COMMENTARY | Former GOP presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann is costing ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum the nomination by not endorsing him, when all evidence suggests she should. The question is why.
Bachmann and Santorum should be allies. After all, they were the only two to sign conservative Iowa politician Bob Vander Plaats' controversial pledge titled "The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family." In addition to slamming gay marriage, the document also implied that African-Americans had it better under slavery than under the Obama Administration, according to the Los Angeles Times. It should also be noted that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul refused to sign it. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, now running for president hoping to secure the libertarian nomination, also derided the Vander Plaats pledge when he flirted with a Republican primary race.
Santorum and Bachmann also have top marks from Right to Life organizations for their voting records against abortion. So these are more than just a pair of self-described social conservatives. They endorse and vote for the same policies with regards to religious issues.
So why hasn't Bachmann endorsed Santorum?
Bachmann would probably tell you it's about earmarks and an intra-party feud in Pennsylvania. She bashed Santorum for taking earmarks, and for his endorsement of Arlen Specter in a primary race in 2004 against Club for Growth President Pat Toomey, the more conservative challenger. But the answer may be more personal than most realize.
Bachmann is still smarting from the Iowa caucuses, where she finished next to last, ahead of ex-Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman who ignored the state. It's quite an embarrassment for one who won the straw poll in the state, catapulting her to "front-runner status."
But it's not just her embarrassment at plummeting in the polls. The publication Human Events contends that Vander Plaats and evangelicals who wound up endorsing Santorum pressured her to drop out of the race. According to an article update in that publication, the congresswoman was pretty ticked the non-endorsement, and the humiliating pressure to withdraw before the voting. Had she done so, of course, we wouldn't be talking about Romney's big "eight vote win."
Having dropped out after the Iowa fiasco, a member of her inner circle speculated to Chris Matthews (according to The Blaze) on whether an endorsement of Santorum would take place. "I think she'll wait on whatever she does. I do think her endorsement is valuable and that she has a passionate group of supporters. Other than Ron Paul, I would say the most personally passionate supporters of all the voters taking part in the caucuses tonight were Michele Bachmann's - there just ended up not being very many of them." In other words, her endorsement could clearly help in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and maybe Florida. But the longer she waits, the weaker Santorum gets.
This is clearly payback for the Vander Plaats snub. Bachmann did not attack Santorum for earmarks or endorsing Specter (something the Bush Administration did too) until she lost the Vander Plaats endorsement. This is more about payback for her Iowa embarrassment than their clear unity on social conservative issues.
84 comments