Patterico's Pontifications

2/15/2012

Is Michigan a must-win for Mitt?

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 7:29 am

[Posted by Karl]

Some of the coverage of the GOP campaign would suggest that Mitt Romney must win the Michigan primary:

For Romney, the contest is a chance to show that he can connect with working-class voters, who have been lukewarm toward him. He has a built-in advantage in a state where he grew up and his father was a popular auto executive and governor. But for those same reasons, a defeat here could be devastating.

“If Romney loses Michigan, the perception is that it’s just a huge loss for him, one that could really cost him the nomination,” said Steve Mitchell, a Republican pollster based in East Lansing.

National Journal’s Beth Reinhard suggested possibly near-apocalyptic ramifications:

A Santorum victory would strip Romney of his front-runner’s cloak and throw the race into chaos. Romney would appear fatally flawed, while Santorum would continue to look like a long shot for the nomination – likely triggering a party-wide panic attack and potentially forcing a new candidate off the sidelines to try to rescue the GOP from a second Obama term.

Although Romney is perceived as scrambling, we really don’t know the state of play in Michigan yet.  A PPP poll showing a 15% lead for Santorum is at odds with the latest Rasmussen poll showing Santorum with a 3% lead.

If Rasmussen is closer to the mark, Romney may have an organizational edge — over 100,000 early ballots have already been cast (about 870,000 voted in the 2008 primary).  The delegate allocation rules also become much more important in a close race.  Two delegates are awarded to the winner of each of the 14 congressional districts, plus two awarded by overall statewide vote totals.  The Hotline’s Tim Alberta suggested on Twitter that Romney could sweep the Detroit metro area (where Alberta lived for a long time) and pick up more than 20 of the 30 delegates at stake, which would kill the “Romney in disarray” narrative quickly.

However, if PPP is closer to the mark, it would suggest that Romney probably never had an edge in Michigan:

Michigan is perceived as a state where Romney really has a home field advantage, but only 26% of primary voters actually consider him to be a Michigander while 62% do not. Only 39% have a favorable opinion of George Romney with a 46% plurality having no opinion about him.  Romney really doesn’t have some great reservoir of goodwill in Michigan to fall back on. Only 49% of voters have a favorable opinion of him to 39% with a negative one. That’s down a net 28 points from our last poll of Michigan in July when he was at +38 (61/23).

Romney beat McCain in Michigan in 2008, but perhaps the real explanation for that is that Romney was seen as NotMcCain.  Thus, if Romney is beaten by NotRomney this year, perhaps we should not be surprised, let alone shocked.

The rules and the calendar favor Romney.  If Santorum wins Michigan, it will help him in Ohio and possibly marginalize Newt Gingrich in the South on Super Tuesday.  If Santorum loses, people would question whether he can win more than low-turnout caucuses and beauty contests.  If there has been any truism in this cycle, it is that the NotRomney requires momentum.  Accordingly, I would argue a win in Michigan is likely more important for Santorum.  Drumming up drama about Romney is probably good for web traffic, but I doubt it would produce the establishment panic some suggest.

–Karl

211 Responses to “Is Michigan a must-win for Mitt?”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (6f7ecd)

  2. Moot Gingrich.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  3. Barcky hates jobs.

    JD (59fe1b)

  4. Col.,

    I doubt Newt has a chance, but we’ve yet to see whether the NotRomney vote all goes to Santorum in the South. Whether Newt remains a factor is a question that gets answered on Super Tuesday.

    Karl (6f7ecd)

  5. A win in Michigan is important to both candidates, but more so for Santorum.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  6. Assad Obama must go!

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  7. Hussein Obama
    the banana republic
    of America

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  8. Beth is a very excitable sort,she comes from McClatchy

    narciso (6884e7)

  9. 5. Agreed but then there’s this:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/is-romney-going-to-run-out-of-money

    The problem for the anointed is he runs heavy cruiser and the dreadnought has still to fire a salvo.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  10. “If Santorum wins Michigan, it will help him in Ohio and possibly marginalize Newt Gingrich in the South on Super Tuesday.”

    The winner-take-all contests begin in April, I don’t see much need for NotRomney to materialize until then.

    Clearly, if MI fails McBain, he’s in trouble and for the narrative, a mortal wound.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  11. McBain’s whole pitch amounts to “I know what I’m doing”. Apart from the FL result, there is doubt his campaign is demonstration of the fact:

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/romney-attack-santorum-backfires/376016

    His mid-course correction, following CO, MN, & MO was to be “to reacquaint voters with what they remember” of his conservative bona fides, his ‘regular guyness’, his passion.

    Yeah.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  12. Last time he burned through 50 million, before quitting in NH.

    narciso (6884e7)

  13. Mittens would be better off running in the Democratic Party primaries…

    that’s more his core constituency anyway, and it would leave the GOP free to nominate a Republican.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  14. Only not romneys have must wins.

    Even if Romney loses the primary it won’t be a must win because he will keep running for president forever. He will not stop until Sarah Conner is dead.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  15. Mittens would be better off running in the Democratic Party primaries…

    I honestly believe this, without a hint of snark intended.

    Romney would represent the finest traditions of the democrat party and be a huge improvement in that party. He is, at heart, quite liberal, with a consistent leadership streak of using government to solve problems (that’s even how Bain made money many times, relying on regulations, bankruptcy, negotiations with the government that you and I would never have enough clout to pull off).

    Let the pro choice and pro gun control Romney drop the conservative act and run as a smart technocrat harvard law grad. Everything Obama has is there, and also most of what Obama lacks.

    The fight to beat Romney is not about the presidency so much as it’s about controlling the GOP. All GOP politicians will note what works as a politician. If taxes and gun control and big government are acceptable in the GOP, there is little hope for the GOP to become useful anytime soon. If fliers like “rick perry is going to kill social security” don’t doom the liar’s presidential campaign, what are we supporting the GOP for?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  16. If candidates like Rick Perry congratulate pastors introducing them for “knocking it out of the park” without also condemning the anti-mormon bigotry in their introductions, what are we supporting the GOP for?

    Is Perry still running?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  17. if coyote runs
    and no one around to see
    it rilly happen?

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  18. the poodle bites… the poodle chews it.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  19. Mitt Romney’s record of raising taxes is simply atrocious.

    He’s pretty liberal. I think he would be too liberal to be nominated as a democrat, actually. His record is in some ways to the left of Obama’s in 2007.

    Have you guys read Romney’s incredibly vague 59 point plan? For a flip flopper pander, it’s scary to consider how much room he’s left himself to move left as soon as this GOP primary business is over.

    Yet here’s the two first points.

    1. Maintain current tax rates on personal income

    2. Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains

    Obama ran on tax cuts. Granted, he was lying. Romney runs on the kind of reform that only seems like a reform if you imagine something much worse and then imagine that not happening. It’s very weak.

    It’s odd to me that Romney thought such weak status quo points required that kind of emphasis in his plan. It’s not even two points, really.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  20. Romney raised fees by about $375 million and closed tax loopholes that raised another $375 million in revenue, according to Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation

    id

    Dustin (401f3a)

  21. all of the Republicans suck ass to where people should routinely spit on them and shun their families but I think Mr. Governor Romney has by far the best chance of beating Obama

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  22. Mr. Governor Romney has by far the best chance of beating Obama

    I bet if we nominate Hillary we’ll have even a better chance! Or maybe if we nominate Jimmy Carter?

    I know… let’s nominate Barack Obama. Then we’ll win for sure.

    That’s what really matters.

    btw, Santorum recently outpolled Romney vs Obama. Santorum is, at heart, a decent honest man. Someone who would look you in the eyes and tell you the truth.

    Both Santorum and Romney are way out of step with me ideologically, but Romney has a special problem with credibility and hypocrisy and honesty. That’s why Santorum is more electable than Romney. The Obama campaign against Romney will be very effective *and largely correct*.

    Both are big government republicans, but Santorum is much less of one, with some successes on conservative reform and nothing like Romney’s liberal record, at least in my opinion.

    My problem with Santorum is simply that I don’t see how he’s ready to be president. I actually think I’d vote Romney over Santorum because I think a smart technocrat liberal is going to handle his two million employees with less disaster.

    But Dubya did very well and I don’t think he was any wiser than Santorum is. And this additional factor… this Tea Party attempt to shut down the beltway GOP that so badly needs an elite dynastic nominee again… I think that’s more important than the actual presidential election is because it will trickle down to many other political calculations.

    It’s a very tough call. Newt is who I’ll vote for if I have the chance to… maybe some Republicans can break the constitution again and have him thrown off more ballots?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  23. But Dubya did very well

    Let me clarify. Bush 43 was ultimately a failure of a president because he did not lead us to a balanced budget or any entitlement reform. I say failure even though I think he intended to work on these problems. The failure partly falls on the rest of the GOP. Had the GOP balanced the budget, it would have been painful, but they would have been more politically successful, long term.

    Bush 43 was successful in managing the government, though. In many of the ridiculous problems Obama’s shown, it’s clear Bush was more competent. Romney would also be more competent and of course he would be more ethical than President Fast n Furious and Let’s Shred the Constitution.

    But he would be an overall failure just like Dubya was if he didn’t reform social security. That flier about “rick perry is going to kill social security” has guaranteed I will never rely on Romney to do it. The man is a demagogue about something very important.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  24. I don’t take Romney as seriously as all that – he’s not Obama and he’s not a big weirdo like Santorum and I think he’d really try hard to make the economy more better

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  25. Santorum is a Republican death wish. I would vote for Ryan or Christie (Who is more liberal than Romney) over Romney but they aren’t running. Ditto Mitch Daniels. Santorum would be another Goldwater. He demonizes himself, like his rant the other night about gay marriage in front of kids with gay parents, without help from Obama. I don’t like gay marriage but that is not what this election is about. Santorum is all about social issues. Voting against TARP was posturing. It was a bad bill but that is mostly because it was not used as presented. There actually was some auctioning of bad securities but the TARP bill dried up that market.

