Obama coming up short of Big Money
[Posted by Karl]
The WaPo reports on fat cats with short arms:
President Obama is struggling to draw in big-dollar donations, with half as many people writing large checks to his campaign than at this point four years ago.
Obama is outpacing his Republican rivals in fundraising overall, and his advisers have concentrated on amassing small-dollar backers, part of a strategy to get more people invested in the reelection effort. At the end of January, 1.4 million people had donated to the Obama campaign, responding to appeals for contributions as small as $2.
But Obama lags behind Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in finding donors willing to give $2,000 or more — a surprising development for a sitting president, and one that could signal more worrisome financial problems heading into the general election.
As the WaPo also notes, Obama has been encouraging limousine liberals to dump cash into superPACs. But many Obama mega-donors are turned off by the effort. Moreover, earlier this month, Karl Rove pointed out the problem with the small donor narrative being pushed by Team Obama:
The Obama campaign itself reported that fewer than 7% of 2008 donors renewed their support in the first quarter of his re-election campaign. That’s about one-quarter to one-third of a typical renewal rate: In the first quarter of the Bush re-election campaign, for example, about 20% of the donors renewed their support.
There are other troubling signs. Team Obama’s email appeals don’t ask for $10, $15, $25 or $50 donations as they did in 2008, but generally for $3. Nor are the appeals mostly about issues; many are lotteries. Give three bucks and your name will be put in a drawing for a private dinner with the president and first lady.
This is clever marketing, but it suggests the campaign has found that only a low price point with a big benefit can overcome donor resistance among people who contributed via mail or the Internet in 2008. It also points to higher-than-expected solicitation costs and lower-than-expected fund-raising returns.
It is tempting to attribute this all to the lack of a primary challenge to Obama or the perceived weakness of the GOP field. But both the WaPo and Rove note the degree to which Obama falls short in comparison to the Bush ’04 reelect campaign. Moreover, the primary turnout for Obama has lagged the Clinton ’96 reelect effort in states where comparable data is available.
Once the GOP has a nominee, Obama may be able to squeeze more cash out of the recalcitrant progs. At that point, he will really be able to turn up the fear and loathing on the campaign trail (likely with liberal lacings of guilt). The 20 most politically active commercial banks, hedge funds, securities firms and “private equity and investment” firms may be avoiding the president now, but will likely hedge their exposure in a close race. Nevertheless, the balance sheets are another reminder that the lefty chatter may think fantasy Obama has this election in the bag, the real Obama knows better.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (6f7ecd) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:41 amNational Soros Radio made SuperPACS the poster child for corruption.
Now their boy is whoring for superpac monies like Sandra Fluke in proximity to a penis.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:00 amNot so fast. Last election Obama didn’t have a SuperPAC.
Dollars to donuts that the big money is going to the SuperPAC.
Besides, if you recall Karl Rove had all the Crossroads folks wait until the last moment to actually give, so they would be under the radar.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Neo (d1c681) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:10 amI think people are done with fraud:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/mr-president-when-should-i-expect-your-call/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
None of the above kinda year.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:21 amYou don’t suppose that some of his former “big donors” might have figured out that funding and supporting his re-election might be voting against their own interests, do you?
Or maybe that some of the former big donors with children and grandchildren have noticed the debt and deficit and security failures around the world– and are starting to worry what kind of long term future four more years of this president’s policies will leave for their progeny?
elissa (98e7c3) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:23 amAs if we dinna have enough to worry about with “arrorgant, timid and ignorant”:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577281233569546496.html
Darned if they do, darned if they don’t.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:30 amIs there anything BUT a “Fantasy Obama”? The man is full of more wishful thinking and bodacious braggadocio BS than the Christmas Goose. Baron von Munchausen would have a hard time keeping up with the Bamster in a “tall tale” contest.
Comanche Voter (dc4fc0) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:53 am“President Obama is struggling to draw in big-dollar donations…”
Well, I don’t think they’re going to have too much trouble getting their message out seeing as how they control the three biggest propaganda arms in America, those being the federal government, the public education system and the professional media.
So pardon me, if I don’t weep bitter tears at the unfairness of it all.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:57 amConsidering all the awesome kickbacks his donors got last time? Also, a few of his donors closed up shop after getting those kickbacks, so they might not have anything left to give.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/19/2012 @ 8:10 amIt can be argued that the TARP bailout was in part a payback for many of the campaign contribution from the big players.
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 8:23 amAPPLYING ALINSKY RULE 4: MAKE THE ENEMY LIVE UP TO ITS OWN RULES. — A “tea party leech” is deemed a “tea party leader” in our local press after he is arrested for rape. This belies that fact that there have been 75 rapes in the Occupy camps, so examples of alternative headlines to suggest in the “Comments” sections of offending sites is offered. “Occupy” is a subsidiary of the “War in Women”: A Tea Party is one of the safest place for women in the world.
Mutnodjmet (c4995d) — 3/19/2012 @ 9:32 amAnd why are the progs recalcitrant (to borrow Karl’s phrase)?
Because Obama as president hasn’t been leftist enough for them. You think he’s a radical, they don’t. They see him as another part of the system, not more radical than any other politician. And being radicals themselves, one would think they would recognize and support a fellow radical if they found him in the White House.
Obama’s not for socialism/communism. Obama is for crony capitalism and bureaucratism.
Next time you want to start yelling about Obama’s radical friends and radical agendas, you might want to remember that little point.
JBS (2d88a8) — 3/19/2012 @ 9:44 am75 rapes is what Obama calls just getting started
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 9:45 amIt’s a very old tale, didn’t the Who cover in the 70s ‘Won’t get fooled again’
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 9:52 amMinimum donation of $10 last time drops to $3 this time. What does THAT say about the economy?
