This may be the most insightful analysis I have heard of the coming Republican primary craziness:
[F]or the most part, Republicans have already pledged to do whatever their interest groups want. So what we’re more likely to get from the GOP candiates is symbolism: candidates are going to try to try to distinguish themselves on the basis of who expresses resentment the best, or who can show the greatest contempt for Barack Obama, or who is least afraid of what Tea Parties see as stifling liberal orthodoxy.
That’s the way to understand the appeal of Chris Christie, and we can expect one or more of the presidential candidates to ape Christie’s style. It’s also the best way to understand Rick Santorum’s bizarre choice to campaign on George W. Bush’s rejected Social Security plan. It’s not that Santorum thinks that Republican primary voters really want to get rid of Social Security; it’s that he believes what they want is a candidate willing to be as radical as they think of themselves as being. And how do you know something a candidate said is radical? Because it’s denounced by “everyone” out there.
Much of the 2012 primary will be shock art, lunacy for the sake of lunacy. Quien es mas loco, Michelle Bachmann o Rick Santorum?