    Mike K (326cba)

  26. Santorum would be another Goldwater.

    LOL. I wish. Though I take your point.

    Voting against TARP was posturing.

    AKA politics.

    Just bear in mind that Romney is transparent in his flip flops and the ads against him will simply be Romney flip flopping on any number of things.

    Romney is easily beaten, and this primary shows us that. Even much less known and less funded candidates can beat this guy, usually by noting Romney’s record accurately. Obama would crush him.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  27. Attacks on Santorum are going to have much more risk of backfiring and be much less effective.

    It’ll be people saying he’s weird or hyperventilating that he might ban the pill. And it will unify the right and bring in a lot of the middle. Santorum will seem like the honorable person being slimed by a candidate who screwed up the economy and wants to change the subject.

    No, I’m not enthusiastic about Santorum. As I said, I actually think Romney would be a better president in many respects.

    But the electability argument for Romney couldn’t be weaker these days.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  28. Jen Rubin seems to be continuing with the Santorum doesn’t like women meme and suggesting it harms his electability,

    In any event, this sort of thing undermines Santorum’s electability argument. (Current polling match-ups between President Obama and each of the two frontrunners, before the GOP has a nominee and before Santorum’s record is out there, are virtually useless.) This is how, in part, he lost Pennsylvania — by appearing extreme and schoolmarmish, too far to the right of average voters in a purple state. If he is the nominee in 2012, he might get some blue-collar fellows, but what about those women in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.? And what about more secularized suburban communities? Fuggedaboutit.

    On the other hand, Ross Douthat sees Santorum has having the distinct advantage over Romney in that he can move to both the right and left of him and that unique ability will pull in independents and previous Cain/Bachmann supporters,

    At the same time, though, Santorum’s persona, his record and his platform all have a populist tinge that plays well in states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where swing voters tend to be socially conservative but economically middle-of-the-road. (Hence the Michigan poll that showed him leading among independents and Democrats who plan to vote in that state’s open primary.)

    This means that Santorum can play the same anti-Bain, anti-rich-guy, blue-collar card that Gingrich tried to play in New Hampshire and South Carolina – but subtly, implicitly, in ways that don’t make him sound like he belongs in Occupy Wall Street instead of the Republican primary.

    The point being, it’s still anyone’s game. There seems to be an increasing schism between who is most electable vs. who can beat Obama. Unfortunately, not one single candidate fills both needs…well, depending on who you read, the pull of the tides and whether or not it’s a full moon.

    Dana (a93e63)

  29. The sad thing is, had Perry stayed in, I think a lot of people would have actually given him that second look by now and realized he was actually a great candidate.

    Shame on him for missing his moment, though. He blew it, and the stakes were so high that it probably means meaningful reform is going to be much later (if even possible).

    Dustin (401f3a)

  30. Unforced errors are a problem…

    Santorum: ‘Birth control harms women’…

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-birth-control-harms-women/2012/02/15/gIQASRukFR_blog.html

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  31. 25, 26. Yeah I don’t get the Goldwater comparison.

    We’ve got three people with regional strengths. No one who can really unify the Right, at least at this point.

    If the convention isn’t brokered there’s no chance for unity, but Santorum is the least worst in that regard.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  32. The ‘most electable’ narrative is already known to be total horsesh*t.

    Turnout has been down, most drastically NV, in every contest he’s won.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  33. I agree that a brokered convention *could* be a great outcome. Jindal/Daniels. Ryan/Christie (I’m not a huge fan of Christie, but I get the politics there) Daniels/Rubio.

    dare I say Palin? I suspect that’s what a lot of the brokered convention talk is code for and personally I don’t think that would be the correct result.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  34. A brokered convention is as likely as Callista becoming Queen of the Moon.

    Icy (83a940)

  35. A brokered convention is as likely as Callista becoming Queen of the Moon.

    Comment by Icy

    I don’t agree. I think we *clearly* have a problem with these candidates. Santorum actually appears to be the most electable, and no offense intended, I think that suggests we have a real tactical problem.

    I also think conservatives know now is the time to press our case. Every presidential election will be high stakes, but we need to get a conservative to win one some time. The congress is important, but leadership in this time would be pivotal.

    I think the Tea Party must protest the RNC and demand a brokered result.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  36. Perhaps more tellingly, Santorum now trounces Romney 55% to 34% in a one-on-one matchup among likely GOP primary voters.

    What did I say months ago? Romney can’t get more than a third of the party on his side, even with all the tremendous advantages he’s got.

    Now, to some extent I’m being a sore loser with Santorum. It’s very impressive that he’s emerged on top and it proves he is a substantial politician even if much of his success is basically a rejection of Romney.

    Santorum had to beat many proven politicians to get here, and he simply wouldn’t have done it if he were a sure loser.

    We actually actually could do a lot worse. So if Santorum is the candidate I’m going to support him as much as I can.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  37. Michigan is probably not a must-win for Romney – there really are no must-wins. But he could be in danger of going into a death spiral if he also loses in Arizona, which is winner-take-all.

    But things would still go on for another week and March 6 is the key date. However, Romney would have to agree to another debate, and losses there would make losses on March 6 easier.

    In January, an Arizona (American Research Group?) poll had:

    Romney 32%
    Gingrich 32%,
    Paul 12%
    Santorum 10%. Total: 86%

    It now shows:

    Romney 38%
    Santorum 31%,
    Gingrich 15%
    Paul 11%. Total: 95%

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  38. Dustin:

    Shame on [Perry] for missing his moment, though. He blew it, and the stakes were so high that it probably means meaningful reform is going to be much later (if even possible).

    I don’t think the Tea Party wing of the GOP ever had a shot at selecting a nominee this year, but I expect it to be a much bigger factor in 2016.

    Compare the Tea Party to anti-war, pro-tax liberals who have been trying to take control of the Democratic Party since Eugene McCarthy played spoiler in 1968 and McGovern became the nominee in 1972. I submit these liberals never gained lasting power in the Democratic Party until 2008 (40 years later) when Obama became the nominee and won the Presidency.

    If the Tea Party can play a meaningful role in selecting the 2016 GOP nominee — a mere 6 years after its emergence on the political scene in the 2010 elections — then it’s doing amazingly well.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  39. 34, 35. The chances are better than usual:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/15/how_likely_is_a_brokered_convention.html

    Gingrich has to get some more wins in the South. I’m lukewarm on Santorum, so I might be missing some redeeming quality that might put him in the contest.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  40. If the Tea Party can play a meaningful role in selecting the 2016 GOP nominee — a mere 6 years after its emergence on the political scene in the 2010 elections — then it’s doing amazingly well.

    Comment by DRJ

    You’re more patient and realistic than I am.

    You’re right… the Tea Party is just getting started. I do think this primary going to Romney could be setback (though perhaps not, if Romney was as bad as I think he would be and the Tea Party was even more motivated).

    Dustin (401f3a)

  41. DJR,
    Across the pond, James Delingpole also thinks 2016 will be a better year than 2012. He even says Obama would be better than Romney, judging from how Britain has fared with a similar squish.

    Yes, of course, conservative/libertarian America, I fully understand how desperate you are to rid yourself of the POTUS from hell. But what you need to ask yourselves – and I don’t believe many of you are: you’re a bit like an hysterical woman who’s just had a tarantula drop on top of her in the bath, you just want to GET RID OF IT NOW! – is what ultimately you’re trying to achieve.

    I’m presuming what you really want is stuff like: smaller government; a genuine – as opposed to an illusory, QE-driven – economic recovery; sensible environmentalism (ie conservation but not eco-fascism); liberty; an end of crony capitalism; a diminution of the power of Wall Street; a resurgence of American greatness; a renewed sense of confidence and purpose.

    You’re not going to get any of that from a Romney administration.

    But you will, provided you’ve got the patience, get it in 2016 from President West or President Rand Paul or President Palin or President Ryan.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  42. Brother,

    Things James Delingpole misses:

    1. What four more years of gridlock on reform means for our national finances;

    2. What four years of implementing Obamacare means;

    3. What four years of Supreme Court nominations means; and

    4. The difference between a parliamentary system and our Constitutional one.

    Karl (f07e38)

  43. 41. Great quote. I’m leaning toward that impression on Santorum, for that matter.

    Like DeMint says, “if we return the same people to the Senate it isn’t going to matter who’s in the WH”.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  44. Santorum faces a tough challenge here in Arizona. Despite all of the bugaboo over our Governor and tough enforcement of illegal immigration, we remain (unfortunately) a purple state with what Mr feets would call “Meghan’s coward daddy supporting” Republicans. We have a significant Mormon population, which of course favors Romney. Then again, we have a closed primary, which might give the more conservative candidate a better chance.

    Icy (83a940)

  45. we remain (unfortunately) a purple state with what Mr feets would call “Meghan’s coward daddy supporting” Republicans.

    That’s a very good point. Even Texas can be pretty purple, as I’m sure you already know.

    I think the closed primary makes a big difference.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  46. 42. You may be underestimating Delingpole with (4). And (1) could with likely control of both houses diminish the obviously dire consequences.

    If Ginsburg expires, a Progressive POTUS will certainly bow to pressure to nominate a liberal maintaining political balance on the court.

