Rasmussen IA poll: Romney 23, Paul 22 … Santorum 16

posted at 2:45 pm on December 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Bear in mind Tina’s caveats about the difficulty of polling in the holiday season, but this does look as though the predictions of Rick Santorumentum have been realized.  In the latest Rasmussen poll of 750 likely caucus-goers in Iowa, conducted yesterday, Santorum leaps up to third place, behind a virtual dead heat between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul:

After months of volatility, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul remain the front-runners in Iowa for the third week in a row with the state’s Republican caucus just five days away.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP caucus participants finds Romney with 23% support to Paul’s 22%. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum has moved into third place with 16%, his best showing to date, closely followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Governor Rick Perry who earn 13% of the vote each.

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann picks up five percent (5%) support, while former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman gets three percent (3%) of the vote, marking no movement on either candidate’s part over the past week. One percent (1%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

That’s a six-point jump for Santorum in one week, outside the margin of error.  In contrast, Romney and Paul both only shifted within the MOE to get closer together.  Perry also added to his total by three points, again within the MOE, while Gingrich dropped four points in the same period to fall into a tie for fourth place.

The sample improves over the CNN poll, which only surveyed Republicans.  According to the sample data provided by Rasmussen, 30% of respondents are independents, a good representation.  None are Democrats, though, who could cast votes in the caucus, and who thus far favor Paul.  The survey was taken in a single day, which sometimes makes the results a little less reliable, but I believe the Rasmussen polls in this series have all used that methodology, so the trending is still significant.

Where does Santorum pick up his support?  He comes in second to Romney among Republicans, 26/19.  He falls into a three-way tie among women, far behind Romney, 27/15, and third among men at 17%, with Paul leading Romney 27/19.  Santorum has a double-digit lead among very conservative respondents over Romney, 28/18, but lands in fourth place among “somewhat conservative” voters at 15%, behind Romney (27%), Paul (18%), and Gingrich (17%).  Santorum also leads among Tea Party adherents, 25/19 over Romney, with Paul fourth at 14% behind Perry’s 15%, and Santorum wins evangelicals with 24% to Perry’s 17%.

Is that enough to ignite Santorum for a win?  He may not need an outright win.  As long as he bests Perry, Gingrich, and Bachmann, Santorum could be a rallying figure for social conservatives and evangelicals, which would stand him in good stead in South Carolina.  It’s still a long shot, but it’s not out of the question.


Related Posts:

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 3 4

It would have been more human to shoot Schiavo in the head than starve her to death.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Goons at it again!
5 Occupy protesters arrested outside of US GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul’s Iowa campaign headquarters – @APStory metadata:
Submitted 2 hours ago from hosted.ap.org by editor

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Probably just over zealous Paul supporters. Both groups appear to be of the same ilk…jilted Obama voters.

Norky on December 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM

That’s what’s funny about Romney as a candidate, he can’t even win his home state or even compete there but we are told he’s most electable. He’ll be a much weaker candidate in the southeast and midwest than Perry or Gingrich or Santorum, I think.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Why do you hate Mormons?
– Bot

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM

The Wild West is letting a the majority of a family make medical decisions without government intervention?

There is no liberterian argument for putting Schiavo down via deprivation of food and water. It was ghoulish.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM

The law said that her legal guardian was the one who made the decision. The law said that her husband was the legal guardian. Therefore, the state had to respect his decision about his wife.

While the grief of her family is understandable, they simply didn’t have the legal standing to make the decision, regardless of majority, minority, or even a unanimous decision. So yes, letting the family take a vote means you’re ignoring the law, ergo the Wild West.

If someone has an issue with it and feel it’s unjust, the solution is to advocate for changing the law. Continuing to demonize the husband, the courts, and whoever else you disagree with is just a waste of time.

PetecminMd on December 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Liberterians don’t go anywhere because Americans generally are not pro-legalization of drugs, prostitution, etc with a dovish naive approach to national security and foreign policy.
Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Don’t worry yourself with electability or popularity. Remember, you’re shamelessly backing Rick Santorum.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I dont see Romneys line of attack on Obama. He is unvetted and Bain has proved to be a line of attack in other campaigns. He’s cornering himself with an economy line of attack. The media will be trumpeting good economic numbers and highlighting Mitt’s weakness in the area. He is also terrible on the attack, the guy whines whenever he is confronted. See Brett Baier, debates. He wont be able to handle the interviews and debates. He hasnt really done much interviews. It’s easy to see why.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Don’t you know Romney went to H-A-R-V-A-R-D? Now shut up and vote for him.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Not sure I understood your second point clearly, but I definitely agree with your first one.
I constantly have to avoid getting into heated arguements with a family member who is into animal rescue groups.
I don’t disagree with ‘animal rescue work’, but these people absolutely insist animals (especially dogs), “are people too.”

