Government is serious. Democracy is sacred. And then there is politics the way it is actually played. The Vote blog looks at politics the way the players talk about it among themselves after work.
President Barack Obama pauses while announcing the revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, Friday, Feb. 10, 2012, in the White House press room. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
Political fallout from birth control fight: A glimmer of good news for Obama?
President Obama may have hoped to dispel the political firestorm raining down on him over contraception and religion with the new White House approach announced Friday. But that never was going to happen.
Anything that angers social and religious conservatives while annoying a significant portion of his own base does not soon fade, especially in a presidential re-election year.
Still, there may be some beneficial political fallout for Obama as Republican presidential hopefuls Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich try to outdo each other on this hot-button issue, which they short-hand as the incumbent president’s “war on religion,” leaving Mitt Romney to explain his moderate position on birth control (and even abortion) back when he was Massachusetts governor.
Anything that keeps Republicans fighting, that prolongs the GOP’s nominating process, works to Obama’s benefit.
Then, there’s the divide between the Roman Catholic hierarchy and most Catholics on birth control, back in the spotlight as the result of the controversy, indicating that Obama may be able to keep a good portion of the 54 percent of Catholics whose vote he won in 2008. More on that in a minute.
But for now, as Jonathan Allen at Politico put it, “The battle over contraceptive coverage at religiously affiliated institutions has bound together Republicans of all stripes because it hits core GOP themes: religious liberty, government intrusion, and reproduction politics.”
“Perhaps more important politically,” Allen added, “it has given Republicans something to talk about other than the economy, just when Obama’s gotten a lift from modest gains.”
Under the proposed new rule that Obama announced Friday, religiously affiliated institutions (such as hospitals and universities) will not be required to include free birth control in health insurance plans for female employees.
Instead, insurance companies will be required under the Affordable Care Act to provide contraception to all employees at such institutions free of charge – which may be a distinction without a lot of difference, or as one critic put it “an accounting gimmick.”
Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, calls Obama’s latest move “a first step in the right direction.” Which implies that more steps will be demanded, as Archbishop Dolan puts it, in order to “to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations."
But Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which represents hundreds of church-run hospitals and other facilities, was much more effusive in her response.
“The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions,” Sister Keehan said in a statement. “We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished.”
That appreciation for and support of Obama by the Catholic Health Association was seen earlier and in more controversial fashion when the organization supported the President’s health care reform plan.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops was furious with Keehan, charging that she had “weakened the moral voice of the bishops in the US.”
That episode illustrated the divide between the church hierarchy and many Catholics over some important moral and therefore political questions – particularly when that hierarchy is all-male and the question involves women’s sexuality and reproductive health.
The Guttmacher Institute reported last April that 98 percent of Catholic women have used methods of contraception not approved by the church.
“Sixty-eight percent of Catholic women use highly effective methods of contraception: sterilization, the pill or another hormonal method, and the IUD,” Guttmacher reported. Only 2 percent of Catholic women rely wholly on natural family planning (the “rhythm method”) allowed under church doctrine.
Also regarding today’s controversy over contraception, health care insurance, and religious institutions, many (perhaps most) Catholics apparently do not go along with their bishops.
The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) reported this week that 58 percent of Catholics believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and that a majority of all Catholics (52 percent) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide coverage that includes contraception.
“Given how closely divided Catholic voters are … it seems unlikely that this issue will galvanize Catholics nationally and seriously undermine Obama’s electoral prospects with this important religious constituency,” said PRRI research director Daniel Cox.
We’ll all have to wait until November to know if that’s true.
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas addresses supporters during caucus night party Tuesday in Golden Valley, Minn. (Jim Mone/AP)
Ron Paul's secret ninja strategy for Maine caucuses
Ron Paul has a secret, ninja-like Seal Team 6 strategy to win big in the Feb. 11 Maine Republican caucuses. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and the mainstream media won’t see Paul’s forces coming until they’ve snatched a majority of the Pine Tree State’s 24 delegates and raced off towards August and the national convention in Tampa, Fla.
OK, that’s kind of an exaggeration. But it contains a nucleus of truth. The Paul team has a plan for winning more delegates in many caucus states than straw poll votes would indicate Paul is entitled to. Mr. Paul’s supporters are proud of this approach, which has “not been clearly reported”, as Paul campaign manager John Tate said earlier this week.
We’ll use Maine to explain how this works.
