Schadenfreude: satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.
Ever since Romney lost Iowa, the GOP Establishment has essentially been near complete panic. What is astonishing is how this panic has reached new levels with Santorum's weekend comments, and the growing realization that Romney has been badly damaged and Santorum might actually win.
Now to truly sense the level of panic right now, you have to read between the lines. But what is really amazing is how MANY different voices are being raised. Make no mistake, many of these voices are being raised now in hope that Santorum doesn't win. But I think it is increasingly obvious that some of these people see the trainwreck coming, and are getting off the train.
I should emphasize that the comments I review below are not exhaustive, but rather illustrative. You can pick up virtually any right wing news site and find similar sentiments. Hell, you can find them on Redstate.
Let's start with Jeb (Please let me save the party) Bush:
I used to be a conservative, and I watch these debates and I’m wondering, I don’t think I’ve changed, but it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective, and that’s kind of where we are
In case you are wondering, "a little troubling" means plain flat batshit crazy.
If there is one Republican a nominee NEVER wants to be compared to it is Barry Goldwater. While much loved on the right, his nomination is the nightmare for all Republicans with a memory (admittedly a minority). Goldwater is to Republicans as McGovern is to Democrats (yes, I liked him too, but he was a disaster in '72). So I was kind of shocked when William Kristol wrote in an article entitiled "Goldwater or Reagan" this:
the question then becomes, is it prudent for a presidential candidate to say what Santorum said, to emphasize what Santorum emphasizes?
Or, to put it another way: Probably the two most courageous and candid Republican presidential candidates—the two most courageous conservative leaders—in modern times were Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Republican primary voters will have to decide this: Politically speaking, in a general election, is Santorum likely to be Goldwater? Or Reagan?
You don't raise the Goldwater example in this way unless you think it is the answer to the question.
Perhaps most amazing was the editorial in the National Review on Santorum. It notes in part:
He has said that Satan is undermining America, in part by corrupting mainline Protestantism; that liberal versions of Christianity are distortions of the creed; that as president he would speak out against birth control, and that states should be free to prohibit it; and that John McCain “doesn’t have any” religious views.
Some of his comments are indefensible
....snip
At an intellectual level Santorum must understand these points: He has not repeated his comment about using the presidency to turn the culture away from contraception. The challenge before him is to marry his self-confidence to a more consistent exercise of discrimination and tact.
If he does not heed this lesson, he risks doing damage to the causes he rightly holds dear.
It is interesting to read the National Review article. As I read I couldn't help think that they were like early revolutionary leaders who had completely lost control of the movement to the crazies (and given how crazy the National Review is this is saying something).
Perhaps the clearest warning comes from Michael Barone. Barone noted:
I'm not running for preacher," Santorum said in his Caffeinated Thoughts interview. "I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy questions."
But contraceptive use is not a public policy question, and in bringing the subject up, Santorum sounded like he is running for preacher or pastor.
If you read these and other stories (see Guiliani) you find they almost all take the same pattern. They all are couched in friendly rhetoric and always complement Santorum on the sincerity of his beliefs. But they all tell of a growing sense that they have gone too far, and all carry in the sub-text a sense of foreboding.
They are right to be worried. Maybe the best way to end this piece is with Charlie Cook. Cook tries with great effort to be neutral and objective in his writing (and as a result I think gives too much credit to the right). But his last article perhaps carries in it the true state, or what he calls the "fading chances" of the GOP:
But now I wonder whether the economy will drive this election to the usual extent -- or to the extent I had thought. More specifically, will the Republican Party nominate a candidate who can credibly compete for the independent voters whose support is so important in general elections?
snip...
Simply put, the passion and energy of the Republican Party today may well fail to produce a nominee with a decent chance of winning in November. My assumption was that Romney would be the nominee and would make a good run. Now, I have begun to doubt both propositions. His odds of winning the nomination are growing longer. And even if he does, he has twisted and turned himself into a human pretzel. I'm not sure how electable he is. The alternatives, however, seem even less so.