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM

So when a Paulbot loses an argument, they revert to insults.

eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Just like Mittbots. At least the Ronulans are passionate about their guy. Mittbots are just paid shills.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:27 PM

The wasy I see it, as long as you are not gay or into sodomy, there’s nothing to worry about with Santy.

There’s nothing to worry about if you are gay or into sodomy, but I am just accepting your premise that there is. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:28 PM

The guy’s most likely also a sexist. He calked my mother a housewife at a townhall with absolutely no info on her when she asked a question on the wars.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Oh! The insult! A housewife!

What a shameful characterization by Santorum! He should have caller her a hooker instead! At least that way he would have recognized she was part of the labor force!

Of course, maybe he was really arrogant in recognizing her as female at all. Perhaps she was transgendered, and was really a turnip trapped in a man’s body. The nerve of the man!

Forgive the sarcasm, but if you’re going to be outraged, at least try to feign outrage over something substantive. And bringing home a dead baby and giving the kid a burial’s a sign of character and honor, not creepiness.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM

My eyes are wide open with regard to Romney. I recognize the good and the bad.

Fact is that he is far and away the most competent of the candidates we have to choose from, and when his record is put in context it is not nearly as liberal as the ABR crowd would have people believe.

gotsig on December 29, 2011 at 4:29 PM

What a shameful characterization by Santorum! He should have caller her a hooker instead! At least that way he would have recognized she was part of the labor force!

Of course, maybe he was really arrogant in recognizing her as female at all. Perhaps she was transgendered, and was really a turnip trapped in a man’s body. The nerve of the man!

Forgive the sarcasm, but if you’re going to be outraged, at least try to feign outrage over something substantive. And bringing home a dead baby and giving the kid a burial’s a sign of character and honor, not creepiness.

The talk of her profession had nothing to do with anything in the townhall. And most women today would find it an insult to be called a housewife. And no. Bringing a dead baby home is creepy. Especially since he is using it as a political tool.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Pete,

I didn’t bring up the Schiavo case, the anti-Santy liberterian nutjobs like you did.

The Schiavo decision was a horrible one. The husband was a lousy man, and I think you give up legal guardianship when you move on to another woman and have kids with her.

There was no reason why the woman had to be starved to death. The family wanted her alive, if you are her ex husband, why not be cool and respect that?

If you are going to put the woman down, despite no living will, at least put a bullet in her brain. Don’t drag out for weeks by depriving her of food.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Obama’s people have to be reading hotair and doing somersaults. They won’t have to destroy our candidate. We’re doing their job for them.
This is why Democrats always win the battles. They stay united. They may have some internal differences, but their end goal is communism/socialism in America. They put aside their differences to fight the common enemy.

What do we do? Fight each other to the death.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM

I think Flapjack is making things up about Santy’s baby.

To say he was using his dead baby as a political too just seems way too cynical.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM

The wasy I see it, as long as you are not gay or into sodomy, there’s nothing to worry about with Santy.
There’s nothing to worry about if you are gay or into sodomy, but I am just accepting your premise that there is. :)
Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:28 PM

If you’re not a Jew, there’s nothing to worry about from Paul.

***see how that goes with your contorted logic coupled with the stuff flying around Hot Air.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM

angryed,

Democrats have disagreements all the time. They are not united behind Obama.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

And most women today would find it an insult to be called a housewife.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Then they would be idiots.
Its one of the most important jobs out there.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

That’s what’s funny about Romney as a candidate, he can’t even win his home state or even compete there but we are told he’s most electable. He’ll be a much weaker candidate in the southeast and midwest than Perry or Gingrich or Santorum, I think.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Why do you hate Mormons?
– Bot

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Who give a flying —- whether Tesla hates Mormons or not? The argument is just plain stupid no matter what the motivation is.

gotsig on December 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

aryeung,

Are you gay or into sodomy? I tend to think you are if you get this worked up about Santy.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

PetecminMd on December 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM

The Law BLEW IT, in that there was evidence Michael had assaulted Terri, causing the state of condition she was in.

It was in his best interest to avoid ANY chance that she would recover sufficiently to testify against him.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Not sure I understood your second point clearly, but I definitely agree with your first one.
I constantly have to avoid getting into heated arguements with a family member who is into animal rescue groups.
I don’t disagree with ‘animal rescue work’, but these people absolutely insist animals (especially dogs), “are people too.”