On Saturday, Feb. 11, Maine’s Republican Party is set to announce the results of a presidential preference poll taken at caucuses held around the state. (While many of those caucuses will take place on Saturday, some towns held theirs weeks ago, as we’ve previously noted.)
But that poll is non-binding. It’s a beauty contest, a straw vote, a mere indicator of personal preferences. It will not be indicative of how the state’s delegates will be divvied up.
That apportionment will be the result of a second task the caucuses were supposed to accomplish: selection of delegates to the state GOP convention in May. It’s that meeting that will officially put its stamp on for whom Maine’s delegates will go. So if Paul’s folks stick around at town caucuses and get themselves picked as delegates to the state confab, voila, they can then vote for their guy at the state convention. Thus it’s possible for Paul – or any candidate who tries this – to outperform their beauty contest showing.
That’s the case in most other caucus states, too. (Nevada is different.) As Davidson College political scientist Josh Putnam points out on his invaluable voting process blog Frontloading HQ, “delegates from those states cannot be allocated until, well, they are allocated. In Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, and over the weekend add Maine to the mix, that won’t happen until the congressional district or state conventions.”
Paul campaign manager Mr. Tate spelled out some of the practical implications of this in his statement to supporters. In Minnesota, where Paul finished second to Mr. Santorum in the preference poll, “the Paul campaign is well-organized to win the bulk of the delegates there,” according to Tate.
In Colorado, where Paul finished fourth with 12 percent of the vote, the Texas libertarian will end up with more than 12 percent of the state’s delegates, Tate asserted. In Larimer County, where the straw poll vote was 23 for Santorum and 13 for Paul, Paul supporters took all 13 state delegate slots available, for instance. In Delta County, where the preference vote went 22 for Santorum, 12 for Mr. Romney, and 8 for Paul, Paul took all five available delegate slots. And so forth.
It’s possible that the Paul campaign is cherry-picking districts here in an attempt to make their results look good. It’s also possible that Paul has greater underlying delegate strength at the moment than most members of the Pundit Club realize.
Of course, he’ll need those delegates. At the moment, Romney has 94 pledged delegates that count toward the national convention in Tampa, according to a New York Times calculation. Santorum has 71, and Newt Gingrich 29. Paul has eight.
Plus, the total number of delegates at stake in all GOP caucus states this year is 462, by our count. Yet a candidate needs 1,144 delegate votes to win the nomination. Clearly there are limits to any caucus-centric Paul strategy.
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Republican presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks to a gathering of employees and media after touring the Jergens manufacturing facility in Cleveland during a campaign stop Wednesday. (Amy Sancetta/AP)
Where does Newt Gingrich go after big losses Tuesday?
If Tuesday night was a bad one for Mitt Romney, who didn't come out on top in any of the three GOP nominating contests, it was a worse one for Newt Gingrich.
The former House speaker finished dead last in Minnesota, barely squeaked by Ron Paul in Colorado, and wasn't even on the ballot in Missouri.
The contests mean little when it comes to delegates. Missouri's primary was essentially a "beauty contest" before the state awards its delegates in caucuses next month, and the caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota were nonbinding, though they'll influence the delegate selection.
But for a man who just weeks ago was coming off a big win in South Carolina and seemed to have all the momentum going his way, such a total loss was still bad news.
And while no delegates were awarded, the Tuesday results do matter significantly in terms of money, which Mr. Gingrich needs. Conservative Republican donors who funded Gingrich when he seemed like the best chance to avoid a Romney nomination are now likely to turn to Rick Santorum, who with a sweep of Tuesday's contests now takes on the mantle of conservative "anti-Romney."
Gingrich's polling trends don't look good either. Since his peak right after the South Carolina primaries, he's been going steadily downhill, according to Gallup's daily rolling average. Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum, on the other hand, are climbing.
He also made some key tactical errors, and came across to viewers as angry and out-of-touch in his Nevada post-caucus press conference. (Gingrich opted for the press conference rather than a concession speech, and failed to congratulate Romney on his win.) On Tuesday night, he opted not to speak at all.
Gingrich knew February would be a tough month for him. He had no organization and had done little campaigning in all four of the states voting in the first part of the month, and none of them was a natural fit for him. Even worse, the month is sparse on his strong suit: debates. There is just one debate scheduled on Feb. 22, in Arizona.
His plan has been built on surviving until Super Tuesday, where geography favors him more – Georgia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee all vote then, as does Ohio, where Gingrich is spending more time and money and believes he can be competitive.
