Patterico's Pontifications

2/8/2012

Mitt Clinton, Rick Obama?

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 5:00 pm

[Posted by Karl]

My general impulse is throw cold water on momentary buzz, so this bit of hype from Camp Santorum reported by Byron York after sweeping Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado caught my attention:

After the returns came in, I asked Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley what he thought about Rich Beeson’s message.  Sure, Santorum did well on Tuesday, but doesn’t Romney have the money and infrastructure to outdistance Santorum, and everyone else, in the long run?

“What an inspiring message,” Gidley said sarcastically.  “That is really inspiring.  I can’t wait to put a bumper sticker on my truck that says MONEY-INFRASTRUCTURE 2012.”

“No one had more money and infrastructure than Hillary Clinton, and hope and change wiped her off the map,” Gidley continued.  “We’ll have money, and we’ll have infrastructure, but our nominee has to have a message that people can get behind and inspires people.”

In fact, Obama raised more money than Clinton headed into the Iowa caucuses.  Obama’s endorsements in early states were competitive with hers.  And Obama out-organized Hillary.  It’s too bad for Rick Santorum that his staff apparently does not know this, as there’s an important lesson for them in it.

Obama was able to wage a long campaign against Clinton in 2008 because he followed (and improved on) McGovern’s 1972 strategy of picking up cheap delegates in caucus states, particularly “red states,” which his rivals ignored.  Santorum’s wins in bluish-purple caucuses — Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado – and his plans to target Washington state’s caucus in the upcoming rounds suggest a general awareness of Obama’s strategy.  The RNC, having noticed that the Dems’ long 2008 campaign drove registration and organization in more states, helped open the door to an insurgent campaign by dictating proportional allocation of delegates for primaries and caucuses held before April, although some of these early non-binding contests awarding delegates later complicate these calculations.  The RNC’s plan did not anticipate this cycle’s unexciting and inept field of candidates.  In any event, it also ultimately works against a NotRomney like Santorum.

In March, with its treasure trove of delegates, there are plenty of places a NotRomney could do well, including caucuses.  Many of these states lean conservative and evangelical.  But proportional allocation of delegates insures Romney will get a share of delegates in most of these contests.  Moreover, if Newt Gingrich remains in on Super Tuesday, he may do well in Georgia (one of the biggest delegate counts that day) and other southern states, splitting the NotRomney vote.  Indeed, Newt has already headed to Ohio, another state where Romney would benefit from a split vote on Super Tuesday (Ohio moved the GOP primary from June back to March.  Given the likely Santorumentum from last night’s sweep, I wonder whether the Mitt-backed superPAC will dial back its attacks on Newt in Ohio.)  Moreover, Ron Paul is openly pursuing the McGovern/Obama cheap delegate strategy in caucus states, which complicates efforts by other NotRomneys hoping to do the same.  Furthermore, the strategy has its limits: only 486 delegates will be awarded in caucus states.

Once winner-take-all contests become prevalent in April, the calendar becomes heavily weighted to northeastern states — Pennsylvania and Wisconsin being Santorum’s best opportunities.  May would be a more Santorum-friendly month.  June will be dominated by California, New Jersey and Utah, all presumably Romney-friendly states.

Contra Santorum’s flack, the fact that the eventual nominee will have money and organization does not help Santorum become the nominee today.  Despite the big wallet of Foster Friess, Santorum needs money and organization now.  And he needs Newt to be out of the race by Super Tuesday.  At the moment, that scenario seems unlikely.

–Karl

99 Responses to “Mitt Clinton, Rick Obama?”

  1. Karl concluded, “[Santorum] needs Newt to be out of the race by Super Tuesday. At the moment, that scenario seems unlikely.”

    Ayup.

    Beldar (596a92)

  2. Amen Karl in fact I’d say america needs Newt out of the race by Super Tuesday.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  3. Second look at SMOD.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  4. Here’s a historical reference for historian Newt: Custer’s Last Stand at the Little Big Horn.

    The only question that remains is will he leave the political world with his scalp intact.

