Has Dick Morris lost it? And, what’s wrong with Santorum?

I realize that the question will strike some as redundant, since they think that Morris is wrong so often that’s he’s already lost it. However, there is a difference between producing an endless stream of predictions, a good number of which don’t pan out, and acting as though Ron Paul poses a serious threat of winning the Republican nomination, a threat Morris sternly warns Republicans they must resist at all costs. Apparently he missed the point that half of Paul’s votes in Iowa came from Independents.

Also, Morris, speaking yesterday before the caucuses, oddly treats the contest as a two-man race between Romney and Paul, entirely ignoring Santorum. However, in this I can’t entirely blame him, since I too ignore Santorum. Perhaps this is unjust. There is nothing bad about Santorum. I don’t dislike the man. I just can’t take him seriously as a presidential candidate.

* * *

Morris is nothing if not mercurial. Yesterday he warned that Ron Paul poses a grave threat to the Republican Party and the country as a whole. Today, after Paul’s strong third place showing in Iowa, he says that “Ron Paul is finished.” Morris appears to have the Newt Gingrich Syndrome, waking up every morning with a new interpretation of the world.

Also, Morris does discuss Santorum today. Santorum’s strong showing, he says, is very good for Romney, because it means that the anti-Romney vote will continue to be divided between Gingrich and Santorum, enabling Romney to win. At the same time, he makes it clear that he doesn’t take Santorum very seriously. My (somewhat rough) transcription:

Santorum didn’t win because he had a great debate like Gingrich or he had a great issue like Cain or had a lot of money like Perry or he had a unique demographic like Bachmann. He won because he was the last survivor. And this garbage we’re hearing about how he visited 99 counties and worked so hard—that didn’t matter when he was at two percent of the vote two weeks ago. What happened was that the anti-Romney vote first went to Bachmann, and then went to Perry, and then went to Cain, and then went to Gingrich, and then went to Paul, and finally ended up with Santorum. And so while he has momentum there’s no real substance behind that momentum and therefore I don’t think he’ll be the nominee and I think he probably will fade.

- end of initial entry -

January 5

Catherine H. writes:

You say that you do not take Santorum seriously, but I cannot see that you explain why anywhere on your blog. Do you mind explaining your thoughts on this subject?

Aaron S. writes:

You said:

I too ignore Santorum. Perhaps this is unjust. There is nothing bad about Santorum. I don’t dislike the man. I just can’t take him seriously as a presidential candidate.

Would you care to elaborate on this? I ask as someone who hasn’t yet a fully-formed opinion on Santorum. Is it that you don’t see a working or effective campaign? Or perhaps, are you seeing something unattractive or maybe just unpresidential in his appearance or demeanor? Being largely without any television, I could very well have missed something on the latter point, but I don’t think I’d be alone among your readership on that count. I do see lots of snide and sarcastic hit pieces, largely devoid of substance. As you’ve pointed out many times, though, being by the left is no guarantee of a candidate’s seriousness or chance of success. I’m interested in what you have to say.

LA replies:

“Or perhaps, are you seeing something … just unpresidential in his appearance or demeanor?”

That’s it. He has a personality that, to me, conveys a complete absence of anything that is in the slightest degree impressive. It was the same when he was a senator. I turn off when he is speaking.

How can it be that you have no formed opinion of him, given that he was your senator for 12 years?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 04, 2012 08:06 PM | Send