And March, overall, is a more favorable month for Gingrich. After Super Tuesday on March 6, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana all hold primaries (among other states). The big prize that Gingrich is gunning for is Texas on April 3 (unless it's delayed due to pending redistricting litigation).
"I run a campaign which twice now has made me the front-runner and I suspect will again by the Texas primary or so," Gingrich told reporters after his Nevada loss.
The problem is surviving until those primaries. In the fast-paced world of Republican primaries, a month is an eternity – and a long time for Santorum to be reaping the donations and press coverage from his victories. Given that Gingrich's biggest liabilities are his lack of money, discipline, and organization, it's hard to see how he'll rebuild those in time to capitalize on the more fertile Southern terrain where his message resonates best.
He's been heavily reliant on his Super PAC funders, particularly casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his family, who have donated $10 million just in the past few months. But at some point, as a Gingrich candidacy seems less and less likely, that support could dry up. And he has few backers among the Republican establishment – or even among other influential conservatives.
Gingrich, known for his tenacity, has vowed to fight on. He spent Wednesday in Ohio, where he hopes to be competitive, and was likely looking forward to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) later this week, which will give a prime speaking opportunity to the audience he most needs to convince of his viability. He plans a swing through Georgia next week, as well as fundraisers in California.
The person who may be happiest that Gingrich intends to stay in as long as possible? Mitt Romney. As long as Gingrich is there to get some votes, it will be harder for Santorum to cobble together enough "anti-Romney" votes from conservatives to defeat him.
In her Right Turn blog Wednesday, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote, "It was a dismal night for Newt Gingrich. If his Romney-hatred is deep will he get out and endorse Santorum? Ironically, Romney probably hopes his nemesis sticks around, taking up 15 percent or so of the not-Romney vote."
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas speaks to supporters during his caucus night party Tuesday in Golden Valley, Minn. (Jim Mone/AP)
Is Ron Paul at turning point in campaign?
Is Ron Paul facing a crucial turning point in his campaign? It sure seems that way following the results of the Feb. 7 Minnesota and Colorado caucuses, and nonbinding Missouri primary.
Mr. Paul did OK on the night, don’t get us wrong. In particular he performed strongly in Minnesota, where he finished second with 27 percent of the vote. He was the choice of about 13,000 Minnesota caucus attendees – an increase of some 3,000 over his support from four years ago. He beat front-runner Mitt Romney and expanded his demographic base of support. That was enough for the Washington Post’s The Fix political blog to name him a winner.
“For a guy who had taken a step back in the last few contests, including finishing a disappointing third in Nevada – a state he really focused on – this was a good night,” wrote The Fix’s Aaron Blake.
Paul also received good news from a new national poll. A Reuters/Ipsos survey released Feb. 8 puts him in second place in the GOP race, with 21 percent of potential Republican voters. Mr. Romney leads the poll with a 29 percent result.
But on Tuesday Paul finished fourth (last) in Colorado, another caucus state, with only 11.8 percent of the vote. That’s a worse showing than he managed there in 2008. He finished third (also last) in Missouri’s beauty-contest primary. (Newt Gingrich wasn’t on the Missouri ballot.)
Given these mixed results, the issue for Paul now is the validity of his caucus-centric campaign strategy.
“Ron Paul’s caucus strategy is taking on water,” wrote Politico’s Maggie Haberman on Tuesday.
Paul has long said he’s focused on caucus states because they provide more opportunity for his well-organized supporters to out-hustle the opposition. It’s cheaper to compete in caucuses than in primaries, and the rest of the field hasn’t focused on them much (with the exception of Iowa) because often there aren’t that many delegates at stake.
For Paul, the moment of truth here may be the upcoming February 11 announcement of the results of the Maine caucuses. He’s campaigned in Maine more than his rivals, and his libertarian ideals sell fairly well in the self-reliant Pine Tree State. On Tuesday night Paul himself predicted that he’d do “very well” in Maine.
The Maine results will reflect a nonbinding straw poll of caucus delegates. But the caucuses also pick delegates to the state GOP convention, and thus the straw poll should be a rough estimate of how many of Maine’s 24 delegates Paul will actually win.
Right now Paul trails in the delegate count. According to the Associated Press, following the Feb. 7 contests, Romney leads with 107 delegates. Rick Santorum has 45, Mr. Gingrich has 32, and Paul has nine. Nomination requires at least 1,144 delegates.
