Rick Santorum: I still intend to win Iowa

posted at 9:05 pm on December 9, 2011 by Tina Korbe

For quite some time, Rick Santorum has billed his presidential bid as “The Little Engine That Could” campaign. Still far behind in the polls in Iowa and elsewhere, the former Pennsylvania senator nevertheless retains an optimistic outlook. He likes his chances in the Hawkeye State — and all across the country.

“We obviously are planning to win here in Iowa,” Santorum said this afternoon on a conference call with bloggers. “We don’t have to win. We’re not like some of the other candidates who have put all their eggs in one basket. [But] we have to do well here. We have to finish in or near the money. … I’m convinced that’s happening and it will happen and I feel very confident that we’ll have a bounce coming out of Iowa that will lead to a surprise finish in New Hampshire. Then, off to the races.”

In a primary best characterized as a revolving two-man race between Mitt Romney and the latest anti-Mitt, the most conservative candidate in the race — save Michele Bachmann — has somehow not managed to project himself as an appealing counterpoint to the former Massachusetts governor. But Santorum is untroubled by that fact.

“We’re patient,” he said. “We’ll let everybody else have their fling.”

He likens himself to an initially-overlooked guy at a dance hall. At first, the girls flock to the smoothest and handsomest fellows, Santorum explains, but, eventually, when they want to take a man home to meet Mom and Dad, they turn to a different kind of dance partner. In the end, a woman wants to marry a guy who’s steady and serious, who believes what he says he believes and who acts accordingly. Similarly, voters want a nominee they can trust to faithfully uphold conservative principles domestically and internationally, socially and fiscally. That candidate, Santorum says, is him.

“I think we need to elect a leader who understands these issues and is willing to go out and fight for them, as well as the economic issues that are important to our country,” he said. “I’m concerned if we don’t have anybody in this race who is a full-spectrum, three-stooled Reagan Republican who has the passion not just to cut government, not just to cut taxes, but to stand up for the American family and fight radical Islamism and make sure that America is free and safe and prosperous and morally decent and good and that will be blessed by God. That’s what I believe. That’s why I’m here and I believe the people of Iowa have begun to recognize that.”

Throughout the course of the call, Santorum spoke fluidly about a wide variety of topics, from his signature partial-birth abortion ban to the need to open up U.S. lands to drill for oil to (this won my heart!) ecumenism. As I listened to him speak, with audible sincerity and earnestness, I couldn’t help but wonder why his candidacy hasn’t taken off. Here is someone whose betrayals of conservatism barely fill a sentence. He liked “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare Part D. OK. I don’t like either of those positions, but they pale in comparison to the betrayals Gingrich and Romney have delivered to the conservative movement.

And I completely, 100 percent agree with Santorum when he says, “You can’t have a strong economy without strong families.” I’ve never understood the reluctance to address social issues. Unless we address them, we’ll never truly be able to break the cycle of dependence on government. In some respects, Santorum is the only candidate not living in a fantasy of his own making — that the economy operates outside of cultural and societal forces. Sure, the market is remarkably impersonal and dispassionate, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t still essentially human.

Whatever happens in Iowa, I’ll say of Rick Santorum what I repeatedly say of Michele Bachmann: I’m happy he’s in the race because he says what needs to be said.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Jefferson was an isolationist? What about the First Barbary War, Dante? What about the US’s declaration of war against the British Empire in 1812 and Madison’s invasion of Canada? What about the Mexican-American War and the ideals behind Manifest Destiny? You act as if we were a nation who minded its own business until T.R. came along. I hope all Paulnuts are not as ignorant as you are (a big wish, I know!)

Punchenko on December 9, 2011 at 10:11 PM

I never said Jefferson was an isolationist. Non-interventionism is not the same thing as isolationism. Our merchant ships were attacked; we responded. The War of 1812 was another defensive response to events taking place on our soil, not the least of which was England seizing Americans by force to “serve” in the Royal Navy. Reality does not jibe with your fantasy.

Do you actually read or watch the news? Ron Paul blamed 9/11 on the US during the 2008 primary debates. Rudy Giuliani pretty much mopped the floor with him after that.