Icy (682dee) — 3/19/2012 @ 10:25 amI don’t know what that says about the economy I just know that Mr. Governor Romney says Obama has led us into glorious recovery and that things are sure to get better from here.
Happy days are here again and all that.
Not feeling it.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 10:40 amLooks like Plan B for Soros is working.
Wayne (40ce91) — 3/19/2012 @ 11:04 am75 RAPES!!!! Joe Biden warned us. He told us that if we didn’t spend spend spend, this would happen.
Gus (36e9a7) — 3/19/2012 @ 12:01 pmI wonder if any of the rape victims were denied access to CONTRACEPTION?
“They see him as another part of the system, not more radical than any other politician.”
Depends on who the other politicans are, I guess.
If you’re talking Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, then he’s not all that radical.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/19/2012 @ 12:13 pmGive three bucks and your name will be put in a drawing for a private dinner with the president and first lady.
I’m thinking of donating $3 to see if I can win that private dinner. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is no dinner.
Gerald A (91f731) — 3/19/2012 @ 12:32 pmI just know that Mr. Governor Romney says Obama has led us into glorious recovery and that things are sure to get better from here.
???
Gerald A (91f731) — 3/19/2012 @ 12:33 pm“Give three bucks and your name will be put in a drawing for a private dinner with the president and first lady.”
Hell, I’d pay six bucks to be excused.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/19/2012 @ 12:42 pmCommenters on some other right leaning sites have posited that the fundraisng “drawing” to dine with Barack may have another purpose. They suggest that the very small $3. contributions are a ploy to garner names and addresses (of unknowing dupes) which can then be used/manipulated to mask illegal foreign credit card contributions that somehow manage to “slip through”.
One hates to view everything related to this administration with such a cynical lens, but…..
elissa (98e7c3) — 3/19/2012 @ 12:53 pmwe’ve turned the corner! Thank you everyone who helped I thought for a second there we needed a new president
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 1:15 pm“HANNITY: Let’s look at the president, 41 percent approval rating, no modern president has been elected with those low numbers. You in the latest Rasmussen poll, you beat the president by five points.
The New York Times poll, 80 percent and I think it was key number for me say, they are not better off than they were four years ago. Is it going to be tough race? You’re in the lead for the nomination. Do you think it’s going to be difficult to beat him?
ROMNEY: Well, I think a race is always tough to remove an incumbent president. He has the power of running policy in the intervening months, he will probably take actions to try and shore up his favorable numbers prior to the election. But I think he’s real trouble. I believe we’re in recovery mode finally —
HANNITY: You really think so?
ROMNEY: It’s hard to know. No one can predict precisely what’s going to happen in the economy, but I think its likely things will get better. Look, no recession has gone on forever. They get better.
This has taken much longer to recover from in part because of the policies of this president. Everything he has done has made it less attractive for an entrepreneur to start a business or for a current business to hire more people. Whether it was Dodd-Frank or pushing card check or cap and trade or higher taxes, higher marginal tax rates, all these things, Obamacare, all of them make it less likely for a business to grow. That’s why so many people are suffering today.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/03/16/romney-obama-open-drilling#ixzz1pb5x1d4L
You have 45 out of 100 who would never vote for Obama, 45 out of that same hundred who would always vote for Obama and 10 who are undecided. How best to get over 5 of those people to vote for the Republican nominee, e.g., 51 out of 100?
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 1:45 pmTalk rationally about how you will improve the economy and foster a business climate conducive to job creation? Or continue to make unforced errors and talk about porn, contraception, etc.?
Did you catch the season finale of walking dead, pikachu, if you didn’t could you figure the twist, from last weeks.
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 1:46 pmComment by elissa — 3/19/2012 @ 12:53 pm
Commenters on some other right leaning sites have posited that the fundraisng “drawing” to dine with Barack may have another purpose. They suggest that the very small $3. contributions are a ploy to garner names and addresses (of unknowing dupes) which can then be used/manipulated to mask illegal foreign credit card contributions that somehow manage to “slip through”.
One hates to view everything related to this administration with such a cynical lens, but…..
The problem here is not that it’s cynical, it’s that it is just plain wrong. My cynicism would tend to the idea that the Obama campaign spread that rumor itself because it’s so wrong. This portrays the idea of violating campaign laws as something very simple.
The $3 donation is probably in large part for the purpose of collecting names, but in order to ask later for more money, to ask people to volunteer
to get more names for getting mailings and to get people to pay more attention to them, and to enlarge the database of names to call on or before Election Day.
Not to help somebody find straw donors or do the job of finding straw donors all for them. Even campaigns that break campaigh finance laws don’t do things that way.
People may remember something from 2008.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/obamas-easy-credit/
What the Obama campaign did then was stop verifying names. they didn’t provide false names for anyone. They even returned blatantly obvious straw donations.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/19/2012 @ 2:08 pmActually, they could just realize their campaign will be even more reliant on large donors than in 2008, and the $3 lottery system is meant mainly to just mask this reliance.
The result could be that Obama’s campaign can say ‘we have more donors than last time’ or even act like it’s proud the average donation is lower than in 2008. Who knows, though?
—-
Happyfeet, I don’t really hold it against Romney if he continues his pattern in the primary of posing as civil while his campaign gets very aggressive. Romney doesn’t have to personally launch the harsh attacks. He might be smart to pose as the presidential post partisan… there is merit in that tactic. I fully expect the Romney campaign to hit Obama with everything they’ve got.
This is wishcasting, yes, but Mitt Romney wants to win a lot more than Mccain did.
And if we are seeing a recovery, Romney doesn’t want to look like he can’t see it too when he’s selling himself as a competent guy. What does he have to lose? If the economy improves, Romney made a relatively good move. If the economy sours… well Obama is screwed anyway.