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Republican presidential candidate and former Sen. Rick Santorum speaks to supporters at his primary night rally at the St. Charles Convention Center in St. Charles, Mo., Tuesday. (Sarah Conard/REUTERS)
Rick Santorum triumphant as election takes another unpredictable swing (+video)
Rick Santorum got a big boost to his campaign Tuesday night, notching his first wins of the primary season since Iowa in Minnesota and Missouri, and winning both by a wide margin.
Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the nomination, finished a disappointing third place in Minnesota, behind Texas Rep. Ron Paul, and second in Missouri. Colorado, which Mr. Romney had expected to win fairly easily, was still too close to call late Tuesday night, and a Santorum win was a possibility.
Newt Gingrich, who had downplayed expectations going into Tuesday, had an even worse night, coming in last in Minnesota and likely a distant third place in Colorado. He was not on the ballot in Missouri.
Congressman Paul, who had hoped for a big boost from caucus states, notched a second-place finish in Minnesota, but was third in Missouri and performing poorly in Colorado.
Mr. Santorum's wins were, in some sense, symbolic. Missouri's primary was largely a "beauty contest," since the delegates will be chosen in caucuses in March. Minnesota's and Colorado's caucuses are also nonbinding, although there are actual delegates at stake and the results should help determine the selection of those delegates.
But they are still an important boost to his campaign at a pivotal moment, and seemed destined to prolong the nominating contest and keep Romney from sewing up the nomination quickly, at the least.
"Your votes today were not just heard loud and wide across the states of Missouri and Minnesota, but they were heard loud and louder all across this country, and ... I suspect maybe in Massachusetts they were heard particularly loud tonight," said Santorum in a victory speech in St. Charles, Mo., in which he took aim at both President Obama and Romney – whom he attempted to cast as similar in their stances on health care, the environment, and Wall Street bailouts.
Santorum thanked the conservatives who gave him his win, noting that "tonight was a victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and tea party people," and tried to take on the mantle of nominee, saying, "I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to mitt Romney, I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama."
Notably, Santorum didn't mention Mr. Gingrich's name at all.
Romney's campaign sought to downplay the victories, noting that the contests matter little and that Romney didn't put any time or money into Missouri and relatively little into Minnesota.
And he is relatively well positioned for the next nominating contests – primaries in Arizona and Michigan – on Feb. 28.
In a speech to his supporters in Denver Tuesday night, Romney brushed off the losses, saying only, “This was a good night for Rick Santorum.”
“I want to congratulate Senator Santorum, we wish him the very best, we’ll keep campaigning down the road, but I expect to become the nominee with your help,” Romney added.
Indeed, Romney continued to speak as the front-runner and presumptive nominee, focusing the bulk of his speech on Obama’s record.
Still, the results in Minnesota and Missouri are not only a big boost for Santorum – who seems poised to bypass Gingrich as Romney's primary rival – but point to significant weaknesses for Romney in certain regions and demographics. While Romney performs well in the Northeast and West, he has so far struggled in the Midwest – where he has yet to get a win – and the South, as well as among conservative voters and those outside major metropolitan areas.
If Romney ends up losing Colorado, it will be an even bigger and more surprising loss.
The wins in Minnesota and Missouri were bigger than anticipated for Santorum. He won Missouri with about 55 percent of the vote – more than twice what Romney received (about 25 percent). He won many precincts that Romney won in 2008.
Fewer votes had been counted in Minnesota, but Santorum also seemed poised to win there by a very large margin, with more than twice as many votes as Romney, who was also well behind Paul.
Minnesota is particularly disappointing for Romney, given that he carried the state in 2008 with 41 percent of the vote – back when he positioned himself as the conservative alternative to John McCain.
If nothing else, Tuesday's contests underscored the unpredictable nature of this year's GOP nominating process, in which momentum rarely seems to carry over from one contest to the next.
"Mitt Romney's big wins in Nevada and Florida did not seem to do him much good tonight," wrote New York Times pollster Nate Silver in commentary Tuesday night, though he added that that lack of carryover from one state to the next may ultimately be to Romney's advantage, since "momentum from Rick Santorum's wins in Missouri and Minnesota could evaporate by the time that Arizona and Michigan vote on Feb. 28."
Another candidate – albeit from the other party – who is likely pleased by Tuesday's results: Barack Obama, whose campaign is hoping that the GOP nominating process drags on as long as possible.