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM

I deal with the animal rights nuts all the time. I found it hilarious when they asked me if I thought animals had rights, since I was asked while I was eating a hamburger. I actually pulled out the patty and showed it to them, and asked what they thought my position would be. =P

On the second point regarding Octomom, allow me to try and clarify. I’m sure you’ve heard of Nadia Suleman, aka Octomom. She had 6 kids before she ever had IVF to be implanted with another 8. She had no husband, no job, no source of income, and already a major financial burden that threatened her ability to provide for her kids. She expressly said she had the next 8 kids so she could get a TV show and a book deal. Not only is that an abuse of the kids by treating them as a means to an end or a novelty item, but as soon as the money ran out, she was looking for charitable donations and state assistance. It both denigrated the dignity of the children as well as was reckless, not only with her own welfare but with theirs.

Liberals and libertarians alike though wouldn’t get in the way of the IVF procedure. Social conservatives would consider the best interests of the kids and legally forbid such a procedure being undertaken. That’s what I was trying to convey.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

The talk of her profession had nothing to do with anything in the townhall. And most women today would find it an insult to be called a housewife. And no. Bringing a dead baby home is creepy. Especially since he is using it as a political tool.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Agreed. Nothing wrong with being a housewife. But there is something wrong with a man assuming a woman is one.

Bringing a dead baby home….yeah kinda creepy. But I can’t really comment on that. Losing a baby is such an awful experience that you can’t fault someone for grieving in their own way. I’ll give anyone a pass when it comes to their reactions at the death of a child. Really none of my – or your – business.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

I hate liberal Mormons. Or strongly dislike. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

It’s interesting you use the term “social conservative.”

The way you define it keeps it puts it at odds with true Reaganist conservatism. Especially your second point, which assumes that there would not be the possibility of assistance for the fourteen children through private means. This is only true in a society in which private individuals donn’t have the means to help. An impoverished society, like an impoverished individual, isn’t prepared for emergencies such as the result of the octomom’s poor decision. A fiscally conservative society allows the individual to have financial power, and to joyfully exercise the inate human urge to help those in need. The welfare state causes the octomom to be a burden and at the same time encourages that kind of bad decision-making.

I’m surprised to have to explain this here.

TXGOP on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

I think Flapjack is making things up about Santy’s baby.
To say he was using his dead baby as a political too just seems way too cynical.
Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Take it up with Ann Coulter.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

you think someone’s opinion or wishes should take precedence over a legal guardian. You have no respect for our system and do not realize that what you desire could be used against you someday.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Um … when the legal guardian is actually suspected by many to have caused the condition, possibly via attempted murder?

Yes.

Also, your wording is intellectually dishonest. Substituting the phrase “someone’s wishes” in place of the phrase “wishes of the entire immediate family” is not exactly accurate, is it?

Oh, and yeah … there’s this.

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Take it up with Ann Coulter.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Coulter tends to lose her marbles in election years.

She’s not the final word on conservativism.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Why is there an assumption that only Evangelicals and Social Conservatives are hoping for Rick Santorum to win? Economic and Foreign Policy Conservatives should be hoping for it as well, the other front runners are not conservative on either front.

Reserve the term Social Conservative for Conservatives who’s Conservative credentials are solely on the social front, like Mike Huckabee or Pat Robertson. Rick Santorum’s credentials are all around.

vegconservative on December 29, 2011 at 3:07 PM

I’m not a social con, I’m not even religious. I even believe in gay marriage!

However I’m supporting Bachmann and if that doesn’t work out I’ll be all in for Santorum!

It’s about getting a real conservative to fix our economy, end crony capitalism, and be strong in the war on terror.

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Obama’s people are a lot more united than Republicans are. Read Kos or HuffPo comments and compare them with HA comments. Their goal is defeat Republicans. Our goal….attack Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Newt until he/she cries for mercy.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Rassmussen 12/28 Ron Paul: 22%
Rassmussen 12/19 Ron Paul: 20%

PPP 12/27 Ron Paul: 24%
PPP 12/18 Ron Paul: 23%

Insider Advantage 12/28 Ron Paul: 17%
Insider Advantage 12/18 Ron Paul: 24% (a drop I already mentioned)

CNN/Time poll has a flawed sampling method.

2 of 3 polls, Paul has risen since last week. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Looking at PPP’s data, since they actually provide in depth data sheets, Paul’s supporters second choice is Bachmann and Romney tied at 31%. Where is Santorum? Way down at 13%. Paul stumbling would help Romney, not Santorum.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Bringing a dead baby home is creepy. Especially since he is using it as a political tool.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Mortuary photography, especially of children, was done all the time in the 19th century. In many cases the only photograph a family might have had of a family member who died in childhood was a mortuary photograph.

But the Santorum thing has a kind of weird Victorian creepiness that just magnifies his unsettling concern with what people do in their bedrooms. I think most people are going to be put off with his fixation on legislating sexual and other morality.