    But Boehner and McConnell have to go, everybit as urgently as Dog.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  47. My 2 cents in the discussion to see what more knowledgable and wiser folk have to say

    There are 2 issues (as I see it):
    1. “Politics”- the art/science/crime of influencing people to agree with you more than they agree with the other guy, and with sufficient energy that it translates into action (like voting)
    2. “Governing”- the art/science of fulfilling responsibilities of office in a way that improves and helps the country

    Ideally one would like a candidate who is great at both, especially even able to leave out the “crime” component of #1.

    We don’t have any such candidate. What “we” want is someone who has been outspoken enough on issues that matter such as the economy, Obamacare, personal liberty, national defense, size of government, “Constitutionalism”, etc. so we are convinced they know what they mean and mean what they say, but without having said so much they are an easy target for the MSM, the left, and the rest of the usual subjects.

    “Tea Party”. Who are they other than people fed up with politicians not listening, passing legislation they haven’t read, and the govt. spending more money than they can squeeze out of the public, and fed up enough to actually go to a meeting in public and say so?

    One cannot ignore #1 or you’ll never get a chance for #2. But #1 is based more on perception, even if necessarily based on lies and manipulation, than what is true.
    So, do you really want to fight the game over #1, knowing that it may be won or lost over the timing of a fake document or the burying of a truth?

    Santorum would never have been a choice of mine to run for president even though I respect and agree with him more than the others. It shouldn’t take much imagination to know how he will be vilified by the left and the media. The “political/tactical” question is how many would be swayed by the attacks, how many emboldened who want to say “enough is enough” and come out to support him, and how many would just get sick of it all and try to tune it all out and stay home.

    With Romney it seems the question is how many will get enthusiastic enough to support him even though he is perceived by many to be flexible for the sake of electibility, recognizing there will be less to attack compared to Santorum (we think).

    As much as I agree with the sentiment in Bro. Bradley’s quote of Delingpole, I’m not sure we can put up with another 4 years of Obama.

    Essentially the only check on Obama’s initiatives in a second 4 years will be what he thinks he can get away with while avoiding impeachment, and that bar will be extremely high. Who cares how things are usually done, he’s the President, with “the Presidential Seal up on the Presidential (or Imperial) Podium”. As long as he can make an executive order and find someone to carry it out what will the rest of us do, hold a press conference that no press show up for?
    Anybody think this will not be the case? Do I see any hands, any?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  48. Another Michigan poll – the Mitchell poll-

    Santorum at 34%
    Romney’s at 25%

    Newt Gingrich at 5%.

    100,000 people have alreadty voted, though.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  49. Perhaps this is the (not encouraging) analogy and question:

    The 2008 ticket had one person that was clearly conservative on some things, but not so much on others, and one who appealed to the conservative and many who weren’t into politics, but easily blasted by opponents–

    the ticket lost and various people had opinions on which part of the ticket helped/hurt

    Currently, at a very rough estimation, the primary is between the two halves of the last ticket

    Not an encouraging way to look at it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  50. Brother Bradley,

    I agree with MD and Karl that we can’t stand 4 more years of Obama. Not only would his Supreme Court nominees be horrible, I think Obama would unleash anti-capitalist executive orders that could devastate our faltering economy. Further, there won’t be any way to set those executive orders aside if we lose the Supreme Court.

    Finally, we face at least a decade of hard times so I assume the House and Senate will remain polarized and closely divided while we dig America’s economy out of this hole. Without the Presidency, it will be impossible to get the country back on track in the near term.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  51. 47. Things we do know are that the vermin in power will try every door, every window in their continued ignorance of the law.

    But voting a Progressive in means 1.) you basically start with today as the baseline and 2.) you are likely done for eight to twelve.

    Sitting POTUS never gets primaried. Unless the Donks are bombed into the stone age, they’ll be back.

    With the current blow-up dolls passing for Congressional leaders you know a Progressive will be ‘working with’ Dimmis for half his tenure.

    The coming term will be the worst since the Greater Depression.

    I think I’d like to pray for natural causes, errant tee strike,tainted falafel, military coup, act of God, etc., than trust the office to a DIABLO.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  52. Yep, even folks like me who can’t stand Romney need to support whoever the GOP nominates. Romney included.

    The Primary, however… there is no point in calling for unity during the primary except to push an inevitability meme that frankly is a punchline at this point.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  53. Brother Bradley. If Obama (God forbid) gets re-elected. There is NOTHING to stop him from an EXECUTIVE order requiring ABORTION or requiring you to eat FREE BROCCOLI provided FREE by Kroger.

    Think about what you are saying. One more SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, and we are fuxed for 30 years.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  54. PS to Bradley,

    I didn’t intend my comment to seem like a disagreement with you. I realize you are simply passing on an interesting perspective from across the pond.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  55. If we are really, really lucky McBain will so infuriate Nor Laup the Fossil will make a deal with the H8ers.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  56. DRJ,
    No worries. This was my purpose, to see what others thought about it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  57. Mr. York is a well paid and well known political correspondent interviewed on national radio and TV programs.
    Me. not so much.

    But Mr. York neglects a very big factor that I’ve mentioned previously. (He would have known it had he googled for my posts!!)

    The democrats put up a “Pro-Life” Dem to run against Santorum. I saw someone refer to Casey once as an “empty suit”. Yes, he was an “empty suit” as Obama was, someone with little background of his own in the public eye so the public persona could be made as desired. The persona they put into the suit was that of his father, Bob Casey, Sr., gov. of PA and Pro-Life Dem denied the opportunity to speak at a Dem Nat. Convention. Santorum did not lose to Bob Casey Jr., he lost to Bob Casey Sr.’s “ghost”.

    In addition to that factor, he had harmed his reputation/standing with many conservatives after joining with Bush to back Specter’s reelection primary battle against Toomey. I do not know what the election turnout was when Santorum lost, if it was high, or low because usual supporters stayed home.

    Also, Santorum had been strong with Bush on Iraq.

    I think it is very important to think of santorum’s loss and why- but need to think correctly about it.

    Would Romney have won a second term in Mass??

    I heard Hewitt make a comment a night or two ago showing he had seen my analysis and had agreed with it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  58. It is beyond me how anyone can support creepy Santorum. I just don’t get it. You would be trading one “Blamer-in-Chief” for another one. He is slimy, his ads and attacks are slimy. Let one person, Romney or any other, point out Ricky’s problems and he can’t run fast enough to a Fox camera to whine about how he is being treated, yet he goes out and slanders everyone in his path and gets away with it. Why? Women already can’t stand him, according to the polls. What is it about this man that makes men take to him so much? Maybe the control-freak aspect appeals to them as much as it turns off the women. How sad would that be? I sure hope that isn’t it. I just do not get it. I do not like Gingrich at all, and I cannot imagine voting for Ron Paul, yet both of them would be better than someone as slippery and dishonest as Rick Santorum. Go Mitt!

    Sara (e8f5d4)

  59. Santorum also lost a lot of moderates and independents with his posturing on Terry Schiavo. Special Forces have a saying: “Is this the hill we want to die on today?”

    Mike K (326cba)

  60. C’mon, Sara. It does not help Republicans to refer to any of our potential candidates as “slimy”. They each have strengths and weaknesses.

    Leave it to Democrats and their weak-minded fellow travelers to say who they “can’t stand” and other grade school taunts.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  61. True, Mike K.

    In fact the Terry Schiavo situation was how I came upon this site originally.

    FWIW, I think that was a situation, like so many, that was determined by how it was framed by the media, etc. To some degree I thought the real issue was how factual matter was ignored in who had the best case to be her power of attorney.

    It is interesting to note, FWIW, that all of the people in office currently or who left office due to limitations on # of terms are no longer in the race (I don’t count Paul as “in the race”). I don’t know what that means, if anything. I guess Nixon won, FWIW, after losing his previous race.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  62. Santorum is not a mainstream candidate he’s too extreme

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  63. I heard Hewitt make a comment a night or two ago showing he had seen my analysis and had agreed with it.

    Comment by MD in Philly

    Now that is praiseworthy, MD! Hewitt is an accomplished man and I, for one, very much value his even-handedness.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  64. We shall soon see just how palatable Mr. Santorum is, happyfeet. I’d definitely prefer him over Gingrich, but I have serious reservations about his electability in a general election.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  65. Maybe the control-freak aspect appeals to them as much as it turns off the women. How sad would that be?

    What an ugly attempt to make a point.

    Go Mitt!

    What a shock.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  66. Things James Delingpole misses:

    1. What four more years of gridlock on reform means for our national finances;

    2. What four years of implementing Obamacare means;

    3. What four years of Supreme Court nominations means; and

    4. The difference between a parliamentary system and our Constitutional one.

    Comment by Karl — 2/15/2012 @ 12:52 pm

    I agree. It’s much harder to undo something in our system than the parliamentary system. I don’t know how their courts work but maybe they don’t have lifetime tenure there which would be another crucial difference. Their courts may also be less powerful than ours.

    Let’s look at those arguments being made in 2008. Anyone who was stupid enough to vote 3rd party on those grounds is partly responsible for Obamacare among other things.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  67. “Rick Perry wants to kill Social Security” was a lie. There’s no way around that. Many have tried to work their way around it saying that “well if we fixed Social Security the problematic version would be killed” which shows just how unserious some people are about reform to support such demagoguery.

    As far as I can recall, nothing Rick Santorum’s campaign has said has turned out to be similarly untrue. He’s been very harsh in criticizing Rick Perry, whom I supported, but he was accurate on the facts, which puts him in a category Mitt doesn’t even aspire to. It was quite a stark contrast between Bachmann, who did say things that weren’t true, and Santorum, who made his case on true facts. One difference is that Santorum is a smart enough man not to burn bridges to the supporters of his opponents. There’s a reason Santorum has gained ground and Romney can’t seem to after the trashing of the next not Romney is done.