    Colonel Haiku (895552)

  5. No he won’t and I hope he takes his boyfriend Romney out of the race with him.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  6. Gingrich Romney Santorum
    Iowa 16,163 29,805 29,839

    NH 23,411 97,532 23,362

    SC 243,398 167,957 102,213

    FLA 531,294 771,842 222,248

    NV 6,956 16,486 3,277

    MO 0 63,826 138,957

    MN 5,134 8,096 21,436

    CO 8,394 22,875 26,372
    __________________________________________________
    Total: 834,750 1,178,419 567,704

    http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/2c2bfefe-fe77-4808-b40e-809b52473907

    Colonel Haiku (895552)

  7. Hugh Hewitt has been a Romney fluffer since late 2003 to Early 2004 so I don’t care what he thinks.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  8. And he needs Newt to be out of the race by Super Tuesday.

    No, no no. Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich need the other to be in the race. One poll showed that about half of votes for Santorum, go to Romney if he is out of the race. This is probably also true to some degree for Newt Gingrich. This idea of santorum being better if Newt Gingrich drops out, or vice versa, only sort of half makes sense if the winning candidate has to have the most pledged delegates at the end of the primaries, and no deals or endorsements are possible. In such a case a pledged delegate fpr Newt Gingrich is just as bad for Rick Santorum as a pledged delegate to Romney. But things are not that way.

    While a certain portion of Newt Gingrich’s and Rick Santorum’s voters would go to Romney if they dropped out, that is not the case for their delegates. The delegates would overwhelmingly go for the other Not Romney. This is not just in connection with a second ballot. One of the two, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum might very well endorse the other before the convention.

    Now there’s something more. If you want another choice – if you want a brokered convention (which may be legally difficult to ddo now because of all the disclosures a presidentrial candidate is supposed to make and the lack of time after the beginning of September for even printing ballots)
    then you also need both Newt Gingrich and Rick Rick Santorum to stay in the race.

    My favorite idea probably would be this. At the moment, I think Jeb Bush might be best. Although hoping for that wopuld bne like hoping for an around the table shot in billiards.

    On the other hand, while few of Ron Paul’s votes would otherwise go to Mitt Romney or maybe even vote at all in the Republican primary, Ron Paul’s delegates are highly likely to go to Mitt Romney, and Mitt Romney knows that. Not to mention that in some cases, like Virginia, the actual delegates would be picked by people high in the state party organziation.

    Ron Paul ‘s delegates wouldvote for Mitt Romney as a result of a deal and endorsement by Ron Paul, who would settle for a speaking role and getting neo-isolationist language into the Republican platform – and everyone knows that Mott Romney is the kind of person who would agree to that. (Newt Gingrich hopes to placate him with a gold commission and maybe some other things but not foreigh policy and Santorum probably not at all)

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  9. Col.,

    It’s a series of state contests. Much like the general election.

    Sammy,

    I’ve looked into the second-choice voting thing as well. The polling almost always shows Mitt as the popular second-choice. And yet, the actual voting doesn’t seem to bear it out.

    Karl (8cdbad)

  10. Actually, Romney needs Newt out of the race by Super Tuesday.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  11. Sammy,

    Actually, “voting” is probably too strong. But the serial surge of various NotRomneys without Romney gaining much in the polls along the way tends to point against what people are telling pollsters about second-choice votes.

    Karl (8cdbad)

  12. Kevin M,

    That’s, er, counter-intuitive, unless you mean that Romney would perform better head to head in southern evangelical states against Santorum as opposed to Newt (again assuming one-on-one). Romney is doing better in some polls in NC, and Santorum did poorly in SC, but it’s a big jump to suggest a straight Romney/Santorum contest is better for Mitt than a straight Romney/Gingrich contest over the long haul, given that Santorum likely has a better shot in the Midwest and the Rust Belt.

    Karl (8cdbad)

  13. 9. I think Hewitt lost me over the Religion of Peace brainwashing.

    Another constitutional lawyer.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  14. GOP, beating the SCOAMF at his own game, fusterclucking.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  15. I do not know who would be riding the white horse, but I too would like the perfect candidate to show up at the convention.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  16. What about black horses? Huh racist.

    /Snarkasm off

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  17. Karl, you assume that most of Newt’s support is evangelical and would normally transfer to Santorum. He does have supporters, like me, who vastly prefer Romney to Santorum.

    Or do you view big-spending Santorum as a Tea Party candidate? You do realize that much of Newt’s support comes from that direction? Yes, Newt makes with the social conservative words when asked, but he is mostly viewed as a fiscal conservative and that’s his prime differentiation.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  18. I also think the notRomney meme is overused. There are three alternatives, and all their supporters have one or more notRomneys that they dislike more than Romney.