PetecminMd on December 29, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Romney is a very weak candidate and Obama can easily damage him by being nice and saying ‘Thanks Mitt for helping me with Obamacare. You and your friend and collaborator Ted Kennedy were a deciding influence in making it happen‘.

They just haven’t bothered with much in the way of attacks on Romney because they know how to destroy him. They did it in 1994, and they have a stronger card to play in 2012.

Very weak. The guy is not great on the economy. Look at MA. It can also be seen that Bain bought out companies dealing with medicare fraud.
It might be unfair for bain but it is really difficult to explain what Bain does to independents and Romney is no messenger. It’s why it worked as a line of attack against him. He’ll be portrayed by the media as a wall street guy laying off main street. Him not releasing his tax returns and corporations are people wont help seeing that the media will trump them up.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:38 PM

The talk of her profession had nothing to do with anything in the townhall. And most women today would find it an insult to be called a housewife. And no. Bringing a dead baby home is creepy. Especially since he is using it as a political tool.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM

I’ve seen some women get outraged by being called a housewife, and others not so. That seems to have less to do with the respect Santorum shows to others and more with the conniptions of the individual. Being a housewife is not some kind of intrinsically dirty thing. Taking offense at that does remind me one time of going to a barber shop. A lady was cutting my hair, and I asked what “you and the other barbers do” for recreation. She immediately chewed me out for calling her a barber rather than a hair stylist. No offense was intended, nor is a barber some kind of disgraceful profession. Nonetheless she insisted on a lecture anyway. I said nothing in response (out of fear for my scalp), but it seemed a little ridiculous.

Again, I see nothing wrong with showing respect to a dead child by treating the kid as someone deserving of recognition and a burial, rather than simply being tossed in a dumpster.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Santorum is picking up all the Ron Paul voters as they learn the truth about his past. This could happen.

Face it you Romney and Gingrich fake conservatives …

Conservatives can’t stand either of the global warming, healthcare mandate, illegal alien amnesty loving, socialist frauds.

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Well said. Finally some good news. It’s great to see a real conservative that the media and establishment has written off finally get some real traction.

You hit the nail on the head. Bending on mandates, illegal immigration, and global warming are key issues that we can’t afford to look the other way on.

Of course, the Romneybots have no principles.

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 4:39 PM

I think Joseph Smith was a teller of tall tales.

The Romney supporters equate that to hating Mormons.

I understand the politics of their accusations.

Going after Romney hard for being a Mormon would really just get him sympathy and obscure my real problems with him.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Take it up with Ann Coulter.
aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM
Coulter tends to lose her marbles in election years.
She’s not the final word on conservativism.
Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:36 PM

You missed the reference.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Looking at PPP’s data, since they actually provide in depth data sheets, Paul’s supporters second choice is Bachmann and Romney tied at 31%. Where is Santorum? Way down at 13%. Paul stumbling would help Romney, not Santorum.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM

PPP is not taken seriously around here. It’s run by Democrats. They’re partnered with SEIU and DailyKos. Not exactly the best source for info on a Republican primary race.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Him not releasing his tax returns and corporations are people wont help seeing that the media will trump them up.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Well he took government handouts for Bain and sought subsidies for the companies that Bain dealt with so his ‘capitalism’ comes with a truckload of government cash attached.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Ok,

well you will have to elaborate a bit more on Ann Coulter and whatever your point is.

I think she’s so in the tank for Romney that it probabloy even embarrasses her at this point. I can’t take her seriously as an objective observer on the other candidates.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Also, if you look at last weeks PPP data, Santorum fairs even worse as Paul’s supporter’s second choice.

Come back with arguments supported by more than conjecture or your “gut feeling.”

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:43 PM

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Yeah. Good luck with that.

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM

It’s interesting you use the term “social conservative.”

The way you define it keeps it puts it at odds with true Reaganist conservatism. Especially your second point, which assumes that there would not be the possibility of assistance for the fourteen children through private means. This is only true in a society in which private individuals donn’t have the means to help. An impoverished society, like an impoverished individual, isn’t prepared for emergencies such as the result of the octomom’s poor decision. A fiscally conservative society allows the individual to have financial power, and to joyfully exercise the inate human urge to help those in need. The welfare state causes the octomom to be a burden and at the same time encourages that kind of bad decision-making.

I’m surprised to have to explain this here.

TXGOP on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Ai yi yi. Let me again clarify my position since I didn’t seem to do so adequately the first time.

I am not saying that charitable aid for the children should be prohibited. Quite the contrary, I think it should be permitted since the kids are not responsible for the actions of the mother.

What I am taking issue with (outside of treating the kids as a means to an end) is the recklessness of the implantation itself. There is no guarantee that private money will flow to her, and there is probable cause to suspect that it will run out quickly. People of good intentions aren’t looking to support mooches.