I think he’s playing that well. Unfortunately, that’s part of my problem with Romney. He’s playing issues. I don’t really know what to expect from his administration and his record is very far from what I want. But Obama’s gotta go.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 2:14 pmI would say there has been some improvement, but so far in the margins, not to credit it, recall the ‘recession ‘ of 1992, that wasn’t
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 2:24 pmWhy do they think things are going to get better for Obama after a Republican nominee is chosen from among those running – and the turn their combined fire onto him as opposed to each other?
Mike Giles (408593) — 3/19/2012 @ 2:26 pmHaiku – porn was a manufactured hit job by the Daily Caller. How was Romney’s response any different than Santorum’s? Contraception is an even more manufactured issue by Barcky and the MFM, to provide a BUNNIES for their unconstitutional mandates. Keep on trying to insinuate that these issues are being pushed by your Team R opponents.
What possible good is there in acknowledging a nonexistent recovery?
JD (0e9826) — 3/19/2012 @ 2:36 pmhttp://ricochet.com/main-feed/What-Does-Mitt-Romney-Really-Think
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 2:37 pm“How best to get over 5 of those people to vote for the Republican nominee, e.g., 51 out of 100?
Talk rationally about how you will improve the economy and foster a business climate conducive to job creation? Or continue to make unforced errors and talk about porn, contraception, etc.?”
– Colonel Haiku
OR talk about how that red and pulsating light in your left retina at the Illinois Waffle House meet ‘n greet was a severe case of monocular conjunctivitis and totally not a targeting reticule.
Leviticus (870be5) — 3/19/2012 @ 2:53 pmI have two walkingdeads to see now… I watched Drive this weekend instead of getting caught up
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:12 pmwe have a net loss of jobs Mr. Dustin and we’re not producing enough jobs to mount a “recovery”
America is a food stamp sit on your ass get a government check nation anymore.
Recovery my ass. Maybe Mitt’s portfolio has recovered but our here in Real America, people are hurting.
Bless their hearts.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:17 pm*out* here I mean
out here in Real America, which, granted, is somewhat adjacent to the America I live in
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:19 pmSantorum is still a big weirdo and whereas I think Mitt Mitt likes to talk about porn panderingly, Santorum would a lot enthusiastically pursue punitive porn prohibition.
Remember one of President Santorum’s first priorities would be to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
That’s just weird and bigoty beulah ballbricker stuff right there.
Mr. Governor Romney is more of an if it ain’t broke don’t fix it kinda guy. And porn isn’t broke though they’ve tried really hard to sublet the third floor cause of they don’t need as much space as they used to.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:26 pmHell, I’d pay six bucks to be excused
— I’d pay six bucks to bring an In N Out burger for to test the First Lady’s willpower.
— i’d pay three bucks and when it came time for dinner conversation I would vote “present”.
Icy (682dee) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:38 pm“porn was a manufactured hit job by the Daily Caller”
It’s a part of his campaign platform.
“Last week Rick Santorum vowed to end America’s “pandemic of pornography,” insisting that if he were president he would limit the rights of adults to show and view images of consenting adults having sex. No doubt there is too much pornography in this country, and anyone thinking of watching it should go read their Bible instead. But what I want in a president is a pragmatist, not a panderer.Banning something generally is not a good way to reduce demand. It didn’t work with alcohol during Prohibition; it hasn’t worked with harder drugs ever since. Scarcity itself creates demand. But Americans don’t have a right to drugs. We do, however, have a First Amendment right to free speech and to peaceably assemble, even if the assembled people are naked and accompanied by a video camera.
Ultimately, we have bigger problems than restricting what adults can do with other adults. If Santorum really wants to fight obscenity he should focus on limiting the crazy things senators and congressmen do with unconsenting taxpayer dollars.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/03/18/why-rick-santorum-should-stop-talking-about-porn/
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:39 pmSantorum says “the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families.”
Not sure that’s helpful.
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:42 pmI can understand why you feel that way so far from the booming economy I’m living in. And that’s not to say you’re wrong. I think your state is much more in touch with America’s future than mine is right now.
Hopefully Texas secedes.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:43 pma house divided against itself is a duplex
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:54 pmI mean, what’s the downside? No deficit, no fed regulation, no fed insurance mandate, no ‘strong gun control’, no BS ‘war on women’ would be taken seriously.
government would be much less consequential in our lives. We’d probably have two political parties that were sane and fiscally conservative running on record and not on pizzazz BS.
The only downside is national security, but Iran’s getting the nuke so it’s not really like we could do much worse.
Given that labor costs are not actually a huge factor in manufacturing, but federal regulations are, we’d probably become more like Germany.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 3:57 pm“porn was a manufactured hit job by the Daily Caller”
It’s a part of his campaign platform.
Romney’s response to the same question was nearly identical.
JD (0e9826) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:00 pmhappyfeet, the USA has always been an uneasy marriage.
It’s not like this would be about slavery. The moral issue would sound a lot like the left’s ‘war on women’ bs. What compelling reason would there be to force Texans to stick with a country that is insanely addicted to deficits and government largesse?
I think there needs to be a conversation about this, and a vote. There is no plausible future for the USA given that the GOP can’t even run an election in some states, let along stop preserving entitlements.
Texas manages to have a responsible government and doesn’t deserve to be chained to the trillion dollar deficit every year.
I guess there’s the nationalism aspect. I’m sure many in states seeking bailouts would suddenly start waving flags.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:01 pmApparently Haiku was DC’s target audience.
JD (0e9826) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:02 pmGovernments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:07 pmDr. Sowell points out today that Reagan was the only Republican in the Twentieth Century to unseat an incumbent POTUS.