RECOMMENDED: Election 101: Rick Santorum makes a bid for the White House
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
President Barack Obama watches as a marshmallow is launched by a gun designed by Joey Hudy of Phoenix, Ariz., Tuesday, in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington during the White House Science Fair. (Susan Walsh/AP)
President Obama hosts White House Science Fair. Did anybody win?
President Obama hosted a White House Science Fair Tuesday, in case you haven’t heard. From the Red Room to the State Dining Room, the executive mansion was full of those fold-out cardboard display boards we all remember from middle school. Next to them were groups of students eager to explain their projects to anyone who happened by.
No, no one studied whether watering bean sprouts with dishwater reduces unemployment. Wiseacre. No one really won, either. It wasn’t a real science fair, in the sense that no ribbons were handed out. It was more of a get-together for kids who’d already won other science or technology competitions.
“If we invite the team that wins the Super Bowl to the White House, then we need to invite some science fair winners to the White House as well,” said Obama.
Darn straight! Could Eli Manning whip up a study on the effect of gender on the Stroop effect? We think not. (Look it up.)
Anyway, some of the projects were incredibly ingenious. One of our favorites was the dissolvable sugar packets invented by 16-year old Hayley Hoverter from a business magnet high school in Los Angeles. Just toss them in your grandissimo hot beverage, and voila. No crumpled bits of paper to litter the floor.
“Tell me when I can buy stock,” said Obama after viewing this concept.
We also liked the sanitizing lunchbox. It was the product of a couple of sixth graders from Kansas City, Missouri, named Ma’Kese Wesley and Isis Thompson. When the lunchbox closes, a UV light goes on and kills germs.
Then there was Samantha Garvey, an 18-year old from Bay Shore, New York, whose years-long study of the mussel population in Long Island Sound earned her a semi-final spot in the Intel Science Search. When she learned of this achievement she and her family were living in a homeless shelter.
“So think about what she’s overcome,” said Obama.
But the big hit was probably the Extreme Marshmallow Cannon. This was a two-foot wooden stand with a PVC pipe contraption on top and an air compressor in the back. Obama himself helped pump up the compressor, and then fired a marshmallow that hit the wall of the State Dining Room.
That’s just what America needs – heavier weaponry for food fights.
Anyway, the White House announced a series of initiatives aimed at bolstering the nation’s science, technology, and math (STEM) education, including an $80 million request in the upcoming budget to help train STEM teachers and a $100 million National Science Foundation investment to improve STEM education practices in schools.
The Obama administration had previously announced a goal of 100,000 new STEM teachers and one million more STEM graduates over the next decade.
“That is a goal we can achieve,” said Obama.
Obama also highlighted a venture partially funded by Time Warner Cable, with the involvement of the entertainer Will.i.am, in which kids think up ideas for stuff they’d like to invent and send them to the website WouldntItBeCoolif.com.
Finalists will get to pitch their ideas to a panel of inventor pros. Here are two suggestions from middle schoolers we know: plates that change color in a microwave so you know how hot they are, and sofas with cat scratching posts built into the corners. (Why fight it? They’re going to claw there anyway.)
Got your own ideas? Post them in comments – and send them to the site mentioned above.
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks in Colorado Springs, Colo., Tuesday. (Chris Carlson/AP)
Could Rick Santorum put Newt Gingrich in the rearview mirror Tuesday?
Tuesday night is shaping up to be a good night for Rick Santorum.
While polling has been limited in the three states holding contests Tuesday (Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri), and an unusually high number of voters are uncommitted, pollsters are predicting that Mr. Santorum will win two out of the three and should place a close second to Mitt Romney in Colorado.
The question is: Will that be enough to revive Santorum's candidacy or even put him on a path to nomination?
Despite winning (barely) Iowa's caucuses a month ago, Santorum has been largely an also-ran in the early contests, barely getting mentioned by headlines more interested in Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul.
So why is the former Pennsylvania senator surging now?
Likeability might be one factor. According to a recent Public Policy Polling report, responsible for the most up-to-date polls in the three states voting today, Santorum has a favorability rating over 70 percent in all three states. That's in marked contrast to Romney (with favorability ranging from 47 to 60 percent) and Mr. Gingrich (47 to 48 percent).