Consequently, while it’s possible that she could subsist, it’s also possible that she may not. Since it’s more probable that she won’t than will without state aid (and that probability rises as incentives change with the recognition that she’s being supported leading to more IVF treatments), prudence suggests that we intervene to ensure that we aren’t creating generations of children who have parents that have them conceived for personal gain, neglect their own upbringing, and who cannot provide for their continued survival.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 4:45 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Partnered? rofl

There’s a difference between partnering and commissioning.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM

No argument? Not surprising.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Going after Romney hard for being a Mormon would really just get him sympathy and obscure my real problems with him.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:39 PM

True. But that reminds me. If he is the nominee, then the media will give us crash courses in mormonism every night to turn off the bible belt. I really dont want Magic Underwear stories or how satan and jesus are brothers tales.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Come back with arguments supported by more than conjecture or your “gut feeling.”

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Coming from a Ron Paul supporter, that request is a little … ironic? I could think of a better description, but I don’t want to be offensive.

How’s your “gut feeling” on global security under a President Ron Paul? Heh. Why am I even responding to you?

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:49 PM

To say he was using his dead baby as a political too just seems way too cynical.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM

I agree. It takes a lot of courage to talk about this. As a father of four, to me it’s a beautiful story. I totally sympathize.

People misunderstand and are very judgmental, even revolted when they hear the story of Gabriel Santorum. That’s just one more reason Rick should understand the hypocrisy of wanting to limit the private actions of others that he can’t comprehend.

TXGOP on December 29, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

That cleared it up.
It appears I agree with you there, too.
Thanks!

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:49 PM

I’m not so concerned about global security as I am national security. Other countries can take care of themselves.

But, I’ll pose the same question back to you. Iran blockades the Gulf, and Europe’s economy crashes. How do you feel about global security?

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:53 PM

As it stands, Santorum could be a viable alternative to Romney if he can demonstrate an ability to swing indies to his side. We’ll see.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

WOW!!

This is the worst thing I’ve ever heard about Santorum!! csdeven likes him!!! Something’s wrong!!!

csdeven, I always thought your second choice to Mittens would be Maobama!

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 4:53 PM

TXGOP,

What do you think of my idea of Santy hosting a Sodomy Summit with you and others invited.

Work things out, patch things up and we can get on with the business of sending Obama back to Chicaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaago.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:55 PM

What’s this about Santorum driving around with dead baby? And then taking it to his house?

Yeah, no way anybody can say that’s not creepy. Who buries a family member in their house’s yard anyway?

Frothy is a creep and many people have noted that he gives them a sense of heebie jeebies when he speaks/debates. He is also disturbingly, creepily obsessed with the intimate details of gay sex.

Santorum = creepy as f*k.

Daikokuco on December 29, 2011 at 4:56 PM

And most women today would find it an insult to be called a housewife.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Then they would be idiots.
Its one of the most important jobs out there.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

AMEN.

One of the best bumper stickers I ever saw was on a soccer-mom’s minivan:
Get a real job, be a Housewife

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:56 PM

What’s this about Santorum driving around with dead baby? And then taking it to his house?

Yeah, no way anybody can say that’s not creepy. Who buries a family member in their house’s yard anyway?

Frothy is a creep and many people have noted that he gives them a sense of heebie jeebies when he speaks/debates. He is also disturbingly, creepily obsessed with the intimate details of gay sex.

Santorum = creepy as hell.

Daikokuco on December 29, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Daikokuco on December 29, 2011 at 4:56 PM

I find it a bit creepy but, it’s something he should have kept to himself. I mean, I have sympathy for him, and have seen what it’s like (not first hand) to lose a child before he/she was born.

But, the story is just unsettling.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:57 PM

It’s too bad Santy isn’t gay.

Sounds like he’s be our candidate if he was.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:58 PM

You know what’s kind of creepy….RomneyCare and the individual mandate

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:00 PM

I’m not so concerned about global security as I am national security. Other countries can take care of themselves.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 4:53 PM

You have no national security if the rest of the world passes you by militarily dumb&ss.

But, I’ll pose the same question back to you. Iran blockades the Gulf, and Europe’s economy crashes. How do you feel about global security?

Iran would only be successful blocking the gulf under Obama or Ron Paul. You get that, right? But then, you don’t CARE if Iran blocks the gulf and the world’s economy crashes, right? You don’t believe it’s any of our business. Not as long as you and the rest of the Paulbots are allowed to smoke pot freely, and drive on our roads while using meth.

I got you.

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:01 PM

csdevenon December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 4:53 PM

AwwwwWW CRAP!

Now I have to rethink my position on Santorum . . . .

