobs disappearing.”

Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan on Wednesday said Romney struck the wrong note by calling Obama’s response to the deadly attack on American diplomats in Libya “disgraceful.”

“I don’t think in his statement on what happened in Libya last night and in his remarks today I don’t think he did himself any favor.  At a moment of crisis like this, I think it’s kind of a water’s edge moment,” she said during an interview on WSJ Live.

“Romney looked weak today, I feel,” she added.

...One GOP lawmaker said that Romney is behaving too cautiously by discussing few details about his plans for reforming the tax code and entitlement programs.

While Romney has embraced Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s budget plan, he has not offered an in-depth discussion of how he would implement Medicare reforms if elected. He added to confusion about his healthcare stance over the weekend by stating “I’m not getting rid of all of healthcare reform” after repeatedly calling for the repeal of “ObamaCare” earlier in his campaign.  

“He doesn’t want to piss people off,” said one Republican senator.

The lawmaker expressed concern that Romney’s refusal to release more than one year of tax records combined with the lack of detail in his tax plan could create an impression among voters that he has a hidden agenda. This has allowed Democrats to gain some traction with their charge that the Romney-Ryan plan would raise taxes on the middle class, the source said.

“You really have none that anyone can remember and that’s what people are telling you,” said a Republican aide when asked about Romney’s 59-point roadmap.

“One need not be overly specific but to rally the base and the American people there has to be some articulation of a vision of America in 2016,” said the aide. “Reagan was very clear.”

Although the DCCC, badly misled by Steve Israel, is almost exclusively targeting a bunch of inconsequential backbenchers, there is increasing worry in Republican circles that even Israel's incompetence won't be enough to keep more than a few senior Republicans-- ones he's pledged to leave alone-- safe in their reelection bids. Paul Ryan is so scared of losing both the VP run and his House seat in Wisconsin that he's now spending hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising on TV for the House election. Senior Republicans like Buck McKeon (R-CA), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Ed Royce (R-CA) are starting to look over their shoulders and take their elections seriously. If Pelosi had chosen a more suitable DCCC chair they would all be toast.