You should be careful around her making definitive statements like that unless you are sure of yourself. Just a tip. You must be new too. It’s fun to have new people.

JellyToast on December 9, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Ron Paul has never blamed America for Muslim, lr anyone else’s, atrocities. He has always placed blame on those who have committed the acts. He has, however, told the truth that these attacks are blowback for our interventionist policies that have gone on for the past sixty years or so. You can’t expect that overthrowing regimes via the CIA (Operation Ajax), installing dictators, dropping bombs on Muslim countries and killing Muslims is going to go without notice and you can’t be surprised that they would strike back.

Dante on December 9, 2011 at 10:47 PM

The only guy who ever looks cool talking through his teeth is named Eastwood. Maybe Mr. Santorum needs that enunciation coach from “Singin’ in the Rain” who made Gene Kelly open wide and rap:

Moses supposes his toeses are Roses,
But Moses supposes Erroneously,
Moses he knowses his toeses aren’t roses,
As Moses supposes his toeses to be!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 9, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Good one. And, the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain.

TXUS on December 9, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Better yet, why believe either of them when Bachmann is still in the race?

Ruiner on December 9, 2011 at 9:58 PM

I think that Gingrich is marginally better than Romney, but neither excite me. Bachmann – I liked her, but she beclowned herself with the whole Gardasil fiasco. Plus, I don’t like how she appears to carry Romney’s water. But – I probably have her second to Perry at this point.

besser tot als rot on December 9, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Rick Santorum debating Obama would be about ten thousand times better than Newt Gingrich debating Obama. Just sayin’…

gocatholic on December 9, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Seriously, you mean for comedic relief, like when the Lyin kING blantanly just lies his ass off and santorum insistent upon making his social con points doesn’t call him on it?
I don’t see that I see Newt as the guy who will call Obama a BS artist about every other time the Lyin kING opens his maw and then go on to prove it.

Santorum will be impressed with the presence of the President, Newt will scoff, clear his throat and put a Dick Cheney style beat down on the liar!

ConcealedKerry on December 9, 2011 at 10:50 PM

All of his policy proposals always went through a proper legislative process (or proposed legislative process)

Utica681 on December 9, 2011 at 10:15 PM

The whole “its constitutional, so I’m in the clear” argument isn’t really persuasive. There is a wide swath of bad policy that is constitutional (see, e.g., Romney re RomneyCare).

besser tot als rot on December 9, 2011 at 10:53 PM

sharrukin on December 9, 2011 at 10:38 PM

??? Your post makes no sense. What part of “unlike the wars of today” would cause you to respond with Franklin Roosevelt and WWII?

Dante on December 9, 2011 at 10:53 PM

I’ve always liked Santorum– I wish his candidacy had taken off. I really think he could be a contender; and he could most definitely wipe the floor with Obama in a debate. He’s a pretty sharp dude who knows his stuff, and lately he’s been coming across as less angry…will he be the next to surge? Let’s hope so.
But, as I don’t see that happening…

Perry 2012! :)

NextGenerationVoters on December 9, 2011 at 10:56 PM

??? Your post makes no sense. What part of “unlike the wars of today” would cause you to respond with Franklin Roosevelt and WWII?

Dante on December 9, 2011 at 10:53 PM

The Barbary wars were what you spoke of and that is what the post dealt with. Spare me the cheap evasions. Nothing has changed from the Barbary Wars, to WW2, to the AUMF.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag76_user.html

An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President’s powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war.1422 Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.1423 Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ”and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .”1424 But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton’s view.1425

But no formal declaration of war was passed
But no formal declaration of war was passed
But no formal declaration of war was passed

sharrukin on December 9, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Good one. And, the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain.

TXUS on December 9, 2011 at 10:48 PM

How do, fellow Texan! And might I add:

A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood :)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Santorum would destroy Obama in a debate and he is not so impressed by the office of the presidency that it will wilt him. He respects the office of the presidency but has never been afraid to openly challenge it when it was harmful to the country.

Santorum repeatedly criticized Bill Clinton. His book “It Takes a Family” was an open rebuttal to Hillary’s “It takes a village”. Also, Santorum criticized Bush (respectfully on policy) and called for a surge before almost anyone else was doing it.