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 5:01 PM

If he is the nominee, then the media will give us crash courses in mormonism every night to turn off the bible belt. I really dont want Magic Underwear stories or how satan and jesus are brothers tales.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Oh goodness, I don’t even want to imagine that mess. There are some things about Christianity that can make the uninitiated go “huh?”…but Mormonism zooms right past that point into “WTF?!” territory at 100 miles an hour.

MelonCollie on December 29, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Romney’s going to be the candidate.

Money wins out in the end, especially when the other candidates have none.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM

So when a Paulbot loses an argument, they revert to insults.

eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 4:23 PM

That’s progress. Usually they start with insults.

29Victor on December 29, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Hey, I’ve always said that secular moderates view Mormonism one rung up the Crazy Ladder from Scientology.

I’ve been gunned down by Romney fans as an anti-Mormon bigot.

Don’t shoot the messenger I say.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:05 PM

You know what’s kind of creepy….RomneyCare and the individual mandate

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:00 PM

No, that would be Obamacare. RomneyCare is just more regularly scheduled stupidity from the libtard haven of Taxachussetts.

But Obamacare has the potential to wreck healthcare nationwide. As in, you can’t move anywhere in the USA that isn’t affected by it.

MelonCollie on December 29, 2011 at 5:05 PM

New Poll!?
———–

Romney leading Gingrich, 27% to 23%, for national lead among GOP voters in latest Gallup poll – @gallupnewsStory metadata:
Submitted 1 hour ago from http://www.gallup.com by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

December 29, 2011
Romney Edges Gingrich, 27% to 23%, for National GOP LeadGingrich down 14 points since early December; Romney up 5 points
*******************************************************

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151823/Romney-Edges-Gingrich-National-GOP-Lead.aspx

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM

I like Rick, always have.

If he keeps surging and it looks like he’s the new not-Romney, I’ll support him.

Watch out for the Romney establishment machine Rick.

IndeCon on December 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM

prudence suggests that we intervene to ensure that we aren’t creating generations of children who have parents that have them conceived for personal gain, neglect their own upbringing, and who cannot provide for their continued survival.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 4:45 PM

To be clear, I wasn’t trying to say that you meant to prohibit private benevolence.

The nature of the intervention is what is at issue. Is there to be a limit on the number of kids a parent can have? Would that be determined by income or other factors? Would a new or present government agency be required to administer the policy? Would IVF clinics run each prospective case by a government review board to obtain permission for each fertilization? In my view (and Reagan’s and any anti-welfare statist’s), government’s role isn’t to protect people from making mistakes. It should make sure that people take responsibility for them.

But even in our current messed up economy, if you totally took away octomom’s welfare “enslavety net,” help is close at hand for the asking through churches and private charities. And she’s still morally and legally liable for any harm done to her children. The more the economy is constricted by bailouts (corporate welfare), socialized healthcare and expanded entitlement programs, the less real help is available.

TXGOP on December 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM

So you think the RomneyCare guy is going to be passionate about repealing Obamacare?

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM

My eyes are wide open with regard to Romney. I recognize the good and the bad.

Fact is that he is far and away the most competent of the candidates we have to choose from, and when his record is put in context it is not nearly as liberal as the ABR crowd would have people believe.

gotsig on December 29, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Competent??? He’s a disgrace??

What’s he ever done other than govern Taxachussetts as a liberal and say anything to get elected?? He implemented the blueprint for Obamacare. He said let’s repeal the bad parts of Obamacare and KEEP the good parts!!!

The state was 49th in job creation under him. John Holdren was an advisor in MA on how to implement carbon caps!!

Mittens has been invisible on the issues of the day over the last few years. He’s a gutless coward who won’t call Maobama a socialist and gets rattled from a Bret Baier interview!

Now your eyes are open to Mittens.

Thank me for your post!!

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Paul supports a strong national defense. He opposes all the offensive spending (there’s no national defense interests in Libya, for example). Bring out troops home, keep America strong and safe.

Iran would only be successful blocking the gulf under Obama or Ron Paul. You get that, right? But then, you don’t CARE if Iran blocks the gulf and the world’s economy crashes, right? You don’t believe it’s any of our business.

First, it’s up to the European nations to protect their interests. If they want the oil, they should work with Iran themselves.

However, if we continue to push Iran around and sounding the war drums, Iran blockading the gulf will happen.

Do you want my views on the best way to protect America from nations like Iran? This sums it up very well.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

We going to need to waterboard Romney when’s he gets the nomination. He needs a come to Jesus moment. We don’t want a repeat of McCain’s weak campaign strategy, and that’s what it’s looking like so far with our Smart Candidate.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Not as long as you and the rest of the Paulbots are allowed to smoke pot freely, and drive on our roads while using meth.

