Blog

By Isaiah J. Poole
Executive editor of the blog site OurFuture.org

Don’t get too distracted by the fissures in the Republican electorate revealed in Tuesday night’s Iowa caucus vote. On basic economic issues, in fact, the candidates are remarkably united; there’s hardly eight votes worth of difference between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

While there are certainly differences on the margins between the former governor of Massachusetts and the former senator from Pennsylvania on economic policy issues, on the basic economic direction the candidates would take the country you could just about say that the winner of the Iowa caucus was “Mitt Santorum” with 50 percent of the vote.

In fact, all of the Republican candidates were on the same basic page when it came to the broad economic policy solutions. This chart by Think Progress on the candidates makes that remarkably clear. More tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations? Check. Cuts to Medicare and Social Security? Check. Repealing health care and Wall Street reforms? Check and check.

The losers, of course, are economically struggling Americans, both those who have jobs but fret about their economic security, and those who are trying but failing to make it onto the economic ladder. In speeches after the caucus vote, “Mitt Santorum” feigned care for these people but offered relief only to the wealthiest Americans and the corporate lobbyists who control Washington. To sell an anti-worker, anti-middle-class agenda, “Mitt Santorum” trotted out the conservative movement’s tried-and-true bogeymen: an Obama administration that is “redistributing money” and “increasing dependency,” and government regulations and taxes that have “made workers uncompetitive by driving up the costs of doing business.”

With that as the diagnosis of the problem, the prescription is to cut taxes, even though top-end taxes are already at historic lows relative to their share of the economy; cut regulations, even in the face of the consequences of regulatory laxity on Wall Street and in the Gulf of Mexico; and further cut the safety net of the millions of unemployed and working poor Americans, even though doing so would in fact worsen the overall economy, as is happening in Europe.

President Obama “wants to make us an entitlement society,” says “Mitt Santorum,” who claims to instead want “a merit society” in which America is “the most attractive place in the world for job creators and innovators and investors” and in which government regulators see their mission “as that of encouraging enterprise”—not, notably, that of protecting the health, security and well-being of the country as a whole.

True, there are differences worth noting between Romney and Santorum. In the upcoming congressional fight over extending a payroll tax holiday through the end of 2012, Romney is a reluctant supporter of the extension; Santorum is a staunch opponent, along with candidates Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann. Santorum also said Tuesday night he would boost manufacturing businesses by eliminating corporate taxes for them; Romney said he did not want to be in the business of “picking winners and losers” but has in the past been outspoken against China’s currency manipulation, which has helped make American manufacturing less competitive.

But “Mitt Santorum” is of one mind when it comes to framing the coming economic debate. This candidate believes that the immorality of today’s economy lies in the broad swath of American people who are being corrupted by “dependency” fostered by government. He refuses to see the real immorality: an economic system that is stacked by corporate lobbyists and conservative ideology in favor of the rich and that fosters dependency through relentless outsourcing, and wage- and benefit-cutting, while lavishing CEOs with lavish bonuses and stock options, subsidized by American taxpayers.

Half of Republican voters are divided over whether the face of their ideology should be a fervent Catholic fixated on sexual morality or a Mormon ex-governor whose private sector claim to fame is as a leader of a job-killing private equity firm. But for tens of millions of working-class and middle-class Americans who need real economic reform and a government that serves their interests, the answer to that question hardly matters.

***

Isaiah J. Poole worked for 25 years in mainstream media, most recently at Congressional Quarterly. Most of his journalism experience has been in Washington as both a reporter and an editor on topics ranging from presidential politics to pop culture. He is a founding member of the Washington Association of Black Journalists and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.

***

This post originally appeared on the  Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) Blog for OurFuture.  Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

By Robert Creamer
Political organizer, strategist and author

To maximize their odds of reclaiming their hold on the White House, the Republican establishment believes they need two things:

• To nominate Mitt Romney;
• To effectively end the Republican nominating process as soon as possible.

Last night’s results from Iowa lower the odds they will get either.

In fact, what we saw in Iowa last night was the Republican base gagging on the Presidential candidate the Republican establishment is trying desperately to cram down their throats.

Romney – and Republican Super Pacs – spent millions of dollars trying to convince Republican caucus-goers that Romney should carry the Republican banner next fall. But in the end 75% said no. MSNBC’s Chis Matthews went so far as to argue that Romney is being rejected by the Republican electorate the way a body rejects foreign tissue.

In fact, most rank and file Republicans are so repulsed by Romney that they have test-driven virtually every possible alternative in the show room. Rick Santorum’s turn came just at the right time to catapult him into the position of the “anti-Romney” – giving him the right to carry the anybody-but-Romney banner in the battle ahead.

Here are the reasons why the Iowa results are such bad news for Republicans:

1). Sometimes when a candidate has a hard time winning the support of his base, the reasons actually make him more electable in a general election. That’s not true of Romney. The major factors weighing on his candidacy are just as toxic with persuadable General Election voters as they are with voters in the GOP primaries.

In interviews and focus groups, anti-Romney voters use words like “phony,” “fake,” “robotic,” “cold.” They think Romney has no core principles – that he will say anything to be elected – that he’s a flip-flopper. One Republican went so far as to say, “He’s Kerry without the medals.” That, of course, is an insult to Kerry – who has strong core principles – even though Karl Rove’s consistent attacks on his character gave a not-so-popular George Bush a second term in 2004.

And it doesn’t help – even with rank and file Republicans – that Romney is, in fact, the candidate of the Republican establishment – which, let us remember, is basically Wall Street and the CEO class. Romney is the poster boy for the 1%. He is the cold, calculating guy who made his fortune dismantling companies and laying off workers. He is a guy whose painted-on smile is set in concrete as he hands you your pink slip. Mitt Romney is about as empathetic as a rock.

2). The fact that one anti-Romney contender consolidated enough votes to fight him to a virtual tie in Iowa was a big blow to Romney’s chances for a quick victory. His forces had hoped to keep his opposition divided and appear as the obvious front runner even with 25% of the vote. Instead, Rick Santorum comes out of Iowa with the “big Mo.” (more…)