Santorum took unpopular positions that he knew were right. This man has courage.

Utica681 on December 9, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Ron Paul in the White House?

yep, I want Alex Jones and the Prison Planet peeps calling the shots.

No, thanks. He’s great on the Fed and some economic issues, other than that……..not happening.

And lets’ be frank. He comes across as a LOOOOOOOOOON on stage. He comes across as an old guy that makes everyone else in the debates look sane. You talk about optics?……he’s a disaster.

He should have given up the attention whoring and let Rand Paul run in 2016. Ron Paul is not going to win the nomination but he is going to run 3rd party and then we’ll get CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE BARACK to destroy what’s left of America.

PappyD61 on December 9, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Santorum strikes me as a big government “conservative” who wants the state telling you what to do, as long as it is what he thinks is the right thing to do (the “conservative” thing?).

Also, there’s the whole Specter over Toomey bit.

besser tot als rot on December 9, 2011 at 9:38 PM

yep, I’m not crazy about either of these points either.

PappyD61 on December 9, 2011 at 11:14 PM

There is an obvious reason Santorum hasn’t gained traction. And keep in mind, I’m saying this as someone who is largely in agreement with him on substantive issues. Santorum is currently my (distant) second pick (Perry being my pick).

Aside from the practical point that Santorum has virtually no chance of actually winning the primary, the major problem with Santorum is his personality. He comes across as mean-spirited, petty, and whiny. He has legitimate complaints with how he has been treated (ignored) in the debates, but you don’t want to come across as complaining about it – which he does.

Personality isn’t solely a frivolous matter, either, because personality is linked with temperament. I don’t think Santorum has the right temperament to be president. And to understand why temperament is so important to being a good president, just look at Obama, who clearly doesn’t have the right temperament to be president.

IcedTea on December 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM

I listened to Santorum when he was on Dr. BB’s.. ‘Morning in America’
I like him!
Who the he!!…. is the guy I see in the debates????

gordon van on December 9, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Rick Santorum debating Obama would be about ten thousand times better than Newt Gingrich debating Obama. Just sayin’…

gocatholic on December 9, 2011 at 10:25 PM

You’re living in a myth, but are not alone. The myth: presidential debates affect elections. The best example of this myth is always the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960. If you watched it on television, Kennedy won, if you heard it on radio, Nixon prevailed … blah, blah, blah. The truth, of course, is that the election was stolen, on the streets. Google it.

Presidential debates are inconsequential to the electorate, because they are not real debates, and haven’t been for years. They only matter to the Beltway crowd and where they might send their money. The presidential debates are but game shows today and the electorate realizes that.

What votes turn on these days in the general election is more situational and personal: Am I better off today than before? Is my future better off with the guy there or with a new guy in charge? If I keep the guy there already, am I worse off? Who do I trust for me and my family, the guy in office now or the guy who wants the job?

That’s why this election will be won not from who’s best in the debates or who promises the most goodies to the electorate, but who makes them feel best about the voters’ future. Focusing on debates, as it has been since the ’60s is a fool’s errand.

TXUS on December 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

After watching The Thanksgiving Family Forum, which was held in Iowa, and watching the reaction of that audience to Santorum, I think he has a real shot of placing in the top 3 in Iowa.

Santorum is the only Republican candidate for President who took the time to help Iowa replace three liberal Justices. He’s got a track record of taking real action to effect real conservative change.

If I had to pick a Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket right now, it would be Bachmann/Santorum. Both are candidates who will truly fight for Tea Party values.

Compare that to Romney and Gingrich, both of whom have taken positions contrary to the Tea Party in the not very distant past. Just over two years ago, Gingrich endorsed the Democrat in Republican clothing, Scozzafava, over Tea Party candidate Doug Hoffman. And I don’t think Gingrich has ever apologized for that. How can Tea Party conservatives trust Gingrich now?!?

NCITTRP on December 9, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Rick Santorum debating Obama would be about ten thousand times better than Newt Gingrich debating Obama. Just sayin’…

gocatholic on December 9, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Honestly, I believe you are pretty quite correct in that.
Santorum knows foreign policy well. And he is great on the social issues. Plus, he’s pretty courageous and has true convictions.
Obama can never go up against someone like that, and win.