Lucky the GOP is running its flat tepid beer against warm piss.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:22 pmSantorum just said today, “I don’t care what the unemployment rate is gonna be… it doesn’t matter to me.”
Not sure that’s helpful, either.
http://www.ricksantorum.com/enforcing-laws-against-illegal-pornography
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:26 pmSo… Santorum cares about porn, but doesn’t care about unemployment. A winning strategy?
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:29 pmhttp://www.ricksantorum.com/rick-santorums-first-100-days-economic-freedom-agenda
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:30 pmhttp://www.ricksantorum.com/oped/no-more-leading-behind-america
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:32 pmRasmussen yesterday had Potatohead over Ogabe in VA, PA, OH and FL.
Ogabe lead Willard in the same venues.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:34 pmWell Clinton, and Johnson couldn’t run, neither could Truman, or Eisenhower, so that’s not as significant a detail, as it seems.
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:35 pmnarciso, Santorum’s agenda is great. It’s also much more decisive than the remaining alternative.
I think folks should think about that instead of the latest journalism frenzy to pick our candidate.
However, is there really a point? Is the USA going to reform entitlements and balance the budget? Is it actually politically possible? If not, what is the most realistic way for people to have a stable, long term free society?
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:39 pmLook I’m not flacking for Santorum, but I’m not going to let an incomplete view of what he is about
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:41 pmto permeate, oh and pikachu how do you think Shane
became a zombie without a bite.
C’mon, Rick! Unforced errors!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9UOXjvwS-I
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:43 pmmore nationalism please
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:45 pmDid you wonder what the CDC researcher told Rick, at the end of Season 1
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:50 pmok don’t tell me
yes I did wonder though but nobody tells me anything so it didn’t seem super-abnormal
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:52 pm(nationalism + hyperinflation) ^ (porn pogrom) = some historical shit right there
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/19/2012 @ 4:55 pm“I do care about the unemployment rate, it does bother me. I want to put people back to work.”
– Mitt Romney in Peoria, IL. on 3/19/12
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:00 pmI don’t want the government to put people to work.
That’s not their job.
If I wanted that, I’d move to some poverty stricken commie hellhole.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:09 pm54.?
Speaking of leading from behind, full court press on Boehner and squishes in Congress:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/03/19/the-ticking-sequestration-time-bomb/
Add to the Kling spin at 6.) and the GOP will capitulate rather than kill the ‘recovery’ if they do win.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:10 pm61. You know context might help one liar as well as the next.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:14 pmI love the actual values in our constitution. I love how American nationalism is devoted to these ideas instead of just dumb nationalism such as the kind of sentiment behind one supposed Romney fan who explained ‘he’s middle eastern… he belongs under your boot’.
I don’t need geographical nationalism. I think the country the USA is becoming is simply not living up to the ideals I value.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:20 pmBoth Santorum and Newt seem to following the path that Nixon followed, strong law and order, national defense, economic critique of this administration,
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:26 pmfor the life of me, I don’t know what playbook Mitt is using,
65. Yeah, I think the lines are drawn, trying to suck a straggler or two to the opposing trenches at this late date is soo sappy.
Ask me to french with Rove, why don’tcha?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:28 pmfor the life of me, I don’t know what playbook Mitt is using
Comment by narciso
“Winning Elections Playbook”
Vote totals so far…
Romney: 3,639,575
Santorum: 2,435,355
Gingrich: 2,108,713
Paul: 982,276
Delegates, so far…
Romney: 516
Santorum: 236
Gingrich: 131
Paul: 66
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:38 pmYes he spends more, he lies more, he doesn’t offer any concrete solutions, and gives the president the benefit of the doubt in almost every instance, He does not challenge any of the bogus statistics that
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:43 pmthe administration offers, he wins the well healed
in almost every contest, depressing voter turnout,
#69… That’s the post of a hack, Narciso, and it’s aptly numbered, as you’ve gone down on The Truth.
Given the opinion that you’ve shared, what does that say about the others’ inability to connect in numbers greater than what they’ve done to this point?
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:51 pmFully understanding that things can change on a dime, I’m posting these poll results so that people who might need to “prepare themselves” have a day or so to do so. “PPP has Romney way up in the Illinois primary tomorrow.
Mitt Romney is headed for a blowout victory in Illinois on Tuesday. He leads with 45% to 30% for Rick Santorum, 12% for Newt Gingrich, and 10% for Ron Paul.
Romney’s particularly strong among voters who live in suburban areas (50-29) and with those who live in urban areas (46-23). But he’s even running slightly ahead of Santorum, 38-36, with folks who identify as living in rural parts and that strength with a group of voters he hasn’t tended to do that well with is why he’s looking at such a lopsided margin of victory.
elissa (98e7c3) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:54 pmBut he’s the nominee, Narciso. I mean, who do you really think will win any insidery contest if we don’t have a majority of delegates go to him?
And if Newt drops out, it’s def. not going to come to that (Which is one reason it’s Newt’s patriotic duty to stay in this race until the convention).
Wish it weren’t so.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:55 pmD’OH!
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:56 pm#69… #70heh
acceptance isn’t always easy
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:56 pmWhat Abrams didn’t lie about the Contras, the Brokaw clip wasn’t a lie, the attack on Santorum’s
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 5:57 pmvoter reform program, pairing him with Hillary Clinton, don’t worry Obama will be just as shameless in the fall, and he’ll have Jonathan Gruber’s own words to back him up, with a possible
testimonial from Gina McCarthy,
I don’t want the government to put people to work.
That’s not their job.
If I wanted that, I’d move to some poverty stricken commie hellhole.
Comment by Dave Surls
Government can remove regulatory constraints and promote investment and policies that facilitate job creation in the private sector. It can get the Hell out of the way of business. That’s what “government” can do.