I got you.

Crap forgot again…

It’s liberty, not libertine.

and drive on our roads

Cute.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 5:10 PM

How is Ron Paul even in play? The racist newletters would have ended the campaign of any other Republican candidate.

That’s why I think he’s getting little Republican support.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Obama’s people are a lot more united than Republicans are. Read Kos or HuffPo comments and compare them with HA comments. Their goal is defeat Republicans. Our goal….attack Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Newt until he/she cries for mercy.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM

What is your suggestion?

This is a primary and we need to vet candidates.

We need a real conservative and cannot settle for anymore big gov’t RINO’s. The stakes are too high, beating Maobama is simply not good enough.

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Wow. You copy and paste real well. Too bad you ignored the fact that my comment was 100% accurate and decided to post inaccurate campaign quotes from the Paul campaign.

You can keep repeating that nonsense a million times and it’s not going to make it any more true.

If you don’t think Iran blocking the gulf impacts our country, you’re a moron. Yes, and Ron Paul is a moron. And no, as I stated before, and you completely ignored … the only way Iran would be successful in blocking the gulf would be with Obama or Ron Paul as President. So your answer is void.

As for countries “working with Iran” … you sound like a classic liberal panzie who believes you can walk through the desert to the Taliban and work things out over a few cups of tea. Give it a try yourself. I’ll even pay for your round trip airfare.

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:18 PM

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 5:10 PM

What? You’re saying they’re not our roads? Who do the roads here in the U.S belong to? Mexico? Oh wait.

I’ll tell you what. You go ahead and drive under the influence all you want. Just give me your name and home address so I can let you know how I feel if you happen to take out one of my family members in the process. It would be my freedom under liberty to shoot you in the forehead if I desire, right?

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Santorum Responds!
==================

Santorum defends votes for “Bridge to Nowhere” and other political earmarks
3:56 PM, Dec 29, 2011
**********************

Muscatine, Ia. – Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is defending his votes to spend federal money on politically earmarked projects, including the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska that was never built.

Earmarks are the practice of a member of Congress directing spending to be used on specific programs, typically within the lawmakers’ own state or congressional district. Such targeted spending has often criticized as a wasteful use of taxpayers’ dollars and an example of pork barrel politics.

Santorum, who spoke to reporters after a town hall meeting with about 100 people at the Button Factory restaurant Thursday, said he “absolutely” acknowledges using earmarks to help his constituents in Pennsylvania during his 12 years in the U.S. Senate.

““Go and look at the Constitution. Who has the responsibility to spend money? Clearly, in the Constitution it is the Congress,” Santorum said. “Now what has happened is that the system was abused and it got a bad name and as a result of that, I have said, “Look. The Congress has lost the public trust and they have to be suspended.” “

Santorum, who is predicting his Republican presidential candidacy has a strong chance of a top three finish in Tuesday’s Iowa Caucuses, came under attack in Iowa on Thursday from rival GOP candidate Rick Perry. The Texas governor questioned Santorum’s credentials as a conservative, both during Perry’s speeches and in a new radio advertisement released Thursday.

“Sen. Santorum, he is a prolific earmarker,” Perry said during a campaign stop Thursday in Cedar Rapids. “I love Iowa pork, but I don’t like Washington pork. That’s the problem. That Washington pork is the one we’ve got to watch out for. It will give you a stomach ache that lasts for a long, long time. …. Well, senator, I’m calling you out.”

However, Perry himself entered Texas into controversial contracts with Washington lobbyists who helped bring billions of dollars in federal money to Perry’s home state, some of it via earmarks, according to an August report in the Huffington Post.

Lobbying disclosure reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate show that Perry’s lobbyists focused heavily on two topics: transportation appropriations and federal health care funding. This included $754.4 million from 231 earmarks for Texas transportation projects, according to a database of the nonpartisan budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense.

(More….)
===========

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/29/santorum-defends-vote-for-bridge-to-nowhere-and-other-political-earmarks/

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

How is Ron Paul even in play?

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Because the GOP elitists are trying to force Romney and Gingrich down our throats and people are grasping at straws trying to avoid it.

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Wow. You copy and paste real well. Too bad you ignored the fact that my comment was 100% accurate and decided to post inaccurate campaign quotes from the Paul campaign.

The only copy/paste I do is your comments. I know my positions on foreign policy and have no need to copy them from elsewhere. I’m fortunate I have a candidate that agrees with my viewpoint.

As for countries “working with Iran” … you sound like a classic liberal panzie who believes you can walk through the desert to the Taliban and work things out over a few cups of tea. Give it a try yourself. I’ll even pay for your round trip airfare.

Iran … Taliban

Excuse me while I stop taking you seriously.