    Rick Santorum even tells me point blank he’s no libertarian or Reaganite. That takes integrity and shows respect. That is the exact opposite of what Romney shows when he flip flops from the union bill in Ohio to the split second 180 flip on abortion right, moving from a planned parenthood fundraiser attendee who swears he will never waver in sustaining Roe v Wade to demanding it be overturned. Like he just figured that out decades after graduating from Obama’s law school.

    In short, the reason why so many support Santorum is because Romney is so far from what we want that it makes Santorum look palatable. The other reason is that we are taking a stand against something wrong that is happening in the GOP.

    Romney supporters should emphasize Romney’s executive experience instead of trying to suggest they have some kind of conservative ideological or character reason to prefer Romney.

    Women already can’t stand him, according to the polls.

    Link these multiple polls. I googled it and didn’t find any except this one. That suggests you’re actually incorrect and Santorum can win with women.

    That’s something worth considering. Do the liberals who say this and that are women’s issues speak for all women? I don’t think they do.

    BTW, I support Newt over Santorum, but I’m pretty annoyed at how any threat to Romney gets the *exact* same hostility over and over. When you guys realize Romney never was going to be the nominee you may regret tearing up so many good folks.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  68. Delingpole, is probably basing his surmise on the Cameron experience, his Wet Toryism caused the failure of a parliamentary majority,

    narciso (87e966)

  69. Anyone who was stupid enough to vote 3rd party on those grounds is partly responsible for Obamacare among other things.

    But their vote counts anyway. Electability is important, so someone who can’t win all those stupid conservatives who are too stupid to vote for a liberal probably has a problem.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  70. Again, it’s these unforced errors that will prove to be Santorum’s undoing…

    Santorum and His Case Against Contraception

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/15/santorum-case-against-contraception/

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  71. Link these multiple polls. I googled it and didn’t find any except this one. That suggests you’re actually incorrect and Santorum can win with women.

    That’s something worth considering. Do the liberals who say this and that are women’s issues speak for all women? I don’t think they do.

    Ditto. It’s increasingly annoying to be spoken for by various news outlets, the MSM, Collins & Snowe, but it’s more troubling when commenters fall for it. Even Jen Rubin at the link above is touting the meme.

    I’m not a big fan of Santorum’s, but I refuse to get lost in the mire of the contraception debacle when it’s being co-opted by feminists and lefties insisting it speaks to his view that women are less than men. Just google Santorum sexist.

    It’s almost as if someone wants us to pay attention to anything but the economy.

    Dana (a93e63)

  72. Dana-
    The link is not working at this moment, but I heard about it.

    Bono of U2 is also a Santorum fan from working with then Sen. Santorum on help for AIDS in Africa.
    Santorum “has a kind of Tourette’s disease,” Bono told New York Times columnist David Brooks in 2006. “He will always say the most unpopular thing. But on our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable.”

    Colonel-
    Just to be clear, Hewitt merely made the same point, he did not quote me on it, so I was invoking his name, FWIW, on the idea.
    He may actually have made the observation himself, while smoking a cigar stolen from Dennis Prager, I don’t know. ;-)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  73. Let’s look at those arguments being made in 2008. Anyone who was stupid enough to vote 3rd party on those grounds is partly responsible for Obamacare among other things.

    Comment by Gerald A

    a case of if thy head offendith thee, cut it off.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  74. I understood, MD… it’s just a case of great minds think alike.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  75. Try this one, MD. Daily Beast, so of course it comes with a complimentary full sneer.

    Dana (a93e63)

  76. My guess is that the like/dislike among women for Santorum is similar to that for Palin, FWIW.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  77. Cool… Santorum gets the reformed heroin user vote… good for him!

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  78. MD, I laughed at your joke about Hewitt having seen your comment. Didn’t realize it wasn’t apparent.

    It’s almost as if someone wants us to pay attention to anything but the economy.

    Comment by Dana /blockquote>

    Bingo.

    I also think some people are legitimately upset that Santorum has occasionally shown some moral courage on social issues, they might even feel a little guilty about it, and by golly, Santorum or someone like him might even win an election that won’t affect these issues very much, but maybe they would be reminded all the time about morality.

    Some people.

    Other people have other things at heart.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  79. My guess is that the like/dislike among women for Santorum is similar to that for Palin, FWIW.

    Comment by MD in Philly

    Probably fair.

    And frankly, the democrats did not handle Palin very intelligently. Long term, sure they did their damage, but it was clumsy and it often actually helped Palin. How do the democrats campaign against Santorum? He’s moderate at best on ideology that matters, so Obama will have to beat him up on social stuff, which will lead a horde of idiots to go too far.

    And all Santorum has to do is beat that economy drum to appear to be the adult in the room.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  80. No Reagan conservative he…

    “One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.”

    “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/326733.php

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  81. Just wanted to be clear about that, Dustin, I don’t want him coming after my cigars, too. ;-)

    over on Powerline are some links to great Congressional fiskings

    Darrel Issa for Attorney General!!

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  82. You should get a good night’s rest, MD, knowing that you’ve been pronounced “probably fair”.

    Sleep the sleep of the just.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  83. Darrel Issa for Attorney General!!

    Comment by MD in Philly

    Hell yes.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  84. This is all bunk. Romney will wipe the floor with Santy!

    Mitt 2012!

    Retired05 (fe1365)

  85. Santorum ATTACK!!!!!!

    JD (59fe1b)

  86. Santorum and Palin clearly enjoy making babies and that irritates the left like nobody’s business. How dare they. And how dare they remain committed to one spouse, be an intact family, and live out their beliefs and values in real life. Who are they to judge all of us!

    Dana (a93e63)

  87. The same lefties who are always kvetching about government intrusion into the bedroom now want to tell mothers and their little kiddies what they can – and can’t – have for school lunch.

    It’s about time we send monitors who will position themselves at the foot of their beds and tell them when they aren’t doing it right.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  88. Like many things Colonel, a polite fair hearing and a political bite turned snear are two different things.
    I heard Santorum comment earlier today that while he and his wife don’t believe in contraception that is their personal belief and nothing of a policy issue.

    As far as his comment that contraception, especially the pill, has contributed to the “whole sexual libertine idea” and the negative effects of that… I don’t think “Chlamydia” became a household word until the ’70′s, “Herpes Simplex” until the early ’80′s, and then “HIV” in the late ’80′s and beyond.

    People may do what they want with it, but I think it is hard to deny that the pill at least encouraged the “sexual revolution”, and that in the wake of the sexual revolution STD’s have been a “growth industry”. Of course, not that contraceptives are at all responsible for any of that, it was all of those Santorum like prudes who interferred with adequate sex ed.

    Besides, as one Hollywood celebrity noted, Santorum wears sweater-vests.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  89. Yes, Santorum is an imperfect vehicle for our purposes, but he has done good work over the years ,
    he has also done boneheaded measures like the Gas Affordability Act, (that worked out great, no seriously) but that was a wider problem among the GOP, in that era.

    narciso (87e966)

  90. Hah! at #85-
    Are you suggesting that I quit while I’m ahead? maybe too late for that, but I do have other things to do.

    besides, do you have a problem with chicken nuggets???

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  91. Hey, MD… when you have penicillin-proof gonorrhea, we got a problem.

    But we have bigger problems than contraception and sexual promiscuity and we’re not electing a Pope Of The United States.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  92. Now that abortion is a political loser for them, the Left wants contraception to replace it as their social issue.

    It’s a game that is being played and we need to ensure the focus is where it should be: Obama’s incompetence, cluelessness and Democrat malfeasance.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  93. 94.Hey, MD… when you have penicillin-proof gonorrhea, we got a problem.

    We’ve had that for 25+ years, where ya been??

    Yes we do, and no we’re not.

    Which is why I never would have chosen santorum as a presidential candidate.

    Deadlocked convention, please.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  94. In order to do what Colonel suggests, clearly the best strategy to ensure focus on Barcky’s failure is to smear Santorum over his personal beliefs.

    JD (59fe1b)

  95. WHEN SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES become untreatable. It’s happening. “Less than a century after we conquered syphilis and gonorrhea, the CDC warns that 100% antibiotic resistance is on its way.”

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/137154/

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  96. with santorum as president we won’t have to worry about yucky sex diseases anymore, which is a huge plus in the santorum column

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  97. no more pussy sores!

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  98. erm… that came out wrong

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  99. No, JD, just keep repeating what and who YOU don’t like. That’ll work.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  100. I think I meant to go with “purulent” sores I guess

    so terribly sorry

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  101. Like the blade runner Brian said to the replicant, you’re not helping;

    http://biggovernment.com/driehl/2012/02/15/lisa-murkowski-backs-romney-in-alaska-a-super-tuesday-preview/

    narciso (87e966)

  102. Palin was on Fox tonight and asked about a brokered convention. She thinks yep, it could happen. When asked about whether she would step up if asked to be the candidate, she was coy, as in would rather not say anything rather than I’ve-got-a-big-secret coy.

    Dana (a93e63)

  103. oh… it’s pustulent I wanted

    feel free to use any or all of the above in your words with friends

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  104. brokered conventions are like girlfriends in canada

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  105. How dare they. And how dare they remain committed to one spouse, be an intact family, and live out their beliefs and values in real life. Who are they to judge all of us!

    Comment by Dana

    You said it better than I tried to.