Santorum's biggest appeal, according to PPP, is with tea partyers, Evangelicals, and voters who describe themselves as "very conservative" – all groups who had been leaning toward Gingrich, but now seem to be abandoning him for Santorum.
There are positive signs in other polls as well. While Santorum still trails both Romney and Gingrich in national polls, Gallup's daily tracking poll now has him only six points behind Gingrich, who is falling. And a new Rasmussen poll that tracks how all four candidates do in potential matchups against President Obama has Santorum as the only candidate who comes out ahead, 45 percent to 44 percent (a finding Santorum's campaign has highlighted as much as they can).
Another reason for Santorum's resurgence may be Gingrich's descent. More conservative voters seem to be getting over their Gingrich crush and, still unhappy with Romney as a nominee, are moving to Santorum. Gingrich's decision not to make any campaign appearances in Minnesota this past week – one of the few states where he might have had a chance – only helps Santorum.
(In Missouri, whose nonbinding primary Tuesday has been likened to a "beauty contest" before the actual delegate-choosing caucuses in a month, Gingrich isn't even on the ballot – another point in Santorum's favor.)
But before anyone starts speculating about the possibility of a real battle between Santorum and Romney, there are some big caveats.
For one thing, the contests Tuesday are relatively small ones – only getting attention in the February desert of the GOP primary season – and don't even mean much for delegate counts. Colorado and Minnesota's caucuses are nonbinding, with delegates actually selected when the state party holds conventions later in March or April.
Santorum faces massive hurdles ahead when it comes to fundraising and organization against the better prepared Romney team. He also needs to convince voters that he can talk about the economy as well as he can talk about conservative social issues, and that he actually has a possibility of becoming the nominee. And he has to hit hard against Romney's weaknesses without going so negative that he loses that likeability edge – a tall order.
Santorum has already stepped up those attacks, hammering away at Romney for his Massachusetts healthcare program, in particular. In Minnesota this week he argued that "RomneyCare" makes Romney "uniquely unqualified" from being the nominee.
But Romney is stepping up his attacks too, and now has Santorum in his sights, largely ignoring Gingrich and Paul. He even had Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty hold a conference call with reporters Monday just to bash Santorum, calling him a "champion of earmarks."
It's becoming harder and harder to envision a GOP nominee other than Romney – even if Santorum slows his momentum Tuesday night and keeps the uncertainty going. But Santorum does have a few influential conservatives pulling for him.
A strong showing by Santorum Tuesday, argues William Kristol in the Weekly Standard, would do the most to slow the "Romney juggernaut." "It would also of course help Santorum's chances to replace Gingrich down the road as the alternative to Romney – an outcome that, I suspect, might well result in a better race for the nomination and a healthier situation for the ultimate Republican nominee," he writes.
The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, meanwhile, outlines in her Right Turn blog all the hurdles Santorum would have to clear to get the nomination – which she agrees are a lot. But she concludes:
"The right made a critical error in not recognizing Santorum’s strengths earlier in the race. But time is not his greatest enemy, and it’s not useful for him to dwell on why conservative pundits went chasing after defective contenders. What he now has to do is grow in stature, project himself as Romney’s equal and convince conservatives that they can not only improve their chances of winning back the White House but also get a more consistent conservative if they jump from the Romney ship... But if anyone in the GOP field (past or present) can do it, Santorum’s the guy."
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas speaks to supporters at a rally, Friday, in Pahrump, Nev. (Julie Jacobson/AP)
Will Ron Paul be last rival standing to Mitt Romney? (+video)
Will Ron Paul be Mitt Romney’s last rival standing? We ask that question because if you sort through the Nevada caucus results, look at this week’s GOP events, add in a few financial disclosure forms, and shake, you can produce a scenario where Representative Paul outlasts Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. That would make the Texas libertarian the only non-Romney to run all the way to the Tampa Republican convention in August.
Yes, we know Paul actually placed third in Nevada’s Saturday vote. He’d hoped to do better, placement-wise. He ended up with 19 percent of the vote. Ex-Speaker Gingrich got 21 percent. Mr. Romney reached the 50 percent threshold.
But look at it this way: That 18 percent is four percentage points higher than Paul’s 2008 Nevada vote. It’s also higher than prevote polls had predicted: A Las Vegas Review-Journal survey in late January had him at only 9.2 percent of the vote, for example.
Plus, as The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake points out Monday morning, Nevada entrance polls showed something surprising: Paul won among voters who said that the most important quality in a candidate is that they are “a true conservative.”
