opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
5 Feb 2016
Donald Trump: Sore Loser

It was the shortest speech anyone can remember him giving. He was clearly in a state of disbelief. How could … Read More.

3 Feb 2016
Rubio's the One

You can pick your headline for Iowa: "Trump Didn't Win!" "Hillary Didn't Lose!" "Rubio's the One!" I prefer … Read More.

29 Jan 2016
Donald Ducks

"I'm for Trump," the man across the room from me said. We were in the ICU family waiting room, and by that point,… Read More.

The People Have Spoken


The people have spoken — all 126,185 of them. That's how many votes turned Mitt Romney into the Republican nominee, for all intents and purposes. In a country with more than 300 million people, less than a tenth of a half of a percent have picked one of the two men who could be the next president of the United States.

You call that a democracy? It's a system that is almost too easy to attack. In a matter of a week, in two small states that in so many respects are not representative of the diverse, urban country in which we live, in a process that, by design, is dominated by activists and ideologues, the rest of the candidates are basically toast. The fat lady is tuning up.

But that doesn't mean the process is over. It's in the media's interest to keep something going as long as they can. There will be all kinds of attacks on Romney. Conservatives will try to coalesce. It's actually in Romney's interest to weather more attacks about not being conservative enough; nothing could be better to position him for the general. But it would take something pretty cataclysmic for Romney to lose at this point.

Political scientists have spent decades explaining all the things that are wrong with this system. Folks like me, who helped craft this system (in my case, on the Democratic side), have written endlessly about the goals it was intended to serve — many of which, by the way, don't have much to do with picking the candidate most likely to win in the fall. It is a system that is supposed to allow insurgents a fair chance; parties a chance to build; voters a chance to send a message; small states a say they wouldn't otherwise get. Agree or disagree, I think most students of the process, if we were starting from scratch, would never end up with it.

But here's the truly amazing part. Time after time, it actually works.

I say this as a Democrat who would have loved to see President Obama run against Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum or, best of all, Ron Paul. (Be still, my heart, there is still hope he will run as a third-party candidate, in which case Democrats would immediately abandon every position of principle they took to try to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot and support Paul's First Amendment rights, while Republicans would do just the opposite.) So I'm not saying, in partisan terms, that I'm happy about this. But I don't know how anyone who claims to be an expert in presidential politics could honestly say that someone other than Romney was the right person for the Republicans. Don't believe them if they do.

This is not a close question the way Barack vs.

Hillary was. Mind you, I like Jon Huntsman, think he's a good man, but Obama's ambassador to China was just not going to be the one to make the case against the president — unless you give him credit for all the jobs China created while he was there. In any event, he just doesn't have Romney's claim to gravitas on the economy.

As for the rest, what can I say? As each took their turn as flavor of the month, I would check out their positions and pinch myself because it was too good to be true.

Santorum wants to privatize Social Security, require schools to teach intelligent design, eliminate the separation of church and state, and punish people who did the wrong thing like getting cancer at 5. Whew.

Paul wants to get out of the UN and turn the clock back on civil rights (he has problems with the 1964 law). He says he's anti-Israel, not anti-Semitic, and he refuses to denounce the supremacists who are supporting him. How do you spell "hallelujah"?

Newt Gingrich, former housing historian, has brilliant ideas and wacky ideas and shows equal enthusiasm for both.

Rick Perry.

Mr. 9-9-9.

Need I go on?

All of this might be clear to me, but it's not inevitable that people who are much more conservative than your average swing voter would see it that way. And they are the deciders in this process. Conservatives are understandably upset that with the possible exception of Huntsman, Romney is probably the least conservative candidate in a race that is all set up to give the power to conservatives, as it does to liberals on the Democratic side. Even now, various conservatives are trying to push for a unified approach to take on Romney, pointing out that if Santorum, Gingrich and Perry had been one candidate instead of three, they would have 11 delegates to Romney's whopping 12.

True enough, but that's not how it worked — or will.

None of this is to say that Romney is a sure shot against Obama. The president is an amazingly skilled politician. Unemployment is heading in the right direction. Obamacare may be unpopular, but the father of Romneycare is going to have a hard time making that case.

Romney is vulnerable on his own record: of "firing people" at Bain Capital and of some pretty dramatic flip-flops on choice and gay rights, complete with taped debates in which Romney fights back against the attack that he wasn't pro-choice or anti-choice but "multiple choice." And then there is, very sadly, the real and documented prejudice in this country against Mormons.

But he is the best shot Republicans have, and the amazing part of a flawed process is that even if the commentators and columnists didn't see this, the people voting did. Imagine: Democracy — even in a flawed and poorly designed system — actually works.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



6 Comments | Post Comment
Ms. Estrich cannot resist the impulse to introduce the topic of religious bigotry when discussing Mr. Romney's candidacy. It is insulting always to make this part of the curriculum of her analysis of this campaign. Why doesn't she say that some people won't vote for Hillary because of her gender? Or not vote for Newt because he is fat? Or Palin because one of her children has a genetic disease? Every candidate is subject to invidious prejudice.
Ms. Estrich argues that because some voters are bigots, the victim is an inappropriate candidate. This merely empowers bigotry. More to the point, what is her fixation on what most people would consider a traditional American religion? She has even been concerned that L.D.S. has a different doctrine concerning the Trinity than the Pope has. In a thousand years, will this ever have an effect on a U.S. president? A simple principle: there shall be no religious test for office.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Cowboy Jay
Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:30 AM
Estrich in typical hypocritical fashion complains "The people have spoken all 126,185 of them. That's how many votes turned Mitt Romney into the Republican nominee, for all intents and purposes" while ignoring that one Democrat p.o s. purpoting to be a legitimate president and going by the name of obama has appointed two incompetent, unqualified, one certainly racist the other certainly dishonest, both certainly liberal activist, statist, Constitution hating, consitutionally ignorant women to the Supreme Court where their single votes will likely continue the destruction of the Constitution and of our freedoms. It is precisely because the America hating p.o.s that infests the oval office will get opportunity to place another liberal activist on the highest bench in the Republic if re elected that he must be removed from office asap.
Comment: #2
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:05 PM
What did you expect the French government to do with Nazi Germany at their doorstep? The smart thing would have been to do what Marshal Petain did. Should he have Sacrifice hundreds of thousands of French in a loosing proposition. I also notice you only seem concerned about the Jews. Quite frankly I am tired of hearing about how the Jews suffered. There were millions of no-Jews who lost their lives. There were around 20 million Russians wo lost their lives. It is fine to sit here in America 66 years after the war and cry about the capitulation of the French but it is a far different thing to be there and commit suicide trying prevent the enevitable. It is time to let WW11 go and for you Jews to move on like the rest of the world did.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Chris
Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:23 AM
Sorry, I got onto the wrong page.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Chris
Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:56 AM
Re: Chris
On the wrong page and on the wrong wavelength. You sound like the typical anti semitic cowardly probably fascist liberal Democrat. If the Jews particularly those who are US citizens need to move on from something it is their continuing misguided support of the rampant anti semitism of the progressive left that permeates the Democratic party and which is embodied in the vermin that presently infests the Whitehouse
Comment: #5
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:06 PM
And what about the Democrat's candidate?....
Comment: #6
Posted by: Early
Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:22 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Susan Estrich
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 10 Feb 2016
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 9 Feb 2016
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 9 Feb 2016

16 Jul 2008 "Click"-less

7 Nov 2007 The Wrong Line

8 May 2012 Saturday Night with Bea