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:00 pmIt is amazing that Haiku can type, deep throat, and pass along smears and lies, all at the same time.
JD (0e9826) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:03 pm‘Government can remove regulatory constraints and promote investment and policies that facilitate job creation in the private sector. It can get the Hell out of the way of business. That’s what “government” can do.’
I agree 100%, Colonel. They can get the hell out of the way…and, that’s all I want the government boys to do.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:03 pmThere are many Republicans who are busy regulating and solving problems in the world. They see a problem and assume the government needs to solve it.
People who don’t want health insurance ticked Mitt off, too many evil campaign ads ticked Mccain off, too many kids with HPV ticked Rick Perry off, guns tick off a lot of NE Republicans.
We’re doing great if we can get the GOP to just keep the government from growing. When’s the last time that happened?
We actually face a serious spending crisis where urgent and rather severe cuts to spending are essential.
A GOP run by men who crushed power plants and crushed small businesses with an ind mandate are unlikely to even come close to winning real reforms. Unlikely to seriously try. No, they will instead offer a ‘democrats are worse’ argument.
Which may be true, but it also misses the point. This country is simply unsustainable.
Mitt Romney is like rolaids as a solution to the spending cancer.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:15 pmThey are regulating in a new farm labor standards bill, how long and in what capacity, kids can work on a farm, it is madness, although it may not be Sparta.
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:15 pmRe: #78 Comment by JD. stop typing through the tears, ya daffy bastard, ya.
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:24 pmfeets frantically hastening to hide his cumulation of Nailin’ Palin videos!
Icy (682dee) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:24 pmRomney is our destiny. There’s no fate but what we make and Romney is the weapon we have forged of blood and vengeance.
Tremble, ye socialists.
Repent.
There’s a new sheriff in town.
And he’s beautiful.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:25 pmWho is writing his speeches?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9UOXjvwS-I
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:25 pmthat’s trouble wif a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Porn!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:27 pm“Obama is outpacing his Republican rivals in fundraising overall…”
Well, the bottom line is kinda all that counts, ain’t it?
And, it doesn’t really make a whole lot of difference what denominations the donations come in.
Other than that particular piece of data, I found the whole story to be of marginal interest at best.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:28 pmsurly
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:29 pmAnd Romney doesn’t care about poor people, and likes to fire them, right, romneycom seriously,
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:31 pm“Mitt Romney is like rolaids as a solution to the spending cancer”
Yeah, and Obama is like a second case of cancer as a solution to the spending cancer.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:41 pmI Agree.
No, he’s not. But he’s not Obama and I guess that’ll have to do this year.
I also guess we’re in for a rocky future fiscally.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:42 pmYep. It’s a no brainer that Romney is better than Obama. Yet I kinda don’t think ‘better than Obama’ is the argument for a platform with a chance of fixing the real problems.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:43 pmleave the Hate to Dems
Colonel Haiku (18b775) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:47 pmConservatives stand tall and
go to polls and vote!
Team McBain is feverishly working on the means to ‘Unification’ post-intifada.
Wish them luck.
FDR had a tough slog with the Greater Depression and no TV or Internets.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/19/2012 @ 6:55 pmRush was pointing out that FDR came out of a brokered convention, his VP Garner, and even Hearst
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:00 pmwere in the running that year,
“Yep. It’s a no brainer that Romney is better than Obama. Yet I kinda don’t think ‘better than Obama’ is the argument for a platform with a chance of fixing the real problems.”
I hear you, bud.
I think we’re just going to have to bite the bullet, and go with the lesser of evils. Either that, or vote for a third party candidate out of pure frustration (won’t fix anything, but it might make folks feel better)
Sadly, I think that’s pretty much true of every election.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:02 pmPretty much.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:11 pmIt seems worth because our putative frontrunner doesn’t seem to understand that his rival, won’t
narciso (473003) — 3/19/2012 @ 7:17 pmhesitate to use any tactic to knee cap him,
mitt isn’t evil he’s just a double b girl in a low yield world
drexel drexel drexel
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/19/2012 @ 8:20 pmRomney: 3,639,575
Santorum: 2,435,355
Gingrich: 2,108,713
Paul: 982,276
That works out to 39.7% of the popular vote among just those four candidates. Romney’s ceiling is maybe not 25% but it doesn’t seem to be much above 40%
Of course Gingrich dropping out helps Romney. It seems to be helping him in Illinois where people may not be considering Gingrich. Best is inactive campaigning where and if he can’t get delegates.
Delegates, so far…
Romney: 516
Santorum: 236
Gingrich: 131
Paul: 66
This works out to some 54.3%. Santorum’s (and Gingrich’s) strategy is to hold Romney below 1144, figuring also some of Romney’s delegates are also loosely held – also unfortunately figuring maybe on credentials challenges.
Santorum thinks Romney can only win, if he wins at all, on the first ballot. After that some Romney delegates will drift away, and he figures none of his will or not enough go to Romney and he’ll wind up as the choice. (His delegate counter seems to have forgotten about Ron Paul)
Gingrich figures he could wind up as the compromise choice when and if Santorum can’t win the nomination and/or he’ll make a sort of deal where Santorum will be the Vice Presidential nominee.
Sammy Finkelman (4591c3) — 3/19/2012 @ 8:25 pmAnd supposedly, Immelt of GE is going with Romney!
That is a big slap in the face to his benefactor Obama.
Stunning!
(gatewaypundit)
Patricia (e1d89d) — 3/19/2012 @ 10:23 pm_____________________________________________
But Obama lags behind Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in finding donors willing to give $2,000 or more
Speaking of which (ie, big-monied contributors), I recall in my youth wondering why successful, affluent executives of large companies tended to be — if only based on the stereotype — Republicans, more of the right than of the left. Nowadays, I’m astonished when just the opposite is the case.