    As far as the contraception angle, Santorum already took the issue off the table. It’s just not on his agenda. It’s a religious view he has. If you don’t agree with him, it’s a free country.

    But it’s not part of the actual debate. If electability is your issue, well, Santorum seems to be a better politician than Romney ever dreamed of being, beating the odds lately against a much better funded and dirtier campaign. That’s a skill he’ll need against Obama.

    Romney will wipe the floor with Santy!

    55% Santorum 34% Romney. That’s what the GOP likely voters thing of that.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  106. Of course Murkowski supports Romney, Narciso. I’d have been completely shocked if she had backed anyone else. Romney is practically tailor made for Murkowski, Meghan Mccain, and Donald Frum.

    Remember when Ann Coulter said she’d vote Hillary in 2008 if we didn’t nominate Romney?

    In some ways, this is where some merit can be found in Santorum’s squishiness on limited government. I wonder how many Romney fans would have voted Obama over Perry. After all, Romney is much more like Obama than he’s like Perry.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  107. Is Rick Perry running? When will this advocacy be recognized for man-crush obsession?

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  108. Santorum won’t be the nominee the only purpose it would serve is for to have our little country kick social cons in the teeth.

    I don’t understand why social cons don’t have more appreciation for how dangerous this Santorum is to their movement.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  109. My $.02, happy… it’s hard for some to see that what might play to many in primaries will literally torpedo a candidate in a general election.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  110. Or maybe it would prove that so-cons aren’t necessarily so radioactive. Maybe what folks have been telling social cons… that there are more important issues… is actually true.

    I’ll tell ya one thing… kicking Santorum because he’s a so-con probably helps him.

    If you want to argue against him, there are some very good arguments. But who cares that he has some religious views that he’s honest and consistent about? Whoop de doo… the national debt is eight gazillion dollars, though.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  111. Santorum and Palin clearly enjoy making babies and that irritates the left like nobody’s business. How dare they. And how dare they remain committed to one spouse, be an intact family, and live out their beliefs and values in real life. Who are they to judge all of us!

    Comment by Dana — 2/15/2012 @ 5:09 pm

    Defective
    babies, no less!

    You know, the emotional reaction (there’s no other term for it) of many on the left to both Palin and Santorum really amazingly echoes the snark Dana put up above. It’s like they can’t stand their very existence. Julianne Moore’s very weird comments about Palin in the last couple of days, just to take one example.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  112. I agree Mr. Colonel but the prospect of an extreme social con ken doll losing emphatically to a socialist rapist should give these Santorum fanclubbers pause.

    No one would take the idea of a social con president seriously ever again – not even social cons.

    And make no mistake Santorum would lose.

    Emphatically.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  113. “Throughout his candidacy, Santorum has made a point to emphasize his pro-life, pro-family platform. He has made controversial comments on gay marriage, the role of women in the military, abortion and contraception which have been, until recently, largely ignored by the media and voters. While the GOP base may not mind his focus on social conservatism, liberals in the news and entertainment media will see his comments as so abhorrent they may take it upon themselves to ensure his campaign is over before it starts.”

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/15/social-issues-sink-santorum/#more-783304

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  114. Yes you could argue the Gas Affordability Act, but then consider the RGGI on the other side, one can consider his support of an individual mandate in ’94, but well you see the nature of the problem.

    narciso (87e966)

  115. Actually Dustin, even if one is not a social con, it speaks loudly and favorably about his character that he is consistent and unwavering in his personal beliefs and religious views.

    Others have had serious issues with living out those beliefs with consistency…

    Dana (a93e63)

  116. And make no mistake Santorum would lose.

    And so will Romney.

    JD (59fe1b)

  117. and I’m not saying that it isn’t a sad state of affairs for that to be used as a brickbat against Santorum. But it is what it is.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  118. I don’t understand why social cons don’t have more appreciation for how dangerous this Santorum is to their movement.

    Oh yeah, because if so-cons reject Santorum for Newt or the abortion guy then they will later reap some benefits when the next so con comes along and the MSM doesn’t freak and happyfeet’s all like “hey, this guy who wants to tell me how to live is A O K”.

    The fact is Santorum is unpalatable to libertarians. How could a so con avoid that? I suppose they could be less honest than Santorum is, but that’s a short term solution.

    I don’t see any reason why a so-con wouldn’t vote for Santorum enthusiastically.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  119. and I’m not saying that it isn’t a sad state of affairs for that to be used as a brickbat against Santorum

    So you are just reluctantly smearing him?

    JD (59fe1b)

  120. If Romney loses then the takeaway is that nominating a limp-wristed phony is maybe not something we want to do again – you know, as a party.

    That’s kind of the takeaway in defeat we’re looking for, no?

    And if Romney wins it just means people really wanted the rapist to go away very very badly.

    I can live with that too.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  121. Actually Dustin, even if one is not a social con, it speaks loudly and favorably about his character

    I agree. And I think a lot of people in the “middle” will recognize this as leadership and character that they don’t see in politicians for whom every promise has an expiration date.

    This is something a lot of folks need to realize. Seeking the center for a populist might look good, but doing it as a conservative just looks fake and weak and is not a path to the White House.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  122. Read the articles that are linked, or don’t, JD. This stuff will be used against him and to pretend otherwise is magical thinking.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  123. If Romney loses then the takeaway is that nominating a limp-wristed phony is maybe not something we want to do again – you know, as a party.

    That lesson doesn’t matter because the main pundits who talk about electability are insincere about it and actually just want a huge bloated government.

    They didn’t learn this lesson the last seven times. They will not learn it.

    My hang up with Santorum is largely that he just isn’t very experienced. His electability seems to be as good as any of the candidates and is arguably superior to them. My worry is he just isn’t ready to handle running this mess.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  124. So you pick candidates based on how the left will smear them? Since you are using that as a metric, how do you think your fella will be characterized for his many positions on various topics, his hearting the individual mandate, etc …

    JD (59fe1b)

  125. also Romney loves ever-escalating minimum wages and value added taxes

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  126. But we shouldn’t worry about that, Happyfeet. He is electable.

    JD (59fe1b)

  127. he is possibly electable maybe, Romney is – mostly if the economy is perceived as an obama-raped travesty

    nobody’s voting *for* Romney in any conceivable scenario

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  128. JD… you misunderstand why I’ve linked to the articles from Ace and writers at Commentary. Though the focus should be elsewhere, Santorum doesn’t have the desire – much less can he summon the discipline – required to stop preaching about this stuff. What plays to many in the primaries will ensure he has his ass handed to him in a general election.

    Time will tell. There are plenty of folks who post here that weigh in on Romney’s expressed desire to oversee the spread of MassCare to the rest of the USA. Surely you don’t need my opinion on that.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  129. NOYK @ 115,

    You know, the emotional reaction (there’s no other term for it) of many on the left to both Palin and Santorum really amazingly echoes the snark Dana put up above. It’s like they can’t stand their very existence. Julianne Moore’s very weird comments about Palin in the last couple of days, just to take one example.

    That reminds me of Moore’s observations of the similarity between selecting our presidents and marketing actors and films,

    I had no idea what really goes into making a candidate. I was actually shocked by how close it was to the way Hollywood markets an actor or film or any idea. It’s about a very careful kind of exposure, and putting candidates on with one anchor and another anchor, and limiting appearances and using everything very strategically”

    It’s certainly not a deep observation, and I’m sure she misses the immense irony of her comments, but it is a reminder of how calculated and carefully controlled the process is. And with that, how the power lies in the narrative and who controls it. And who controls that, controls almost everything.

    Dana (a93e63)

  130. Sigh. After reading the links and doing some of my own Googling, I see Santorum has more vulnerabilities than I first thought. Among other things, he wrote a forward for a book on intelligent design, Darwin’s Nemesis.

    He wrote: “The importance of the cause is clear: what could be more important than showing that only a shallow, partisan understanding supports the false philosophy of materialist reductionism, with its thoroughly unscientific denial of formal and final causes in nature and its repudiation of the first cause of all being?”

    Even so, I could bring myself to vote for Santorum to stop Obamunism. But this stuff is political poison.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  131. Did you watch the whole interview with Santorum where that quote you used came from? No, I didn’t think so. Because had you, you would not be using that snippet to try to smear him, just like you have done to every other not-Romney previously.

    JD (59fe1b)

  132. Santorum is a retrograde culture war catalyst nonpareil and nominating such a one is a horrible misread of the moment

    might as well nominate David Duke

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  133. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/15/why-rick-santorum-doesnt-owe-us-a-contraception-speech/

    This gives a more fair reading of Santorum’s “undisciplined” comment.

    JD (59fe1b)

  134. and also I think teadoodles and other varietals of economic conservative are a lot underestimating the value of having an R in office what more-conservative Rs can run against

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  135. Because had you, you would not be using that snippet to try to smear him, just like you have done to every other not-Romney previously.

    Comment by JD

    so… are you saying that Ace of Ace of Spades is going out of his way to smear Santorum? That wasn’t an article I wrote.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  136. Yes, Ace is. He does, that should come as no surprise to you.

    JD (59fe1b)

  137. Even so, I could bring myself to vote for Santorum to stop Obamunism. But this stuff is political poison.

    As could I, in a heart beat. But you are correct… it’s poli-poison.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  138. Comment by Colonel Haiku — 2/15/2012 @ 5:45 pm

    Is Rick Perry running?…

    I’ve read some things that seem to indicate that he (or more likely some people who supported him) thinks he could be the choice that comes out of a brokered convention – that that would be his moment – that h could revive his campaign then – but actually what he’s been doing this past week is introducing Newt Gingrich to his campaign donors, and asking them to give money to Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has been off in Texas mostly for a week or more. He’s not finding too much success with big donors, who like to have a feeling that the person they give money to has a real chance of winning – but he is having more success with middle range donors, who give money mostly because they want to be introduced to and get their picture taken with a political celebrity.