    Ron Paul for example is everyone’s last choice (except for Ron’s supporters who may well have Obama as a 2nd choice on some single issue of theirs).

    Romney is between Newt and Santorum on a lot of issues, it is not clear that one of them dropping out helps the other. A lot will settle on Romney.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  19. if I had to pick between Romney and Santorum I would pick Romney I think because of how Santorum is so extreme and divisive

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  20. Brokered convention? Yes. Jeb Bush? No. The country will not elect another Bush, at least not this time around. There is too much anti-Bush feeling left over from four years ago.

    norcal (712c1f)

  21. Maybe there’s a better way to put this.

    Romney has several strong support groups: electability voters, Wall St/corporate/business voters, fiscal conservative/small government voters who seek mild change, and people looking for stability or “good government” (an oxymoron, but I digress).

    Santorum’s supporters are evangelicals, social conservatives and blue-collar and middle class people worried about jobs. He is weakest on fiscal conservatism of all of them.

    Gingrich’s supporters are small government fiscal conservatives activists who want a much smaller federal government and significant change. He has made a point of not repelling the social conservatives (other than by his messy personal life). He has attempted to attract the blue-collar vote through his Bain attacks.

    If Gingrich drops out, his main support will go to Romney since Romney is more likely to restore federalism/reform the federal government than big-spending Santorum.

    If Santorum drops out, his main support goes to Gingrich, since Romney is not credible on social issues, nor is he credible on blue-collar issues.

    So, Romney wants Newt gone, Newt wants Santorum gone, and Santorum wants things as they are.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  22. I don’t follow, Kevin, where has he shown such propensities.

    narciso (87e966)

  23. who?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  24. Romney, where has he shown interest in federalism,

    narciso (87e966)

  25. His whole argument about MA health care being a state program vs the Obamacare federal program RESTS on Federalism. The idea that a state can do something stupid different if it wants to is pretty much the definition of Federalism.

    Yes, it’s weak, but it is there.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  26. And, also, Romney does know how to downsize, so there’s that

    Kevin M (563f77)

  27. I’ll give him that.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  28. THIS WEBSITE IS SUPER BORING. I AM GOING TO START A PETITION TO BRING BACK AARON WORTHING. PATTERICO STILL DOESNT POST THE MAJORITY OF THE POSTS HE LETS OTHER PEOPLE DO HIS DIRTY WORK. IF YOU DID BY ACTUAL WORD COUNT INSTEAD OF POST KARL WOULD BE WRITING THE MOST OF THE CONTENT ON THIS WEBSITE BY A LONG SHOT. AND KARL IS SO BORING HE SAYS THE SAME STUFF OVER AND OVER.

    WTF (e6f566)

  29. DIDN’T ANYONE TELL YOU THAT WHEN YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS, ITS LIKE YOUR SCREAMING,

    narciso (87e966)

  30. Give WTF his money back and direct him to the Google search bar.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  31. If Gingrich drops out, his main support will go to Romney since Romney is more likely to restore federalism/reform the federal government than big-spending Santorum.

    – And the proof of this theory came last night, when (without Newt in the mix) Santorum won all 114 counties in Missouri; right?

    Icy (aa68a6)

  32. Losing 3 states, and unanimously by county in bellwether MO is proof of Mitt’s electability, Icy.

    JD (6f2329)

  33. He’s sly like a fox, that Mittster.

    Icy (aa68a6)

  34. My favorite quote by Santorum
    “I am no longer a deficit hawk, I had to spend the surplus.”
    Keep the conservative out of a convertible.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  35. We’ve wasted too much energy on 2012 POTUS, who should we plump up for 2016?

    Let’s put this thing behind us.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  36. Where’s my Louisville Slugger?!?!?!

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/20-of-republicans-leaning-to-obama/

    Colonel Haiku (682705)

  37. One tipoff, the report doesn’t show the sample size, just the margin of error,

    narciso (87e966)

  38. The one reliable writer at NRO on the coming bipartisan disaster:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/290140/armageddon-strip-mall

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  39. From CNN on the imminent Mortgage Deal:

    “Under an earlier draft of the deal, some 1 million U.S. homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages could be eligible for as much as $20,000 in relief of principal owed, according to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan.

    But the relief would only be available to those homeowners whose mortgages haven’t been sold to the government-sponsored mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

    The GSEs purchases top out a $765K.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  40. I’m sure that’s an oversight, gary,

    http://freebeacon.com/concierge-convention-in-charlotte/

    narciso (87e966)

  41. 42. Reich says Ogabe is abandoning the election to the rich.

