Campaign Update

Pity the political journalist, especially in this election year, when he or she must cover Rick Santorum with a straight face.  So I understand these folks' impulse, when writing, to get a little creative, to choose le mot juste, or, if not writing in French, the perfect word to express exactly what they want to say.  But they (or their editors) do need to make sure that their mot is, in fact, juste:

"A loss to Mr. Santorum in Ohio would blunt Mr. Romney’s latest attempt to portray himself as the inexorable nominee." ("Before Super Tuesday, Big Names Rally to Romney," emphasis added)

Now, given his rivals' constant criticisms painting him as an unprincipled, finger-in-the-wind conservative who will say anything to get elected, Mitt Romney would probably love to be considered "inexorable"--unyielding, constant, as in "the inexorable march of time."  The campaign itself is inexorable--or, better yet, interminable.  Romney's nomination, however, is not inexorable; it is (probably) inevitable--unavoidable, destined to happen--which is no doubt what the reporter meant to say.

Speaking of the Republican campaign, I must comment on Rick Santorum's purported "nausea" upon listening to John F. Kennedy's speech defending the strict separation of church and state.  Of course, as many have noted, if Kennedy had not made that speech, assuring a wary nation that he was not in thrall to the Vatican, he might not have been elected, and other Catholics like, oh, Rick Santorum wouldn't have as easily been accepted as plausible presidential candidates.  But that's not what  really bothers me--Santorum's hypocrisies having by now become just so much background noise.  No, what worries me is that, if Kennedy's fifty-year old speech causes Santorum to become nauseous, does he really have the intestinal fortitude to occupy the White House?

I certainly hope he never Googles humself; he'd probably need to be hospitalized.