Paul got 42 percent of that vote, versus 30 percent for Gingrich and 24 percent for Mr. Santorum.
As Mr. Blake notes, Nevada leans libertarian, and that may have been a factor in this result. But Gingrich and Santorum are competing to be the conservative alternative to Romney, aren’t they?
“This is really a must-have demographic for Gingrich and Santorum, and the fact that neither of them tapped it is bad news for their campaigns and their cases for pressing forward,” writes Blake.
In addition, Gingrich hurt himself with his post-Nevada actions, say some conservatives. He did not place a congratulatory call to Romney. He held an angry, defiant press conference after the vote was in.
“Whether he knows it or not, Gingrich is becoming a caricature of petulance,” writes Victor Davis Hanson in National Review online.
Looking ahead, Paul currently is trailing in polls in Minnesota, which holds its caucuses this week. A Public Policy Polling survey has Paul in fourth, with 12 percent, for example. But Gingrich is sinking rapidly in the PPP data, with Santorum poised to pass him in Minnesota as well as Colorado, which also caucuses Tuesday.
Paul’s dedicated followers usually flood caucus sites. So look for him to do better than predicted in Minnesota and Colorado, as well as in Maine, which will announce caucus straw-poll results on Saturday. As University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato tweeted this week, “Just as in NV, Ron Paul will probably out-perform his pre-election polling in virtually all the upcoming caucuses.”
March may thus see a GOP race where Romney leads, followed by Santorum and Paul, and Gingrich falling. That’s when Paul’s cash comes into play. Santorum may not have enough money to take advantage of such a moment. According to the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics, he had only about $279,000 in his coffers at the end of the 2011 reporting period. That’s nothing but fluttering moths and a few Canadian quarters, politically speaking.
In contrast, Paul had $2 million in the bank at the end of 2011. Paul has also shown the ability to keep the money flowing in during good times and bad. His haul for the entire cycle has been $26 million, second only to Romney’s $56 million.
For the record, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul are all vowing to stay in the race until the end. But only Paul may have the means and support of enough GOP voters – albeit a minority of Republicans – to do so.
RECOMMENDED: The roar of Ron Paul – five of his unorthodox views on the economy
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney greets the Fisher family backstage before a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada, on Friday. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)
Is Mitt Romney the Nevada front-runner? Yes, but . . .
Mitt Romney is the heavy favorite to win Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, in case you hadn’t noticed. The most recent Bling State – excuse me, Silver State – polls have Mr. Romney far ahead.
A Public Policy Polling survey released Friday has Newt Gingrich eating Romney’s desert dust, for example. Romney gets the nod of 50 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers, according to PPP. Mr. Gingrich comes in second at only 25 percent. Ron Paul is third at 15 percent and Rick Santorum fourth at 8 percent.
“The bad news for Gingrich isn’t just that he’s headed for a distant second-place finish. Nevada Republicans actively dislike him, with only 41 percent holding a favorable opinion of him to 49 percent with a negative one,” writes PPP analyst Tom Jenson. “That’s an indication that GOP voters might be starting to sour on him again, sending his numbers back to pre-South Carolina levels.”
It doesn’t look good for the former speaker, does it? New York Times polling analyst Nate Silver puts the chances of Romney winning Nevada at 100 percent.
But there are several caveats we should mention. There haven’t been many recent statewide polls of Nevada, so the data sample here is small. Plus, the vote in caucus states is notoriously hard to predict. Who will show up? Who will stick around if the speeches are boring? Who will bolt for home when the nachos run out?
Slate political blogger David Weigel points out that in 2008, final polls predicted that Mr. Paul would finish fourth with 7.3 percent of the vote. He actually finished second with 13.7 percent of the vote. Clearly Paul voters are hardened against lack of snacks.
Should Romney be worried? Well, not really. But now that he’s supposed to win a blowout, reporters might treat anything less as slippage. You know how devious we journalists are – always playing an expectations game with rules we control by ourselves.
“If this winds up being at all close, [Romney] may have some explaining to do,” writes the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake Friday on the paper’s political blog The Fix.
The biggest danger for Gingrich is that he won’t even finish second. A third or even fourth-place showing might make it much tougher for Newt to slog through until Southern states vote in March’s Super Tuesday. Rick Santorum is going all-in to try and displace Gingrich as the anti-Romney in Nevada. He’s released a brutal radio ad, for instance, that mocks Gingrich’s proposed US colony on the moon.