    Meanwhile, the ECB says it will expand its balance sheet 7.1 Trillion euros buying up corporate loans as collateral.

    Beats MBS I suppose.

    Yesterday Fed sold Maiden Lane II toxic debt to Goldman Sachs, in a transparent, competitive transaction, without data.

    Since Goldman was a prime holder of CDS against AIG losses on the things, I’ll bet they paid a good price. Fed had tried twice to sell at 80% face value and abandoned the auction.

    Whatever, it will go down as pure profit for the Fed next October.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  42. I do not think this Goldman Sachs has my best interests at heart

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  43. Yeah, the technique gained Bachmann, the perfect candidate, traction with the Base:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/09/romney-going-back-after-santorum-on-earmarks/

    Earmarks were an invention of McVain to somehow drape himself in the silks of conservatism. Pocket change.

    If Ogabe is a one-trick pony, Greaser is a carousel ride to nowhere.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  44. Yes, it’s off their balancesheets but it’s like swallowing thallium, what is Goldman thinking

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden_Lane_LLC

    narciso (87e966)

  45. Drawing to the inside straight the only play left:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/can-you-say-brokered-convention/

    The poll misses Jindal, WTF?

    Ronaldus Paoulus is an opportunist. If Greaser is short I don’t think Fossil’s play is a given.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  46. brokered conventions are same as unicorns i think

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  47. 48. You’re safe with that intuition. Even if the party get’s the message, do they actually care if they lose versus getting rolled?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  48. they seem curiously apathetic about this whole fiasco really

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  49. Ron Paul is now friends with Big Gov Romney.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  50. And it’s been interesting seeing the same few people switch gears nearly effortlessly from complaining about firey Newt to complaining that Santorum isn’t conservative enough (compared to Mitt?!?).

    Karl’s been a rare exception to the (lame) norm.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  51. Like clockwork, Drudge has a headline complaining that Santorum is going negative.

    Just as had happened previously, Romney hits hard, hits first, and if you hit back the narrative is that you went negative.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  52. And it’s been interesting seeing the same few people switch gears nearly effortlessly from complaining about firey Newt to complaining that Santorum isn’t conservative enough (compared to Mitt?!?).

    Hmmm. Depends on what you mean by “conservative.” I have not hear Santorum utter one word about cutting the size and power of the federal government (outside of Obamacare) in 18 debates. I have heard him talk at length about the Family, about abortion, about gay marriage and other social issues. As a fiscal conservative, he is weakest of the lot. As a culture warrior his credentials are the best.

    Again, what do you mean by “conservative”?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  53. Just as had happened previously, Romney hits hard, hits first, and if you hit back the narrative is that you went negative.

    Meet the new media, just like the old media.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  54. Again, what do you mean by “conservative”?

    Comment by Kevin M

    He is, in many ways, a big government Republican. I agree his focus is not on the urgent conservative issue of the day. It is highly annoying that candidates who have long records of being great on the issue that this nation faces, and far more executive experience, were crushed. I think a lot of this was manufactured outrage, too.

    But Romney supporters noting Santorum lacks a conservative enough record are silly. Santorum was involved with welfare reform, Romney with Romneycare. It’s not even a close call.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  55. MSM coordinated misdirection:

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/real_estate/mortgage_settlement/index.htm?iid=Lead

    Congress did not lead in updating electronic data support in its push of Subprime loans. Consequently, the industry wildcat MERS to get loan deeds processed when loan originators sell the loan in a few weeks.

    We got a foreclosure and a Quick Deed from Fannie weeks after their mandated 30 day closing.

    The only news in all this is Citi and BoA headed for bankruptcy, and bigger still the plug in the foreclosure pipeline allowing people to live in their place for a couple years without a payment is popped.