I read about people like the now-deceased father of notorious Bill Ayers and realize there must be something genetic about the way various human minds work. In the case of the Ayers family, ultra-liberalism apparently was handed down (a case of both nurture and nature?) from father to son.
There’s something deranged and corrupt (in any number of ways) about otherwise successful, presumably somewhat logical-minded executives well past middle-aged who are as leftwing, if not even more leftwing, than a Hugo Chavez or someone living in a Occupy Wall Street camp.
^ If I was working for a top-line executive who was as politically extreme as Bill Ayers’ father was, I’d feel the same way about him as I would about an accountant who talks happily and casually about the joys of embezzlement. Or a person appointed by, say, the UN to manage a human rights commission and who embraces the philosophy of both Mao and Hitler. For that matter, a person rallying around a preacher spouting off “goddamn America” rhetoric and who has been given the task of being president of the US.
Mark (411533) — 3/19/2012 @ 10:23 pmStephen Hayes on the possibility of a brokered convention:
“How likely is it? In the 1994 movie Dumb and Dumber?—? juvenile, but classic?—?Jim Carrey plays Lloyd Christmas, a dimbulb who battles with his good friend and fellow idiot, Harry Dunne, to win the heart of Aspen, Colorado, socialite Mary Swanson. Swanson finds the men repulsive, but an indefatigable Christmas pursues her despite her obvious lack of interest. At one point, he asks her to level with him about his chances.
“Not good,” she replies.
“You mean, not good like one in a hundred?”
“I’d say . . . more like one in a million.”
After a brief pause, a wide smile creeps across his face, and he pumps his fist. ‘So you’re telling me there’s a chance!'”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/there-s-chance-yes_633993.html?page=1
Colonel Haiku (837735) — 3/20/2012 @ 6:00 am103. We told you weeks ago the chances for a non-brokered convention was 1.0, i.e., the chance for a brokered convention being 0.0.
Why do you waste space with this?
gary gulrud (c88156) — 3/20/2012 @ 7:44 amHaiku is NOT the one that keeps bringing this up, gulrud.
Icy (927b00) — 3/20/2012 @ 9:44 am105. Right, evidence?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/20/2012 @ 10:55 am34. “Gingrich is fine, but unloved, could he be the least objectionable resort in a contested convention? I’d be shocked, but reasonably satisfied.”
Comment by gary gulrud — 3/13/2012 @ 3:48 pm
114. Trende does the math:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/09/romney_really_might_not_have_the_delegates_by_june.html
An optimistic count for Romney leaves him short until late June when the unassigned delegates from earlier primaries are apportioned–86 to be exact.
Trende assumes he will get up to half leaving the RNC delegates to put him over the top.
Comment by gary gulrud — 3/9/2012 @ 1:19 pm
115. Oh, that results in a ‘contested’ convention, not brokered if he doesn’t get the first ballot nod.
Comment by gary gulrud — 3/9/2012 @ 1:21 pm
And again:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mitt-romney-santorum-gingrich/2012/03/08/id/431848
116. Not saying he won’t get it, but if the GOP actually wants to win, they will get their chance.
Comment by gary gulrud — 3/9/2012 @ 2:47 pm
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 2:42 pmThe Postman rings twice…
POSTMAN CLAIMS: Ayers family put ‘foreigner’ Obama through school…
…video interview: http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/postman-ayers-family-put-foreigner-obama-through-school/
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 2:45 pmdang it, it would take
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 2:47 pmArmy of Friggin’ Gulruds
to stanch “brokered” flow
Former Senator Rick Santorum in a written statement:
“Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
Former Governor Mitt Romney in a written statement:
“(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich in a face-to-face meeting:
When MIM’s Executive Director Dawn Hawkins asked former Speaker Gingrich if he will enforce existing laws that make distribution of hard-core adult pornography illegal, he responded: “Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.”
http://theothermccain.com/2012/03/15/pornographic-politics-did-the-daily-caller-pull-a-media-matters-on-rick-santorum/
JD (516dcc) — 3/20/2012 @ 2:52 pmSome may believe that there must be a better use of government resources and taxpayer dollars than beefing up the fight against dirty photos.
http://www.ricksantorum.com/enforcing-laws-against-illegal-pornography
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 3:03 pmExactly, JD.
Anyone voting against Santorum on this basis is being fooled by the liberals who have done a great job picking our candidate with smears of the more conservative options. It’s happened again and again.
There are more honest reasons for voting Romney over Santorum, such as executive experience, but I don’t think the mobies get the same kick out of making that kind of argument. Better to put conservatives down, sow discord, and be ugly.
I think it’s working. I think it’s why turnout appears to be very low despite a rockin’ 2010 and a SCOAMF incumbent. Now a Romney win is a proxy against Santorum’s reasonable views on obscenity? But Romney agrees with Santorum completely.
I don’t mind that Daily Caller is not in service to my ideology, but this story was BS. And the sad thing is: Romney’s actual view is right. It’s one rare bone thrown to the so-cons that probably should be highlighted rather than squandered.
What an ugly primary. I guess it’s not as bad as 2008 or 2000, to be honest.
Dustin (a66f85) — 3/20/2012 @ 3:07 pmWell the 2008 primary did make me gag, in part because it was about little.
http://freebeacon.com/carney-attacks-new-ryan-budget/
narciso (94eff0) — 3/20/2012 @ 3:23 pmAs I said before, Haiku was apparently the target audience for that Daily Caller hatchet job.
JD (516dcc) — 3/20/2012 @ 3:28 pmI forgot about the on the website = part of platform standard, but years pf advocacy but not on webiste does not count.