“Gingrich’s idea is fiscal insanity, and another reason why true conservatives are uniting around Rick Santorum,” says the radio spot.
Then there is Paul. Nevada is a test case of the libertarian’s caucus-first strategy, in which he focuses on states where organization and enthusiasm count for a lot. Nevada’s 28 delegates will be allocated proportionally and the caucus results are binding, so if Paul supporters can stack the house in a few counties their guy could do better than expected.
Paul’s made a play for the Nevada vote by releasing a state-specific economic plan that among other things proposes that tip income be tax-free. That might play well in a state where (according to the Paul campaign) 20 percent of workers have jobs that involve tip money.
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Actress and reality show personality Roseanne Barr addresses the media during the Lifetime channel portion of the Press Tour for the Television Critics Association in Beverly Hills, California, last July. (Gus Ruelas/Reuters/File)
Roseanne Barr: Is she serious about Green Party presidential bid?
Now that Roseanne Barr, doyenne of her own blue-collar 1980s sitcom, has announced her bid for the Green Party presidential nomination, she may have given the 2012 race just the lighter touch it could use. On the other hand, if her paperwork is any indication, she is quite serious about the bid.
"I will barnstorm American living rooms," she said in a candidate questionnaire submitted to the party, according to the Associated Press. "Mainstream media will be unable to ignore me .... [M]ore importantly they will be unable to overlook the needs of average Americans in the run-up to the 2012 election."
But Ms. Barr hasn’t exactly been concentrating on a political résumé. The comedienne was most recently seen in a one-season cable reality TV show, “Roseanne’s Nuts,” detailing her macadamia nut farm life in Hawaii.
RECOMMENDED: Five comedians who ran for office
“I would say that she is not a serious candidate, if for no other reason than it’s not clear who she appeals to right now,” says Villanova University political science professor Lara Brown, author of “Jockeying for the American Presidency.”
She adds that if Barr is hoping to reach out to the youth vote – the demographic often likely to respond to an insurgent third-party candidate – young voters don’t remember her network TV show. “If this were someone like Chelsea Handler or even Tina Fey who is very visible right now, then it might be clearer who will pay attention to her bid,” Professor Brown says.
This year more than ever, third-party candidacies are a long shot, according to Brown. In some previous elections, “voters head into the booth and say, ‘This is just “Tweedledee” and “Tweedledum,” ’ ” she says, referring to the major-party candidates, “and they look for an alternative like Ralph Nader or even Ross Perot.” But this year, she says, voters are more divided into camps, and many are keenly aware that a few votes made a difference in the 2000 election.
They know now that those votes cast for Ralph Nader possibly changed the election, Brown says. "And most voters, if they had it to do over again, probably would take that third-party vote back,” she says.
And then there is the ticklish money question, points out James Broussard, professor of political science at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pa. In the case of Barr, he says, her considerable wealth conflicts just a tad with her self-identification as the flag bearer for the 99 percent.
“This is a bit like Trump leading a campaign against gambling,” Professor Broussard says with a laugh, but adds, “All these candidacies depend on resources, so if she is willing to throw some of her own money into it, who knows?”
The bid certainly has given the Green Party the flash of media spotlight it has been lacking as the GOP candidates slog through their primaries. “We may be laughing now,” says Republican strategist David Johnson, who worked on Bob Dole’s 1988 presidential campaign, “but even as this announcement comes out, people are clicking on the Green Party website to figure out if it’s for real and to find out more.”
This is an election year for many posts besides the presidency, Mr. Johnson notes, and the Green Party has been building momentum in many smaller races across the country, such as county commissioner and city council elections in Colorado and Minnesota. “The more the Green Party seems like a legitimate contender, the more grass-roots races it will be able to win,” he says.
The Green Party will pick its candidate at its Baltimore convention in July. It’s not clear what would happen to Barr’s TV career if she is chosen. NBC reportedly just picked up a pilot for “Downwardly Mobile,” starring Barr as a mobile home park boss who serves as a surrogate mother to park residents.
“This could just be a preshow blitz for her,” points out Johnson, who adds, “After all, the big reward for aspiring politicians these days is not a slot on the ticket, but a TV show. Just look at Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.”
RECOMMENDED: Five comedians who ran for office
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Previous
Become part of the Monitor community
36K on Facebook | 12K on Twitter | 2,250 on YouTube