    The 3.5 Million homes empty or squatted in by owners with no money down now get put on the market, bit by bit, and the bottom in the market is finally plumbed, after elections naturally.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  56. And on that note:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/foreclosure-settlement-shadow-bailout-broke-california

    There probably aren’t a dozen homes in NE worth $765K. All of the $18 Billion earmarked for mortgage relief is going to markets where the median price is a half million or more.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  57. in Drudgehole land only Romney can go negative and if Romney and his supporters try to callously break up two loving women by lying about one being a far-right racist that is alright too.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  58. I have not hear Santorum utter one word about cutting the size and power of the federal government

    – Commit to cut $5 trillion of federal spending within 5 years.
    – Immediately reduce federal (non-defense discretionary spending) to 2008 levels through across the board spending cuts.
    – Freeze spending levels for social programs for 5 years such as Medicaid, Housing, Education, Job Training, and Food Stamps, time limit restrictions, and block grant to the States like in Welfare Reform.
    – Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18% of GDP so that Congress and the President will need to balance the budget like Governors are required to do.
    – Implement reforms and cost savings of up to $100 billion in March 2011 GAO report requested by Senator Coburn listing 34 areas of duplication and waste.
    – Stop implementation of any remaining federal stimulus spending.
    – Freeze pay for non-defense related federal employees for four years, cut workforce by 10% with no compensatory increase in contract workforce, and phase out defined benefit plans for newer workers.
    – Eliminate funding for implementation of Dodd/Frank regulatory burdens.
    – Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within five years.

    All of the above from Santorum’s official platform. So which is it, Kevin M? Is he not saying it? Or are you engaging in selective hearing?

    Icy (eee520)

  59. Try telling that to your fellow Romney suck-ups.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  60. I could live with that.

    Re: His social agenda, just reversing every BHO EO January 21 would be enough for that mandate.

    I see Santorum as plenty competitive in NY and CA isn’t going for Greaser. Outnumbered, yes, the CA Right is not flaccid.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  61. Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending.
    Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 00 bills to cut spending.
    And was for the Montana Sheep Institute. Too baaaad.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  62. Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 00 bills to cut spending.

    He supported Welfare Reform, so I’m not sure you’re accurate.

    I think many of his ideas are bad ideas, but many of his ideas are good ideas.

    My main objection to Santorum is that he just plain doesn’t have enough of a resume. The accomplishments and experience are simply too light for the Presidency.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  63. The only thing he supported.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  64. 65. Not sure he can beat Ogabe, but I’d have somewhere to land the vote March 6th in MN.

    Otherwise its ‘Palin, Sarah, Wasilla, AK’.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  65. Sickofrinos who do you support?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  66. I’ve come around to abo.
    I will take a steam shower directly after voting.
    I love Col. West.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  67. The thing I especially like about Newt, that we’d see some of with Santorum, is all the tapeworms clearing out their desks in DC.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  68. Did you know that Israel and the far-left MEK[who used to support the mullahs and Ahmanutjob but threw them under the bus for some reason] to strike at Iran?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  69. I’ve come around to abo.
    I will take a steam shower directly after voting.
    I love Col. West.

    Comment by sickofrinos

    Word.

    And don’t get me wrong: Santorum is not consistently conservative the way Reagan/Goldwater fans usually are… in fact he is quite honest about this.

    I have mixed feelings about the guy. He’s a good person… not just someone who cultivated that image because he was raised in a political dynasty, but a genuinely honest person. The contrast between Santorum and the hysterics he would face would present a culture war I think the good guys would win.

    And he’s right on a variety of matters.

    But shrinking the government outweighs all other issues for me. I think Newt would be better at it, but it’s not the kind of call that anyone can be sure about, is it?

    Maybe we will get lucky and have a brokered convention.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  70. are teaming up to strike at iran?*

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  71. Exactly Santorum is not perfect but I’m voting for him.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  72. Erin Brockovitch is like the left they insist one thing causes some random disease of the day but when it reveals that it didn’t they insist there is some conspiracy.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  73. George Soros is just another self loathing bastard.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  74. If a brokered convention takes place-then who?

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  75. Me.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  76. Jindal, Daniels, Ryan can draw straws for my VP slot.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  77. One question.
    Will there be styrofoam pillars at your acceptance speech?

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  78. plastic cacti and stuffed coyotes…

    Colonel Haiku (69ead5)

  79. Hewitt actually asked Ryan if he would accept a nomination out of a brokered convention, he basically said he hadn’t thought of such a thing

    but he had apparently said he would entertain a VP nomination

    Apparently the vitriol in earnest began against santorum in the New Yorker

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  80. One question.
    Will there be styrofoam pillars at your acceptance speech?

    Comment by sickofrinos

    Too complicated. I quit.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  81. Errm… suspend my activities.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  82. Lolz.