JellyToast on December 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Ron Paul has never blamed America for Muslim, lr anyone else’s, atrocities. He has always placed blame on those who have committed the acts. He has, however, told the truth that these attacks are blowback for our interventionist policies that have gone on for the past sixty years or so. You can’t expect that overthrowing regimes via the CIA (Operation Ajax), installing dictators, dropping bombs on Muslim countries and killing Muslims is going to go without notice and you can’t be surprised that they would strike back.

Dante on December 9, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Rom Paul has never blamed America for Muslim atrocities, and then you say he does. OK, I guess I was right. Are you new?

JellyToast on December 9, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Blah blah blah. Who did Romney get the idea from again? Wait, who has been a consistend advocate for heatlh insurance mandates since long before it was “popular”? Oh yeah, your guy the “ultra-conservative” Newt Gingrich. MASS would have had single payer were it not for Romney, get a clue.

And no I’m not a Romney guy, I just find your childish hatred/obsession amusing.

Ruiner on December 9, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Umm…no. MA would have passed something in order to preserve federal funding under its Medicaid waiver, including,, esp., nearly half a billion in supplemental payments to some very politically powerful hospitals. (Among other things, the state had to find a way to shift uncompensated care dollars to premium dollars.) However, given the strength of the health care industry in the state, I don’t think single payer would ever have been implemented and there was not uniform support for such a scheme among Dems in the legislature. What I fault Romney for are the following (1) proposing things he knew – or should have known – would be dead on arrival (e.g. eliminating all insurance mandates), (2) investing so much authority in Jonathan Gruber as the architect of health care reform, (3) devising a process that gave large business groups more of a voice than at the table than small businesses, both during development and inplementation, and (4) signing off on the composition and authority of the Connector, which as an unlected and unaccountable body has enormous power and is hardly free-market oriented.

Given that everyone wanted to pass something that would guarantee renewal of the waiver and preserve the federal supplemental payments, and given that there would have enormous opposition among the business community and some in the health care industry to single-payer, Romney could have gotten a better deal had he not been so consumed with establishing his legacy. At the very least, he could have vetoed the legislation and allowed it to become law without his signature. Instead, he embraced it. And still embraces it. Because he thinks it’s a great law.

If he is the nominee, he will get my vote because Obama is really just that bad.. But I will never support him in a primary.

P.S First comment! Woo hoo!!!!!

Just Sayin on December 9, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Howdy. Great to have another God’s Country Texan on board. Problem is, while I speak Spanish, and pretty much all dialects — Castellano, Mexicano, and Cubano — I can’t place the last part of your handle, which looks Latino. Yet, in Texlish, maybe it means Culture Vulture. Interesting.

TXUS on December 9, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Santorum strikes me as a big government “conservative” who wants the state telling you what to do, as long as it is what he thinks is the right thing to do (the “conservative” thing?).
besser tot als rot on December 9, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Do you honestly believe that Rick Santorum, as President, is going to issue executive orders abolishing all of your favorite “adult entertainment”?

Also, there’s the whole Specter over Toomey bit.
besser tot als rot on December 9, 2011 at 9:38 PM

I’ll concede that one, as we both agree there.

listens2glenn on December 9, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Santorum does not inspire. He does not cut the figure of a leader, nor does he come plausibly close. Like it or not, that’s what will bring the votes.

digitalhap on December 10, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Yep, Tex, It’s Culture Vulture. You know, the type who compulsively displays conduct unbecoming by quoting “Singin’ in the Rain” and such. Again, pleased to meet’cha!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 10, 2011 at 12:16 AM

PappyD61 on December 9, 2011 at 11:13 PM

You nailed, and stuck the landing.

9.7 from the eastern block judge

Laura in Maryland on December 10, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Rick Santorum is a solid candidate. He will have no problem with the pressure.

schutzwk on December 10, 2011 at 1:06 AM

I live in Iowa and met Rick a few months ago, that said I can safely say there is no way he can win this state. He’s a great guy, but he has zero advertising! I mean nothing. Paul and Perry have been pounding ads for two months now. I have never seen or heard a Santorum ad. Now Romney is all over the place with great ads about Obama.