    Two times Newt Gingrich has spent just about all his money – completely unnecessarily. The last extra dollar wasn’t going to help him too much. He somehow didn’t realize this thing. There is a law of diminishing returns.

    He spent most of his money in Iowa and again in Florida. Santorum, on the other hand, budgeted his money, or reserved some money for later, and is in a stronger position to campaign, even though he had less of it than Gingrich.

    Barack Obama claimed that the ability to run a presidential campaign was poof of executive experience. It’s true, actually.

    Sammy Finkelman (5048f3)

  139. Yes, JD, I have a candidate still in the running who I support, and with cash contributions, as well. I confess I have missed you indicating who you support, I’ve only read who you wouldn’t give a dime to.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  140. * proof of executive experience. Newt Gingrich’s campaign has not yet gone poof. But he really needs a debate – just to get the contributions coming again maybe.

    Sammy Finkelman (5048f3)

  141. One wonders about that, considering he lost many primaries after the Iowa caucuses, that he may have won at least one of the prior contests by fraud, that the media was disturbingly in his corner, what
    was the challenge,

    narciso (87e966)

  142. Newt is probably moot by now, Sammy. And Perry’s contributions fell off dramatically when he had his first brain-freeze… the whole “was before or was after before…” incident.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  143. Perry has asked if Romney “was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it was before he was before the social programs from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe versus Wade before he was against first Roe versus Wade?”

    A second wind? A Might Wind Breaks.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  144. has had

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  145. Presidential politics is like football, once everyone is slopping around in the mud it doesn’t matter anymore who has skills and who doesn’t, all bets are off on who wins.

    I wish there was someone to blame, like feets, like it’s all his fault that the dems want to elect a leftist ideologue whose only executive experience was working with an anarchist and almost only vote in the state senate was to protect infanticide, and the repubs can’t find somebody who won or would have won the last election they were in

    Here’s the best scenario I can think of (but thank the Lord it is not up to me):
    The last night of the repub convention:
    1. breitbart shows his obama in college video
    2. the doors lock so no one leaves until an agreement is reached
    3. two candidates are picked that 75% can support enthusiastically, 20% not so enthusiastically, 4% holding their nose, and 1% will vote for anybody after seeing the Obama video.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  146. Obama very bad man Mr. Dr. MD person

    very bad man

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  147. Nothin from nothin, but who are these Fox News make-up people? Pat Caddell is on Hannity’s panel and he has what looks like my dear Aunt Ruby’s red shade of lipstick on his bee-stung lips, lol.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  148. Why would I support any of these candidates, Colonel?

    JD (59fe1b)

  149. So, Colonel, do you think your not smear because Ace wrote it is more fair, or Dyer’s piece?

    JD (59fe1b)

  150. barring some major change in things, i’m voting for the Green Party presidential candidate in November.

    there is no way, barring some sort of earth shattering miracle, that the SCOAMF is NOT going to carry California, so my vote for that office might as well do something useful.

    if we can get the Green party to 5%, then they will be officially recognized in future elections, and thus do a better j*b of bleeding off the moonbat votes.

    it’s the only bright spot i see in the election.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  151. Walker, Ryan, Jindal, Palin, and Kasich are all exponentially better than anyone still in contention.

    JD (59fe1b)

  152. After Walker has been victorious in beating back the recount effort he will be in trajectory to launch for President. Milwaukee Co. Executive must have been better training than an Ill. state senate job, don’t you think?

    Walker/Jindahl the heart of the Midwest from where the Mississippi starts (sort of, close anyway) to where it ends.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  153. Walker, Ryan, Jindal, Palin, and Kasich are all exponentially better than anyone still in contention.

    … why not include SuperMan? oh… that’s right… he isn’t running either.

    Dyer’s piece is more sympathetic. It also comes at the issue from a different direction than what Ace wrote.

    I say leave it to the churches to push back – and hard – against Obama on contraception and the overreach of the government… and perhaps congressional Republicans can join that battle and do something of value… which would be refreshing.

    Santorum and the other candidates need to focus on the economy, jobs, Obama’s incompetence, jobs, Fast and Furious and the politicization of the DOJ, jobs and jobs.

    Colonel haiku (1d81d3)

  154. a brokered convention isn’t likely.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  155. Yeah. Great idea. We shoul have conservative candidates afraid to point out that Obama is trampling on the 1st Amendment Rights of religious institutions. Our defense of the Bill of Rights should be dependent on how well it polls.

    JD (59fe1b)

  156. Superman is not a natural-born citizen Mr. Colonel

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  157. Choose to win, or choose to lose. Win the election, then affect the change. Just my opinion.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  158. D’OH!

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  159. You don’t win elections coming on like fuggin’ Elmer Gantry.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  160. The Bill of Rights is so icky and passé.

    JD (59fe1b)

  161. “I was accosted by three painted women. Your streets are made unsafe by shameless, diseased hussies, rapacious pick-pockets, and insidious opium-smokers.”

    - President Elmer Gantry

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  162. It is so cute how you simply accept and regurgitate Teh Narrative every time.

    JD (59fe1b)

  163. Sounds like Danny Devito’s narration about LA Confidential

    narciso (87e966)

  164. And I think your rebel without a clue pose is precious, too!

    Time will tell. BTW… what’s the over/under on more than zero of the folks on your preferred candidate list actually jumping in?

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  165. My lovely wife just reminded me that I have more entertaining things to do than argue with a cranky old bastard. TTFN!

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  166. Walker, Ryan, Jindal, Palin, and Kasich are all exponentially better than anyone still in contention.

    Comment by JD —

    I agree completely.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  167. a Romney what doesn’t want a primary challenge is the best we can hope for I think, if we’re to be hopeful-minded, which isn’t necessarily required

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  168. It is no pose, and I am no rebel. You are trying to force a choice on people, that to my eyes, all but guarantees Obambi’s reelection. And you do so in a manner devoid of principles, preferring platitudes and smears to affirmative support of your candidate.

    JD (318f81)

  169. People who support Romney are brain dead.

    Rinse and repeat.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  170. the sure and certain thing is that the next term of the presidency of this united states will be occupied by a man what few respect

    this is largely because the presidency is a cowardly whore magnet

    but nobody listens when you tell them that

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  171. Women already can’t stand him, according to the polls.
    Comment by Sara — 2/15/2012 @ 3:20 pm

    – From the new Rasmussen Poll:
    Some have suggested that Santorum is suffering from a gender gap with Romney.  That could be true in polling overall in comparing head-to-head matchups against Barack Obama (and Democrats usually win among women anyway), but it’s not true in Rasmussen’s crosstabs.  Santorum beats Romney by eleven among women, almost exactly the same margin as his overall lead.  He beats Romney by twelve among men.  Santorum also does surprisingly well among younger voters (18-39), almost doubling up on Romney 37/19 with Ron Paul second at 20%.  Romney does better with seniors, but still falls six points behind Santorum, who leads 39/33.
    – Some people come armed with the facts, and some people are disarmed by them.

    Icy (8e8f8c)

  172. Santorum as GOP nominee = Obama re-elected in a Clinton-Dole 1996 sized wipeout.

    Can someone explain to me how Santorum is any more qualified to be President than Obama was? Dude was a lawyer four years then a congressman then a Senator for the next 17 years. So what? What has he ever done?? thats supposed to be laughably thin resume for a President.

    the last time Santorum faced any voters…almost 6 years ago…he lost by 20 points. Mind you Romney is no better but he’s Thomas Jefferson compared to Santorum. I’d rather lose by a Bush-Kerry margin with Romney and
    re-take the Senate than lose a landslide with Santorum and not re-take the Senate.

    miked (04e8ba)

  173. I never said that, nor suggested that, Daleyrocks.

    JD (318f81)

  174. Cool… Santorum gets the reformed heroin user vote… good for him!
    Comment by Colonel Haiku — 2/15/2012 @ 4:47 pm

    – Huh?

    Icy (8e8f8c)

  175. Santorum beats Romney by eleven among women, almost exactly the same margin as his overall lead.

    Impressive. That’s in line with what I found when I looked into it.

    I also found a lot of vague ‘Santorum is going to have a problem with women because he’s wrong on “women’s issues”, but I know a lot of women who would agree completely with Santorum on those issues, so this is quite bizarre.

    Anyhow, he’s taken most of this stuff off the table. What happened to that Romney claim that we should look at what the candidate is saying now? Well I’ve checked Santorum’s campaign site a few times, and he doesn’t seem to have anything extreme on his agenda.

    Can someone explain to me how Santorum is any more qualified to be President than Obama was?

    Obama never even held a job got four consecutive years. Santorum was a US legislator from 1991 to 2006. Obama never even finished a single term as Senator. Santorum was a Senator for twelve years IIRC.

    That’s not executive experience, and that’s a problem, but it’s a lot more than Obama had on the resume. And Santorum was a highly ranked Senator.

    Also, Sammy’s point above that Santorum has run a hell of a campaign is pretty legit.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  176. Two things; first Democrats are being solicited to vote for Santorum in Michigan… does that sound like they fear him in the general election? Secondly, this is how primaries usually go. The candidate that everyone knows in the back of their minds will be the nominee is kicked around so they go either left or right depending on whether or not it is a Democrat of a Republican primary. A Michigan loss for Romney means he finishes second. Like he’s done in every other loss he’s had with delegates. He’s been either one or two in every one of them. Santorum is not a viable candidate in the general. Speak to someone outside the “choir”, they don’t even know who he is and if they do think he’s a religious zealot. If we’re that stupid as conservatives to serve him up to Obama then we deserve what we get, unfortunately our kids and grandchildren will suffer for our stupidity.

