So far, except for a few stray comments here and there, I've stayed out of the ruckus over Markos's Operation Hilarity. But as the disagreement doesn't seem to be going away, I've decided to weigh in with my perspective.
Voting for Santorum in the Republican primary is fine (at this point.)
Giving money to the effort is not fine (at any point.)
Votes are not fungible. You get one and one alone. While Santorum is riding high right now, bear in mind that Romney still has (1) gobs of money greater than Santorum would amass even in the general election, (2) the Death Star of media and pundit dedication behind him, and (3) a will to persist through the nomination process greater than that of any candidate I've seen since Bill Clinton in 1992.
Romney's not going anywhere. He is backed into a corner and he's going to either get the nomination or die trying. (But, first, he'll kill trying.)
The Republican nomination turns into largely winner-take-all contests down the line. Do you really think that Romney, if he has any chance, is going to drop out so long as he has a path to victory? Unlike Perry, he doesn't believe that he blew it. Unlike Bachmann, he doesn't believe that the system has conspired against him. Unlike Cain, he's not dealing with a major scandal. Unlike Pawlenty, he doesn't lack nerve.
To Romney, the only reason he's not doing better at this point is that we just don't yet understand why he has to be President. But he will be patient with us and give us more time to get used to the idea.
For that reason, Markos's analysis is correct. Romney is still the favorite to win the nomination for the same reason that one bets on Goliath rather than David. That being so, strengthening Santorum right now does make the contest more likely to last. The danger to a long contest this year is not Santorum's popularity -- now there are words I'd never thought I'd have to write! -- but Romney's money and institutional support.
And don't worry about 2008 as an example of the dangers of the process going on too long. In 2008, we had two strong candidates, each with potential vulnerabilities. (For Obama, his unprecedented race and his relative governance inexperience; for Clinton, her unprecedented gender and her relative campaign inexperience.) While some of us thought that both were too moderate, generally we liked them both and would be satisfied with either.
That's pretty much the opposite of what we have in 2012, where the Republicans have two deeply flawed candidates each with a potential electoral strength. (For Romney, money; for Santorum, Tea Party ideology.) Unlike 2008, their party is practically howling at the moon for someone else to come in. I don't recall a lot of that among us in 2012. We were warring camps, but hyperbolic attacks aside we felt that they were a strong pair of candidates.
So, yes, I would vote for Santorum in the primary this year, for the same reason that many Republicans voted for Jesse Jackson in Michigan in 1984 and 1988: because they allow me to do so and allowing non-party members to mess with the process is part of the price a party pays for that decision.
What I wouldn't do, though, is give any money towards this effort. Money is fungible. The money you give to Cause A does not go to Cause B -- and this year we are chock full of worthy Cause Bs.
So there's my compromise: let's let people make up their minds as individuals whether they can stomach pulling the lever for Santorum even to mess up the GOP nomination. We don't have to agree about it. (We're Democrats; we can't agree about it.) But let's draw the line at donating money. You want to let Markos know how you feel? Donate your money to "Orange to Blue" instead. Since today is the 16th, add $0.16 to the donation to show that you are donating money there instead of to Operation H.