Roymunson on December 10, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Santorum supports the government taking away rights granted to us by G_d. He wants the fed government to be an even bigger nanny for the nanny state….telling us what who we can marry, what we can do in our bedrooms, what we can do with our own bodies…

And now he has become Mr. Sourpuss and wants to be president…well maybe..but not of this country…yeah he would be better than Obama, but Stalin would be better than Obama

georgealbert on December 10, 2011 at 6:51 AM

For quite some time, Rick Santorum has billed his presidential bid as “The Little Engine That Could” campaign. Still far behind in the polls in Iowa and elsewhere, the former Pennsylvania senator nevertheless retains an optimistic outlook.

Call me a pessimist, but Santorum is a one-trick pony. I like to think of it as pragmatism however. Yes, some of “what he has to say has to be said”, BUT that’s pretty much all he says.
DEFINITION: Pessimist – An optimist who’s been around.
But, the more the merrier, just give them all equal time or give none to all. The LSM shouldn’t be choosing our candidates. After all, Television made Ø’Bumbler and boy did he milk it.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 10, 2011 at 7:10 AM

If intends to win Iowa, he is insane.

SC.Charlie on December 10, 2011 at 7:27 AM

SC.Charlie on December 10, 2011 at 7:27 AM

Nah, more like this . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw32fiasUSs

BigAlSouth on December 10, 2011 at 7:44 AM

I like Santorum’s ideas, but he is just plain dull. His presentation of his ideas is completely flat. That’s probably why he lost his last election so badly; of course, he had a tough opponent, but Obama won’t be exactly easy.

We need someone who will win. Santorum is not that someone, nor is Bachmann, Perry, or Paul.

JayDick on December 10, 2011 at 7:48 AM

Hey Rick,
I intend to win the lottery tonight too! I like Rick but the problem with him is that he wants to become the morality police for the country and while I agree with pretty much everything he stands for, his views are a death wish for a general election. Make the best of your visits to the 99 counties and buy a lottery ticket in every county.

jrfromdallas on December 10, 2011 at 7:57 AM

I like what I read, Tina, thanks. I like Santorum too, and I wish that he’d have some ads peppered in PA already, since the ones I see constantly are of Rick Perry (all the ones you see on the blogs, I have seen them all.) And I am in Western PA.

I think that because the social-con constant push from him and his team are countering the dire state of this country, and people want that fixed first-how can he balance that with his (or our) so-con values is a good question for him for a debate. This is something that is tricky to put on paper for the House and the Senate to sign. I wish the House get their act together NOW because they seem dormant to me, especially Boehner.

I dunno how the rest of PA would react to Santorum since I am at the opposite side of Harrisburg-but just like our local Tom Ridge, I hope he does just fine.

Very nice of Sarah to give his campaign a little push; the media loves to pick up candidates and narrow it down asap to have us over and done with.

ProudPalinFan on December 10, 2011 at 9:07 AM

I listened to Santorum when he was on Dr. BB’s.. ‘Morning in America’
I like him!
Who the he!!…. is the guy I see in the debates????

gordon van on December 9, 2011 at 11:17 PM

I like him, too. But he can’t win. He couldn’t even win re-election to the senate.

Long haired country boy on December 10, 2011 at 9:07 AM

He’s a little too religiousy even for most christians.

thphilli on December 9, 2011 at 9:14 PM

PALIN/TEBOW 2012!!!/

ProudPalinFan on December 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Ok I am having it up to the top of my head with this nonsense. We are looking for a Dalmatian puppy (spotless) or an archangel (drop dead handsome, reports directly to God and will watch and defend us fiercely with divine intercession.) And said archangel has wings so he flies on his own; so the rap’d over-used and abused AF1 can stay grounded for longs periods of time.

NOBODY IS PERFECT!!! Gee even the lamest stuff any candidate has done during their lives/career is magnified here to a 500% augmentation. Stop the bickering and bantering. It’s nice from time to time so see another candidate’s perspective, regardless how he/she does in the polls.

ProudPalinFan on December 10, 2011 at 9:27 AM

“Similarly, voters want a nominee they can trust to faithfully uphold conservative principles domestically and internationally, socially and fiscally.”