    Dave B (982f20)

  177. Drive-by fanbois are precious. You are all stupid zealots unless you submit and support Romney.

    JD (12366a)

  178. What plays to many in the primaries will ensure he has his ass handed to him in a general election.
    – Colonel, do you not think that once he is nominated Santorum would then focus on the economy and the size of government?

    Icy (8e8f8c)

  179. He’s been either one or two in every one of them.

    Not true. He’s been dead last as well. And not even close.

    first Democrats are being solicited to vote for Santorum in Michigan…

    Why in the world would you take that at face value?

    And of course they fear social conservatives like Santorum and Palin. Their hysterical reaction is pretty transparent.

    And the fact is, Santorum is polling better than Romney in general election matches against Obama. Santorum’s social conservatism is not *nearly* as radioactive as elitists might have you believe. In fact, a lot of Americans totally relate to a guy like Santorum.

    do you remember when we elected a president whose church thought the CIA invented AIDS… and a president who named his memoirs after that crackpot’s arguments?

    Trust me… America doesn’t care about this kind of stuff as much as it cares about *the economy*.

    The candidate that everyone knows in the back of their minds will be the nominee

    LOL. The inevitably canard is just plain hilarious now. Santorum is kicking Romney’s ass with a fraction of the cash. He’s the better politician. Neither of them are what I want ideologically and I will vote for Newt if the GOP doesn’t find a way to have him tossed off the ballot here, but if you “know” Romney will be the nominee, then maybe you “know” a lot of other things that aren’t true too.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  180. Dustin: did you not read “delegeates” in my comment? So if “America doesn’t care about this kind of stuff as much as about “the economy” how the hell is Newt or Santorum a better candidate than a successful businessman and turnaround artist who actually has a lifetime of executive experience, even in government while those two have been career politicians that “vote” and “support” and never have governed? Are you disputing that most Republicans believe that Romney will be the eventual nominee? Just ask them, just read the polls, or just apply some common sense. Newt and Santorum didn’t even have the organizational skills to get on all the ballots. Santorum may be “the better politician” because he’s a lifetime politician and lobbyist, but he’s not the best man to take the reigns of this nation in our financial situation at this time which makes Romney the best candidate.

    Dave B (982f20)

  181. 181.Cool… Santorum gets the reformed heroin user vote… good for him!
    Comment by Colonel Haiku — 2/15/2012 @ 4:47 pm
    – Huh? Comment by Icy

    Look at the link at #78;

    Resume for president:
    - Executive experience, major
    - foreign policy experience
    - military, security experience
    - familiar with DC, but not an “insider”
    - has convictions, so doesn’t have to remember what yarn he told yesterday
    - no skeletons, nothing that resembles a skeleton
    - family beyond reproach
    - tough backbone and hide
    - family with tough backbone and hide
    - family background not elite rich, not poke-fun-at poor

    Nobody has that resume, neither did Obama or Hillary

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  182. “I never said that, nor suggested that, Daleyrocks.”

    JD – Not directed at you.

    More at Excitable Boy types with today’s bash of the day, Romney is a democrat, same as Obama meme.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  183. “And Santorum was a highly ranked Senator.”

    Yeah, with an even lower conservative rating than Gingrich.

    Go Team!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  184. So if “America doesn’t care about this kind of stuff as much as about “the economy” how the hell is Newt or Santorum a better candidate than a successful businessman and turnaround artist

    I’ve already noted Romney has a substantial executive experience advantage multiple times in this thread.

    We aren’t hiring someone to negotiate bailouts for Goldman Sachs… we’re electing a political leader who must reform entitlement spending, balance the budget, and win some very tough fights against democrats (something Romney has never done, but both Santorum and Newt have).

    That’s why Romney just can’t win. His kind of business also doesn’t relate to small businesses building a long term success… the real source of American prosperity. It’s the kind of credential Chelsea Clinton has on her resume from working for Goldman Sachs. I suspect a large number of children of prominent politicians “luck” into really sweet roles in the financial sector. Romney, to his credit, was successful there, though it’s now clear much of that success was an exaggeration (such as Romney’s claims about job creation or taking credit for Staples).

    Mitt’s government resume is defined by Romneycare. He’s even proud of it. Why in the world should I support government control of economic choices from each according to his ability so as to subsidize each according to their needs? That is not my idea of a government “turnaround artist” to use your rather amusing summary.

    Romney was a political leader in MA and he raised taxes by over 700 million dollars, imposed odious regulations on businesses, and saw a staggeringly awful growth… on jobs nearly last in the entire nation. During a boom period with record revenues, did Romney cut spending? No. He grew government three of his four years in office and the budget gap when he left office was 1.3 billion dollars. His excuse today is that the democrats won, but Romney was collaborating with them far too much. The starting position was always to move left and use government to solve every little thing. Sure, the democrats always wanted to go farther than Romney wanted… so what? That’s Romney’s fault too. No kidding when the GOP leader wants Romneycare and a huge gun tax the democrats will get their hopes up.

    Romney’s problem is not that he’s got no experience managing… his problem is that he’s got experience using government to manage things in stupid ways.

    Newt and Santorum didn’t even have the organizational skills to get on all the ballots.

    You mean they didn’t have enough money. That’s what it’s really about. It takes a ton of money to get on the ballots in states that change their already very complex laws just to make things more complex, which is transparently about favoring insiders.

    It takes a few contests for the outsiders to build enough support to have that kind of organization. Of course, the primaries keep getting pushed wayyyyy up in schedule and the establishment GOP helpfully lets CNN and MSNBC introduce all the candidates, which makes it pretty tough for conservatives to filter according to anything sane.

    BTW, the courts ruled that VA’s excuse for knocking Newt off the ballot was unconstitutional.

    You hold that against Newt? That’s sad.

    I’m embarrassed to have called myself a Republican when the party behaves like this is Russia.

    btw, Romney is a career politician too. He’s been a politician for 17 years now. He’s just not very electable.

    Dustin: did you not read “delegeates” in my comment?

    I did but I didn’t care about that because it’s transparently ad hoc.

    Rick Santorum is not in step with me on everything, but he’s done amazingly well as a hard working politician this cycle, outperforming in many contests where he’s drastically outspent. His organization is simply more effective with money than the others are.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  185. Dustin: you obviously aren’t from Massachusetts because if you were you’d have seen firsthand what Gov. Romney did every day, how he fought the libs on a daily basis. You want to throw “Romneycare” out there then let’s go there. “Romneycare” was a conservative’s response to a state government’s takeover by Democrats of the healthcare system. Individual mandates were a conservative idea hatched straight from the Heritage Foundation and they made sure they were proudly present at the signing of “Romneycare”. Conservatives, in response to “Obamacare” have suddenly experienced amnesia on “individual responsibility” while they Monday morning quarterback or who have suddenly remembered they were dead set against it at the time. What a bunch of bullshit to those of us that were paying attention at the time and remember. Romney put a business solution in place as opposed to accepting a government takeover by Massachusetts liberals and he was applauded by conservatives from coast to coast for doing it at the time. Re-write history if you like or if it makes you feel better but Romney sure didn’t govern like a damn “moderate” for us taxpayers that were carrying everybody else. Let Newt or Santorum run for governor in Massachusetts, actually win, then govern before they cast stones. If Romney was a politician instead of someone wanting to change things in a conservative way he would have ran as a Democrat and won easily. He didn’t. He’s trying to do the same thing for the country that he tried to do for Massachusetts and we’re judging him like he governed Texas instead of the most liberal state in the country. Those of us that had terminally ill children know exactly what he did and why he did it. We love the guy and support him now with great enthusiasm.

    Dave B (982f20)

  186. how much money does Mittens have?

    if the big folks aren’t raking in the $$ for him, what’s he going to do, spend his own? the MFM will eat him alive for that too.

    also telling are some of the lines at the end:

    But Whitman said Romney’s campaign foundered because of the “scrutiny and attacks he was subject to” because of his Mormon faith.

    “They were so intense and became so defining that he could not establish a coherent campaign message,” she wrote.

    oh yeah, he’s real electable.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  187. “And Santorum was a highly ranked Senator.”
    Yeah, with an even lower conservative rating than Gingrich.
    Go Team!

    Comment by daleyrocks — 2/15/2012 @ 11:32 pm

    – American Conservative Union, lifetime rankings:
    Gingrich = 90%
    Santorum = 88.1%

    That difference is significant?

    Icy (6386cc)

  188. How much money will the church of the latter day saints fork over?
    It’s the only way he can stay in it.
    His campaign is being run by progressive morons.
    I am abo.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  189. d “support” and never have governed? Are you disputing that most Republicans believe that Romney will be the eventual nominee? Just ask them, just read the polls, or just apply some common sense.

    Simply asserting it does not make it so vignoringbtrends in polling does not make it so. Ignoring losses in Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado does not make it so.

    JD (12366a)

  190. Are you disputing that most Republicans believe that Romney will be the eventual nominee? Just ask them, just read the polls, or just apply some common sense.

    Simply asserting it does not make it so ignoring trends in polling does not make it so. Ignoring losses in Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado does not make it so.

    JD (12366a)

  191. I’ll be beyond happy if the South hangs for Gingrich, big or barely.

    Rather clearly tho, my sector of Amerikkka, and sisters #2 & #3, and bro, are going Santorum.