    [Why "lolz"? -- P]

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  83. Comment by Icy — 2/9/2012 @ 12:29 pm
    Santorum’s problem is that this, to a greater or lesser degree, is a turnaround from what he did while he was in Congress. So is this what he really believes now, or is he just saying it to win votes?
    I will gladly give him the benefit of the doubt, but there are some interesting things in that platform that suggest he hasn’t completed the transformation thoroughly.

    reduce federal (non-defense discretionary spending) to 2008 levels
    Is GWB’s last year in office such a great baseline? Why not roll it back to 2000 levels, or 2004, or at least 2007, as an acknowledgement that some of the overspending occurred before Obama.
    Also note the exemption for defense spending, which is reinfoced by
    Freeze pay for non-defense related federal employees
    Is Defense to be totally exempt, a sacred cow not to be touched, or even restrained to current levels? There’s nothing in the Defense budget Rick can find that needs cutting, not one employee of DoD whose services the Republic can live without?
    Eliminate funding for implementation of Dodd/Frank regulatory burdens.
    Er, why not get rid of the regulations entirely? Why leave it in suspended animation for someone to revive later on?
    and block grant to the States
    which would mean shifting the financial burden for the rest to the States. Instead of paying higher taxes to the USG, you would be paying higher taxes to the state and local governments.
    I don’t think your bank accounts will think that’s an importance difference.

    JBS (827a72)

  84. reinfoced==reinforced

    JBS (827a72)

  85. Dustin 2012.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  86. Me: I have not hear Santorum utter one word about cutting the size and power of the federal government (outside of Obamacare) in 18 debates

    Icy’s quoteback: I have not hear Santorum utter one word about cutting the size and power of the federal government

    Icy’s comment: All of the above from Santorum’s official platform. So which is it, Kevin M? Is he not saying it? Or are you engaging in selective hearing?

    Well, someone is sure being selective. Edit my comment and remove the qualification, then retort with something that is outside that qualification. Then accuse ME of selective hearing! Nicely done.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  87. Dustin 2012.

    Well, at last a candidate everyone here can vote for with enthusiasm

    …Well, everyone except snaps, I suppose.

    But at this stage, Dustin’s best hope for the nomination would probably lie in a brokered convention.
    :)

    JBS (827a72)

  88. and bribes.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  89. Ryan-A default win is a travesty, be bold:

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/full-text-paul-ryans-cpac-speech/367951

    You know who this does not help.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  90. Sooo, with Japan printing 1 Quadrillion yen and the ECB adding 7.1 Trillion euros to the 3.4 Trillion loaned in LTRO at 1%, there is really no more doubt:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/pimco-borrows-record-88-billion-bet-feds-upcoming-mbs-monetization

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  91. Maybe we will get lucky and have a brokered convention.

    The last winning U.S. presidential nominee produced by a brokered convention was Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1932.

    – Be careful what you wish for.

    Icy (eee520)

  92. JBS:
    Santorum’s problem is that this, to a greater or lesser degree, is a turnaround from what he did while he was in Congress. So is this what he really believes now, or is he just saying it to win votes?
    – One problem Santorum does NOT have is being a “flip-flopper”, or a panderer.

    Is GWB’s last year in office such a great baseline? Why not roll it back to 2000 levels, or 2004, or at least 2007, as an acknowledgement that some of the overspending occurred before Obama.
    – Why does Santorum need to ‘acknowledge’ it?
    Especially when you just did?

    Is Defense to be totally exempt, a sacred cow not to be touched, or even restrained to current levels?
    – So sorry! Did not know that I was the only one with exclusive access to Santorum’s Super Secret Strategy. Here ya go:
    Freeze defense spending levels for 5 years and reject automatic cuts.

    Er, why not get rid of the regulations entirely? Why leave it in suspended animation for someone to revive later on?
    – Er, is Santorum running for the legislature?

    Icy (eee520)

  93. Well, someone is sure being selective. Edit my comment and remove the qualification, then retort with something that is outside that qualification. Then accuse ME of selective hearing! Nicely done.
    Comment by Kevin M — 2/9/2012 @ 7:20 pm

    – Okay, let’s focus like a laser beam (or like a vulture capitalist on it’s business victim), buddy:
    You wrote, “I have not hear Santorum utter one word about cutting the size and power of the federal government (outside of Obamacare) in 18 debates.”
    I listed 9 Santorum platform positions, outside of Obamacare, that cut the size and power of the federal government.
    Just because I did not quote your qualifier doesn’t mean I did not honor it.

    Icy (eee520)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3073 secs.