JD (516dcc) — 3/20/2012 @ 3:33 pmSantorum seems to be pushing for expanding the reach of government, JD. Porn is what it is, but if it involves consenting adults, why the frig is it the business of government?
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 3:58 pmHe seems to be doing nothing of the sort. His position above is virtually indistinguishable from Gingrich. And Romney. And regardless, is is not an issue. You and DC appear to want it to be, by making it out to be something that he is pushing. It is disingenuous. At best.
JD (516dcc) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:04 pm“America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.
Every family must now be concerned about the harm from pornography. As a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture.
For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography.
Congress has responded. Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.
I proudly support the efforts of the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition that has tirelessly fought to get federal obscenity laws enforced. That coalition is composed of 120 national, state, and local groups, including Morality in Media, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Cornerstone Family Council of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a host of other groups. Together we will prevail.”
– Rick Santorum
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:08 pmRick Santorum… you don’t need to share every thought that runs through your mind…
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293979/santorum-criticizes-malia-obamas-trip-mexico-brian-bolduc
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:12 pmhaiku is invested in Santorum having a war against porn, even though Romney jas almost the exact same position, as does Gingrich. On a base level, it shows how far he will go to smear people, in order to advance Romney. This is but the most recent example. It seems reading apparent that he will not read, or cannot understand, McCain’s piece, showing quite clearly how this is simply a made up issue.
Tucker Carlson should be embarrassed.
JD (516dcc) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:14 pmThere are hundreds of people that have criticized Teh Won sending his 13 year old to Mexico for Spring Break, while the rest of the country is in the midst of a horrible economic downturn. They have scrubbed this from many places, with the help of a compliant media. There is a State Dept travel advisory against traveling almost half of theMexican states. And at least 20 secret service personnel had to go. There are about 10 different ways to legitimately criticize this Marie Antionette let them eat their cake act by the First Couple who live large on our dime.
JD (516dcc) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:17 pmOn a base level, it shows how far he will go to smear people, in order to advance Romney.
– JD
Wait a minute… mentioning Santorum’s penchant for doubling down on rabbit trail subject matter is a “smear” to you? Thanks for clearing that up, ya daffy bastard, ya.
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:29 pmI don’t mind the scrub, I do think it’s a foolish thing to send them to Mexico, are they that oblivious about events south of the border,
narciso (94eff0) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:29 pmGet serious! Pitching a general b*tch about Obama’s “Spring Break” is a freaking waste of oxygen. The country is drowning in debt, Paul Ryan has just proffered another excellent plan to address this calamity in a serious way and – unless Santorum has shared his opinion in the past couple of hours – he hasn’t said squat about it.
But he somehow finds the time to share his opinion about meaningless sh*t.
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:33 pmOabama’s daughter’s spring break.
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:34 pm25 Secret Service people with Malia. Call it “your tax dollars at vacation”.
Icy (927b00) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:34 pmThere is a State Dept travel advisory against traveling almost half of the Mexican states.
Oaxaca is – to my knowledge – not among those states.
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:37 pmIt’s the typical exorbitant waste of taxpayer money, Icy.
Bigger. Fish. To. Fry.
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:39 pmRomney Derangement Syndrome.
Catch the fever!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:43 pmIt’s a small thing, although remember the discretion they showed when the Bush twins went
narciso (94eff0) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:44 pmanywhere, yeah right,
Honest to God!!!!! He’s got a fevah and the only cure is more tonsil-ticklin’ from Santorum…
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:45 pmJust because it isn’t the top issue of the day does not mean that it’s no issue at all, or that it is not worthy of discussion.
Icy (927b00) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:46 pmBS, Daley. Noting that haiku is smearing people based on a manufactured non-issue is not Romney Derangement. One can note his serial mendacity without any RDS. .
JD (0e9826) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:47 pmDiscussion by presidential candidates?!?!
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:47 pmSee y’all tomorrow
JD (0e9826) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:48 pmJD, wake up and smell the cat food. There are many people on the Right who have mentioned Santorum’s inability to maintain focus on the stuff that matters, including the subject of porn. When he does, he can hit homers. When he strays, he loses. That is no more a smear than your opinions of Romney.
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:52 pmI’ve been arguing politics in discussion threads for a very long time. Back when people used Renegade to host bulletin boards at 2400 baud. One cool thing about that era was you often got to meet people you discussed things with online. Often your friends would already know the notorious trolls and be able to point them out to you. Invariably the boldest hateful trolls were losers lacking even basic social skills. They didn’t have girlfriends. They didn’t do their homework. If they were older, they were very unsuccessful.
Haiku would shrivel up before he dared offer this quote to my face. His unapologetic defense of his comment was pathetic (amounts to saying he didn’t mean it) and marks him as a coward.
I feel sorry for this miserable human being. Let Haiku be a lesson to us all about keeping things in check. it’s just politics. If Romney is the victor, so be it. If Obama is the ultimate victor, so be it. Life will go on. None of this amounts to a hill of beans compared to a nice dinner with your family or any number of things people can do in even completely backwards societies far worse than America will ever be.
Dustin (a66f85) — 3/20/2012 @ 4:56 pm“BS, Daley. Noting that haiku is smearing people based on a manufactured non-issue is not Romney Derangement.”
JD – How many of the candidates are spending time talking about porn? Where’s the smear?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:01 pmMaybe we could talk more of his economic advisor’s
narciso (94eff0) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:03 pmtwo dollar/gallon gas tax, or the VAT tax,
It’s true that Santorum doesn’t mind being associated with his views. However, this is a position that the other candidates share. It makes no sense to treat it as scandalous that one candidate has a trait all the other candidates have.
At least if we’re picking a president and a set of policies that president brings.
Romney’s policy (which is the right one) is identical to Santorum’s.