    Sure, I’m a joiner, why not?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  192. I heard Bill Kristol make the good point this morning as to how important it is for how ideas are presented. If the ObamaCare-contraception is remembered by the public as an issue for those far right moralists it will be a losing issue. However, if it is remembered as just one of many things in ObamaCare that we are yet to find out telling Americans what they can and can’t do and that repubs have ideas on how insurance based on making things more individual then it is a winner.

    Problem is messaging over the propaganda.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  193. Sarah tells Bolling, she’s ready.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  194. Just because it’s so damn funny…

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/326749.php

    Colonel Haiku (965e90)

  195. – American Conservative Union, lifetime rankings:
    Gingrich = 90%
    Santorum = 88.1%

    Icy – What ratings am I thinking of where they are both down around 60%?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  196. “Sure, the democrats always wanted to go farther than Romney wanted… so what? That’s Romney’s fault too.”

    Seriously?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  197. ______________________________________________

    Santorum beats Romney by eleven among women, almost exactly the same margin as his overall lead.

    There’s a lot of ideological Sybils or chameleons among the electorate. One recent survey indicates many people perceive the Republicans in Congress as being extreme, while even more current polling indicates Jeremiah Wright’s good buddy (perhaps a former one, but more technically than philosophically) is getting way more sympathy than such a true extremist has any right to be getting. But that’s based on the assumption that ultra-liberalism hasn’t seeped into far more of modern Western society, including the US, over the past several decades than presumed. IOW, what’s “extreme” in the context of 2012 may be closer to the new mainstream.

    Franklin Roosevelt cruised to several wins during the Great Depression of the 1930s, 1940s. He was a stereotypical liberal Democrat in the context of the first half of the 20th century, but culturally and symbolically not as grotesquely leftwing as Obama is.

    What offsets that is not just the attitudes and peculiar trends of over 70 years ago probably still being in effect decades after the fact, but American society, if anything, now tilting further to the left — certainly socially/culturally — in the 21st century. So the teeter-totter between left and right leans more to the left in 2012 than when FDR was so beloved. The only change is that truly excessively high taxation isn’t quite as fashionable nowadays as it was back when Republican Herbert Hoover and, then, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt were in the White House. Otherwise, we’re more clearly leftwing — governmentally and philosophically — now than we were when FDR grabbed his four terms as president.

    America’s future? A big Banana Republic?

    Don’t cry for us, Argentina.

    Mark (31bbb6)

  198. A lot of these complaints make no sense. Complaints about the conservative ranking of Santorum makes no sense if you’re arguing for Romney, whose record on so many conservative issues is just plain liberal. Arguing for electability-is-all for a guy who usually loses and is losing again doesn’t make much sense to me either. People who claimed that was all that mattered should be at least agnostic about Santorum vs Romney, as Santorum is doing pretty well lately and he’s also polling better than Romney vs Obama.

    So it’s like these attacks are dishonest. They are just attempts to attack Romney’s opponents, as usual, but not the actual basis.

    The real reasons are probably some kind of personal worship of Romney and perhaps an unstated desire to see the GOP be more liberal. That would explain why these folks hate Rick Perry more than even current candidates.

    I also find it amusing that after I’ll prove someone is dishonest or an irrational bigot, they will later return and act as though they have any credibility. Kooks don’t get their credibility back after stuff like that.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  199. 204. “Kooks don’t get their credibility back”

    Less so, congenital liars.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  200. Dustin, I will not argue with you, but you have a genuine prejudice regarding Romney, and your consistent drumbeat is ironic, given how you state you don’t care for that approach from others.

    “…Complaints about the conservative ranking of Santorum makes no sense if you’re arguing for Romney, whose record on so many conservative issues is just plain liberal…”

    Um. Too liberal for you, sure. Or many conservatives, if you wish. But I don’t think most liberals would agree with you or them. And I think that, well, liberals are the authorities on what is liberal, yes? Unless you like liberals to tell you what conservatives think.

    Count on it, if Romney is the nominee: I don’t think the DNC platform will be that Romney isn’t sufficiently conservative.

    I honestly don’t care to fence about this; every time I try, I get told (not by you) I am a “squish” or that Obama is “just the same” as Romney or that I am a Romney worshipper. None of that is true, and is part of the unfortunate ad hominem style critiques that appear to be growing here and elsewhere. Fact is, I want Obama out of office. That is Job Numero Uno. I’m with Glenn Reynolds on the candidates: a syphilitic camel is a better choice. And we all had better keep that in focus; I’m not sure many people are at present.

    I think it is great to hold people’s feet to the fire during primary season. And I too wish the field was stronger and better (for example, if Rick Perry could have presented a better image of himself). But what is lost here is the consistent, near daily framing of many DNC talking points for the upcoming election…by folks who say they are opposed to Obama. This creates a meme that could sink us all in November.

    Does that mean I don’t want to see criticism of Romney? Sigh. Not at all. I do wish that folks here wouldn’t parrot sound bites that could have come out of Axelrod’s office. The silly nicknames, the over-the-top rhetoric, and so forth. All of that makes the Chicago Machine smile.

    My only hope is that, no matter who gets the nomination, the focus will then be on what Obama has and has not done…and compare that record (and the potential to come) against the nominee. Obama is known quality. Does anyone actually think his past agenda will be moderated in any way during a second term? Or that infighting among us will lead to the Senate returning to the R side of the aisle?

    Let me be clear: I have never been enthusiastic to vote for anyone in a Presidential election. I have always been enthusiastic to vote against people I thought were bad for our country. I think about the power grab in Washington, the absolute ignoring of financial strategies that did not work, the “hold my breath until I turn blue” attitudes of this administration, the potential for two or even three Supreme Court Justices. This is the most important election in many decades, even with the crappy field of candidates.

    To each their own. But I am tired of all the weirdness on this issue, which isn’t about debate, but about extreme hyperbole and what appears to be a lack of attention on November.

    My apologies for the sermon. I don’t like posting here these days, and I know I will get lots of unpleasant responses. So be it. Purity remains the enemy of the good. We know the job Obama has done, and will do if re-elected. That is certainty.

    Simon Jester (bdf8fc)

  201. 146. 147. 148. That report is interesting. As soon as Perry started looking like he was not up to the presidency, his campaign contributions started dropping, and they dropped more and more after each big incident.

    By he way, that could reflect not only how people felt themselves but how he was doing in the polls.

    Rick Perry had piled up a lot of money early so he could continue at full strength for some time, and I suppose he decided to let his campaign staff earn the salaries they had expected.

    He dropped out before the actual South Carolina vote because he wanted to give Newt Gingrich a boost – or probably more precisely, to help stop Mitt Romney. And now he’s going even further.

    Rick Perry may or may not be too successful in getting his donors to give to Newt Gingrich. It seems like he’s moderately successful, but if they do give, apparently it’s not in hopes of Rick Perry coming back at the convention, or even that much for Newt Gingrich himself. Rick Perry has a lot of local Texas donors for his gubernatorial campaigns, so even if only a fraction of his biggest donors give, he’s still got new money for Newt Gingrich.

    Newt Gingrich practically emptied his bank account twice – in Iowa and Florida – when he was losing and couldn’t face the possibility of losing, but, however that may be, spending a little bit more money on political ads, wasn’t going to change things.

    In the meantime it looks like the Texas primary is going to be postponed again because of redistricting lawsuits. It first was postponed from Super Tuesday, March 6, to April 3, and now it looks like it may be headed for May 29, when some people say it may still turn out anyway to matter. If it goes down to the end, Texas and California could really matter in the republican presidential race. (The presidential primary is being held the same time as the regular Congressional and state legislature primaries, as some states do)

    Sammy Finkelman (5048f3)

  202. And in the meantime also Sheldon Adelson has decided to give more money to a pro-Gingrich Super Pac, after being implored not to by Romney’s people not to give any more money and taking time to think it over, but he may have also have decided to give money to a pro-Romney Super Pac, because he has a personal meeting with Mitt Romney who apparently convinced him Santorum would lose the general election (he already thought Romney was an acceptable president), and they’ll use it to attack Santorum apparently.

    This may explain the spate of anti-Gingrich ads that started running in Michigan, when Romney’s main opponent seems to be Santorum. I guess they had to get all the anti-Gingrich spending out of the way first before Adelson or his wife sent them a first check, because Adelson isn’t going to like it very much if the super Pac he gives money to starts attacking Gingrich!

    Now of course a second pro-Romney Super Pac, one that did not get money from Adelson, might still attack Gingrich. Adelson, by the way, didn’t like the Bain attacks on Romney and that finally stopped. He had wanted them to run pro-Gingrich ads, but he hadn’t involved himself much in details.

    I don’t know if any of this is correct.

    The fact that anti-Santorum ads were postponed for a while allowed Santorum to get in a pre-emptive strike in an ad made more for the Internet than for broadcast. I mean paid broadcast. Getting an excerpt on the network evening news is also good for him.

    Here’s a link to a page that has a link to the “Rombo” ad:

    http://mashable.com/2012/02/16/rombo-video/

    So now Newt Gingrich says that if Romney attacks Santorum, that will drive votes to him.

    Sammy Finkelman (5048f3)

  203. – Colonel, do you not think that once he is nominated Santorum would then focus on the economy and the size of government?

    Comment by Icy

    I would hope that if he is nominated he would turn his focus to the more important (for purposes of this election) stuff, but I am not fully confident he can, Icy.

    Colonel Haiku (ad2265)

  204. Romney is the only one in the race even worth considering. As a cat, I have much time to ponder these things. Romney = WINNING !

    Mew

    acat (0500dc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5499 secs.