1. Pete is right that Rick’s strengths expose Romney’s weaknesses more than point to his actual nomination.
2. Rick is being branded a “compassionate conservatism,” meaning being a bit of a European Christian Democrat. But it’s not that clear how that distinguishes him, for all practical purposes, from Romney. He voted for the prescription drug benefit (which is sensibly put together and more defensible than Republicans now say), but Romney has RomneyCare (which is less well put together and perhaps less defensible).
3. But we can say that Rick is as anti-libertarian as a Republican can be, the anti-Paul. Paul has every incentive to take Rick out to restore himself to the dignified position of the alternative to Romney.
4. Consider marriage: Santorum wants (and there’s no chance he’d get) a national law or constitutional amendment establishing that marriage is between one man and one woman. Paul wants to get government out of the marriage business altogether. The latter could be good for serious Christians only if they feel themselves reduced to countercultural lifestyle enclaves waiting for a new St. Benedict. But the latter could, after all, be a legitimate alternative if Christians concede that they’ve lost the war over public opinion on marriage.
5. Santorum, like Gingrich, made big bucks (nothing like the bucks, to be sure, earned by Gingrich, Emmanuel, and others) as a lobbyist after he stopped being a legislator. That fact, which used to be uncontroversial, may well be the vehicle of his destruction by libertarians, gay rights activists, the MSM media, and Romney and his superpacs.
6. So all in all, Romney has reason be satisfied with a world in which the alternatives to him are what seem to be the two extremes of Santorum and Paul.
7. It remains the case that only a candidate we haven’t seen yet would have a chance of stopping Romney, as unimpressive as he is to a strong majority of the actual Republican voters. The ghost of a chance here is Santorum catching on for a while, creating space for a brokered convention. But who believes in ghosts?
