First off, my apologies for being absent for the last few days. I’ve been at ASSUMPTION COLLEGE in the Taxachussetts home of RomneyCare and others forms of soft despotism. (Assumption is actually quite a fine college, of course.)
I would vote for Romney if he would set his hair on fire. That stuff he puts in his hair is probably very flammable.
My view is that the Michigan result hurts Santorum somewhat more than Pete thinks.
Michigan was Santorum’s Battle of Antietam (or, more properly, Sharpsburg). He was poised for a decisive victory there, one that would make him a favorite in the war, get him a lot of support from allies, and make Romney’s various quantitative advantages insignificant. Certainly expectations for his win were high, and he would have won big on an earlier day. But a couple of missteps by Gen. Santorum, some really bad luck (on the timing of his really bad debate), and more resolution from the opposing general than some thought possible produced a very close but decisive defeat.
From now on Romney’s advantages in money and organization will likely wear Santorum down. A inconclusive split on Super Tuesday—with Romney walking away with the most delegates—would put Rick in a particularly weak position. So to continue the dumb comparison—Ohio is Santorum’s Gettysburg. He’d better win big to stay alive, but it might already be too late.
I am totally sympathetic with Pete’s disdain for Romney’s manner of making his opponents look bad without making himself look good. All of his attacks on Santorum (as opposed to those on Gingrich) were unfair, and Santorum’s answers were generally forthright.
On the other hand, there’s something to be said for the honest and unapologetic manner of slowly and methodically slugging one’s way to victory in the manner of General Grant.
(On the third hand, it was certainly whiny, as Pete says, for Romney to complain that Santorum invited Democrats to vote in the Republican primary. And it was ignoble for CNN to suggest that if Santorum did win in Michigan it would be because of that unfairness. It turns out, of course, that less than 10% of the voters in the Republican primary were Democrats—a very low number for an open primary in which the other party had nothing going on.)