And yet, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Voters haven’t wanted that since at least 1984.

adamcr on December 10, 2011 at 9:32 AM

I like Santorum. I don’t see a path to victory for him, but I still like him. His anger seems to have subsided; either that, or I’m just getting used to it. Either way, I think that he’s in this race to be Newt’s attack dog.

Hidajunshin on December 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Your efforts are applauded but it ain’t going to happen.

salem on December 10, 2011 at 10:52 AM

And yet, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Voters haven’t wanted that since at least 1984.

adamcr on December 10, 2011 at 9:32 AM

I disagree. Voters havn’t had that option since 1984.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Santorum is a smart guy but he’s run too narrow a campaign based on social issues. That might play well in Iowa and he could surprise the pundits but after that he won’t Win, Place, or Show in the other states.

PatrickHenry599 on December 10, 2011 at 11:09 AM

I like him, too. But he can’t win. He couldn’t even win re-election to the senate.
Long haired country boy on December 10, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Reposting yesterday’s post about this.

2006 was a bad election year for conservatives all over the US.
Santorum refused to back-off from his stand on supporting the war in Iraq.
At that time, support for the war in Iraq had severely eroded in Pennsylvania.
The Democrat party, smelling blood in the water, got Bob Casey to run. The Casey family is almost considered royalty in PA.
Between the eroding public support (in PA, anyway) for the war in Iraq, and Bob Casey’s “name recognition”, defeating Santorum wasn’t that hard.
If Santorum were to run against Bob Casey TODAY (he’s up for reelection in 2012), and use Casey’s ‘Obama Care vote’ against him, I think he could regain his old Senate seat.
listens2glenn on December 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM

listens2glenn on December 10, 2011 at 11:23 AM

PALIN/TEBOW 2012!!!/

ProudPalinFan on December 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Except for the year, I like it.

Tebow won’t be old enough for a Presidential ticket, until 2024.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Also planned: Walking on the moon, breaking the home run record, out-sprinting Hussein Bolt, curing cancer…

Is there nothing Santorum can’t do?!?!

incredible on December 10, 2011 at 11:50 AM

All of his policy proposals always went through a proper legislative process (or proposed legislative process)

Utica681 on December 9, 2011 at 10:15 PM

The whole “its constitutional, so I’m in the clear” argument isn’t really persuasive. There is a wide swath of bad policy that is constitutional (see, e.g., Romney re RomneyCare).

besser tot als rot on December 9, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Agreed to that statement. We know what your are against….”it’s Unconstitutional”(One more time my head’s going to explode)….but what are you for?? Please don’t say: limited Gov’t, limited..blah blah blah. Yeah…we get it. What are your solutions…within the limits of small government…and the Constitution??

coach1228 on December 10, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I like Santorum. I don’t see a path to victory for him, but I still like him. His anger seems to have subsided; either that, or I’m just getting used to it. Either way, I think that he’s in this race to be Newt’s attack dog.

Like him as well and I think he an Newt would be an awesome team.
With Rick as Newt’s “Constitutional” handbook…Rick would keep Newt grounded and visa versa.
Any other option….just can’t see…but a Gingrich/Santorum ticket is a huge winner in my view.

coach1228 on December 10, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I expect Santorum’s concession speech to be roughly 45 seconds after his (likely) fifth place finish in the caucus.

pplasse on December 10, 2011 at 12:37 PM

“We’re patient,” he said. “We’ll let everybody else have their fling.

For now, Newt seems content with his share.

Whether the The Band Wagon Bunch is content with their share remains to be seen.

rukiddingme on December 10, 2011 at 12:55 PM

I am committed to ABO, but please, please, please don’t make me vote for Santorum.

Look Polish on December 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Go Rick Go! May your play tonite!!

Jailbreak on December 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Santorum is a whiny doofus who got clobbered back in 2006.

Hilts on December 11, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Rick Santorum: I still intend to win Iowa

posted at 9:05 pm on December 9, 2011 by Tina Korbe

And, Rick Santorum did win Iowa!!!

As well as Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado in a February 7th trifecta!

ITguy on February 8, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2