There is a meme that Santorum is hysterically conservative and utterly unelectable, and this is false conventional wisdom we get from a beltway that just plain doesn’t like a conservative view on these social issues.
The idea here is not to paint Santorum has having a policy he doesn’t have. It’s to paint Santorum as unelectable.
Dustin (a66f85) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:05 pmnarciso – Since you aren’t even sure what Romney did or didn’t do as governor, are you claiming his economic advisor was speaking on Romney’s behalf or is that just more spitballing?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:05 pm“However, this is a position that the other candidates share.”
Dustin – Are they currently yakking about it?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:09 pmOn the one hand, yeah, Romney has a liberal record. On the other hand, I’m not sure it’s fair to blame a guy for every adviser’s views. It’s just advice.
I have more of a problem with the things Romney signed, or the advice Romney gave Obama about a federal ind mandate. Every one of these candidates, Newt, Rick, and Mitt, know they need advice they don’t agree with. I don’t want to establish a rule that punishes the wisdom of listening to views that are out of the box.
The sad thing is that Obama doesn’t seem to be wise enough to have a few naysayers in his staff.
Dustin (a66f85) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:11 pm“The idea here is not to paint Santorum has having a policy he doesn’t have. It’s to paint Santorum as unelectable.”
Dustin – If a candidate makes himself look like a loon on social issues, that hurts his electability. Santorum has a habit of doing this. Voters are recognizing it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:13 pmNot that I’m aware. This is a great example of our different ways of looking at politicians. It’s not like it’s completely wrong to look at what the candidates are saying now, but I value this kind of thing less than their actual agenda (as I understand it… which can be difficult as I have problems with both Rick Santorum and Mitt’s agenda and also find some of Mitt’s to be a bit vague). I care yet more about records.
The one kind of yakking I find quite persuasive is yakking against political self interest, but this isn’t really directly related to the porn issue.
There is no reason to vote against Santorum for sharing Romney’s correct view on obscenity enforcement, and this kind of argument lines up really well with conventional wisdom that Santorum can’t win. I think that is untrue and those who would ultimately prefer Obama to Rick (or Mitt) because of this were never with us.
To sum it up, I think this entire issue is not the focus.
Dustin (a66f85) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:15 pmI agree. But Santorum obviously doesn’t look like a loon. He’s just offering a sane, moderate view that is identical to Romney’s. Obviously you have to have some enforcement of obscenity laws. And there’s nothing wrong with admitting one’s religious values while also noting it is not constitutional to force them on this country. That is not loony.
Dustin (a66f85) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:17 pmBut a candidate who says he doesn’t care about the poor, who pushes for a status quo tax policy, who goes along with the administration’s false meme of
narciso (94eff0) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:17 pma recovery, what to believe?
I should have made clear I only agree with the ‘loons harm electability’.
I think the idea Santorum’s very normal views are loony is ridiculous and I think a campaign to paint him as a loon would backfire most hilariously. And that is what Obama would be forced to do.
Romney is vulnerable to attacks on his flip flops. Newt on his baggage. Rick on his lack of presidential level accomplishment and experience.
Not that I agree with Santorum on some of this stuff. But loony? I don’t think so. And the DC issue was provably unfair as Romney agrees with Santorum! It’s really unfair to say this proves Santorum is unelectable.
It does show how selective reporting can be very deceptive. But do we really think Obama will campaign against Santorum or Romney’s enforcement of obscenity laws? Really?
Dustin (a66f85) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:21 pmArrogant, elitist, hypocritical; do as I say, not as I do; tone deaf . . .
Icy (927b00) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:23 pmThe administration, has a nifty new rule, if your farmland has oil, you have to choose between the oil lease, and your USDA loan, this is who we are up against;
narciso (94eff0) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:24 pmWell close enough;
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/19/your-home-or-your-oil-gas-leases/
narciso (94eff0) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:25 pmBizarre. Frankly, a lot of USDA loans don’t make sense to me. Let home buyers put together 20% down payment. It is not the end of the world.
But indeed this is what we’re up against. Rick, Mitt, Newt… they will hit Obama on many important issues. Obama will respond with what?
Campaigning that he won’t enforce obscenity laws? I hope he does! But he’s not that stupid.
All our candidate needs to do is discuss Obama’s record with enough spine to call the guy a radical and a failure.
Dustin (a66f85) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:30 pmHaiku would shrivel up before he dared offer this quote to my face. His unapologetic defense of his comment was pathetic (amounts to saying he didn’t mean it) and marks him as a coward.
You pathological, lying POS. Let’s see what you claim I’ve posted.
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:31 pmJust another Keyboard Kommando…
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:33 pmthey chickened out Mr. narciso and now they’ve done pissed off an NRDC hoochie, who is making a pouty face
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:33 pmWhat ‘possessed’ them to think this was a good idea in the first place, and I’m not being figurative,
narciso (94eff0) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:40 pmNRDC was a Fenton scam born out of the Alar scare,
But a candidate who says he doesn’t care about the poor, who pushes for a status quo tax policy, who goes along with the administration’s false meme of
a recovery, what to believe?
Comment by narciso
Your opinion, narciso. You’re free to cast your protest vote for Obama should Romney be the nominee.
Colonel Haiku (11593b) — 3/20/2012 @ 5:57 pmSeems I’m in good company…
“This is a silly http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-criticizes-obama-for-malias-mexico line of attack, and yet another distraction from whatever message it is that he is running on. ‘Rick Santorum weighed in on Malia Obama’s spring break trip to Mexico on Glenn Beck’s radio show today, criticizing the First Family for sending Malia to a country the government has warned U.S. citizens not to go to.’ Santorum must believe we need to hear every thought in his head.”
– Jennifer Rubin on 3/21/12
Colonel Haiku (2dcb8f) — 3/21/2012 @ 7:08 am