I really shouldn't be bothering you with this. George F. Will, Opinion Writer (that's his byline at WP Opinions, LOL) is talking Santorum. Because they are both irrelevant.
Perhaps Rick Santorum is demonstrating persistence beyond the call of plausibility, but he says that compelling political logic and high duty converge. Although he has not made a decision about 2016, he candidly says he is doing “everything consistent with running” — traveling to speak to sympathetic groups and donors. His hand is on his sword’s hilt.(emphasis for added flavor)
Let's all pretend that everyone outside of the stale air of Republican establishment politics and Cokie Roberts thinks what Will writes is important and make the jump...
After an obligatory reminder that Santorum ran for President, including positioning him as "the last man standing between Mitt Romney and the nomination", Mr. Will provides a selection to choose from. Santorum exhibits
disarmingly cheerful ferocityand
relishes combatboth worthy of blockquotes because George F. Will, Opinion Writer is the ONLY person in the entire world talking about Rick Santorum outside of Cuccinelli Strike Force members-only members. Well, actually The Guardian was talking about him as of last evening, but I think they were rubbernecking.
The point of this piece, I suspect, is to scold a warning to Tea Party upstarts that OTHER Republicans (and Cokie Roberts) are feeling a bit uneasy about all the late unpleasantness. My comments in bold
The party is, he says, in danger of becoming “a one-legged stool.” The “Eastern establishment types” (that would be the Will contingent) want to saw off the cultural conservatism leg (because elections), concentrating on economic issues. The rising libertarian faction, exemplified by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (who is a problem child), wants to saw off the strong foreign policy leg. Furthermore, Santorum says, “Americans are not ready for a dramatic withdrawal of government from their lives” of the sort many tea party types advocate(not because Medicare or SS, tho).This is just a teaser, though, because
This self-described “blue-collar Republican” insists, “We are not the anti-government party.” Government has a role in the creation of jobs for the many “who are not going to college.”No emphasis needed. Well, maybe LOL.
Then Will mentions how Santorum lost by 17 points, that he's a Catholic, and in a surprising twist, notes his existence is "principally, (in) opposition to abortion" and whatever.
Ok, at this point you are half-way through your coffee on the East Coast and George F. Will - Opinion Writer still has a host of reasons why you, as his reader, should effing care:
1) Santorum sucked less in Iowa than any other Republican running against Romney.
2) He actually
brat beat Romney in Iowa (you forgot about that?)
3) Santorum believes he might have won the nomination if the first headlines had said “Santorum wins.”
Then he throws in some George Orwell just to keep you guessing:
“At any given moment,” wrote George Orwell in 1948, “there is a sort of all-prevailing orthodoxy, a general tacit agreement not to discuss some large and uncomfortable fact.”And what fact is that? Is it that
Looking to 2016, Santorum rightly says Republicans “have got to work on the hopeful and optimistic side” of politics. But he wants to compel a troubling conversation the nation would rather not have.?
Nope. It's all about brown and black unwed mothers. Because we live in 1988.
Besides, Santorum Says "that if Republicans will not speak for the many millions of voters concerned about social issues, “We’ll be more competitive in states we lose and will lose states we should win,” and “we will become the Whig Party and be done.”
The Whig Party.
I rest my case for irony.
Daniel Patrick Moynahan has left the building.