…you sound like a classic liberal panzie…

Says the guy complaining about people driving on your roads.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 5:25 PM

How is Ron Paul even in play?

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM

It’s going to be either him or Mittens Wrongney, who despite a sudden surge of shilling is DESPISED (correctly) by most conservatives.

Which would you rather have -a guy you’ll hate 50% of the time or 100% of the time?

MelonCollie on December 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Terri Schiavo is not a good issue/example for the purpose of invalidating Rick Santorum. Moving my previous post forward.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Perhaps you should read the thread. I wasn’t using Schaivo to invalidate Santorum. In fact, I am not the one who brought her into this thread.

So when a Paulbot loses an argument, they revert to insults.

eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 4:23 PM

What insult? Misrepresenting what I said is dishonest. It is not an insult to point it out.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:22 PM

You obviously have no clue what libertarianism stands for. I’ll give you a starting point.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

To be clear, I wasn’t trying to say that you meant to prohibit private benevolence.

The nature of the intervention is what is at issue. Is there to be a limit on the number of kids a parent can have? Would that be determined by income or other factors? Would a new or present government agency be required to administer the policy? Would IVF clinics run each prospective case by a government review board to obtain permission for each fertilization? In my view (and Reagan’s and any anti-welfare statist’s), government’s role isn’t to protect people from making mistakes. It should make sure that people take responsibility for them.

But even in our current messed up economy, if you totally took away octomom’s welfare “enslavety net,” help is close at hand for the asking through churches and private charities. And she’s still morally and legally liable for any harm done to her children. The more the economy is constricted by bailouts (corporate welfare), socialized healthcare and expanded entitlement programs, the less real help is available.

TXGOP on December 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM

On limiting the number of kids — we’re not talking about a limit on the number of children in a family. After all, children can still be created through natural conception and many immigrant families have large numbers of children (although the number of years between first and last child acts as a natural check from allowing things to get out of hand), and at some point, if for no other reason, it becomes impractical to try and police that.

Rather, we’re talking about adopting a policy meant to curtail a particular abuse through IVF clinics when presented with a situation where there’s information that the state will have easy access to and ability to oversee.

That policy may range from anything such as means-testing (e.g. no more than 2 implanatations per X 1000s of dollars of current annual income) to conditions testing (is the prospective IVF patient married or not) to outright prohibition on IVF clinics. The former 2 sorts of “testing” are already taken into account regarding adoption agencies. I personally favor outright prohibition, but I understand that people of good intentions may disagree, and think that the prior 2 methods, although not optimal, are nonetheless improvements.

I agree with you that Reagan didn’t want to save people from themselves. As my grandma used to say, “I can’t save you from your own stupidity” and “If you fall and break your legs, don’t come running to me.” At the same time, when it comes to IVF, the parties whose welfare are of interest are the parties with no say or voice in the matter — the children.

Since your handle, TXGOP likely indicates your state of residence, I can understand your willingness to let private charities and churches handle everything since they exist in abundance there. However, America is a culturally fragmented place, and I can assure you that there are many places where those sorts of resources are not so plentiful. That is why a policy, at some level of government, is needed.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Competent??? He’s a disgrace??

What’s he ever done other than govern Taxachussetts as a liberal and say anything to get elected?? He implemented the blueprint for Obamacare. He said let’s repeal the bad parts of Obamacare and KEEP the good parts!!!

The state was 49th in job creation under him. John Holdren was an advisor in MA on how to implement carbon caps!!

Mittens has been invisible on the issues of the day over the last few years. He’s a gutless coward who won’t call Maobama a socialist and gets rattled from a Bret Baier interview!

Now your eyes are open to Mittens.

Thank me for your post!!

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 5:07 PM

B-bu-b-but he’s a rePUUUUUUblican…

Seriously though, amen brutha.

TXGOP on December 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Thoughtful discussion Stoic Patriot. Thank you.

TXGOP on December 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM

If you follow liberal politics, you’d see the dems are just as upset as the republicans. The Obama apologists are the only happy ones this year.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM

We going to need to waterboard Romney when’s he gets the nomination. He needs a come to Jesus moment. We don’t want a repeat of McCain’s weak campaign strategy, and that’s what it’s looking like so far with our Smart Candidate.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

I like alot of what you say except for this.

No votes have even been cast yet, Mittens is far from having anything wrapped up.

I think he’s going to have major problems in the South.

If Bachmann flames out, I’ll support Santorum. I’ll even support Newt over Mittens.

Let’s not concede anything to this wimp. Let’s hold his feet to the fire and stop him at all costs!

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM

The only copy/paste I do is your comments. I know my positions on foreign policy and have no need to copy them from elsewhere. I’m fortunate I have a candidate that agrees with my viewpoint.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Liar. You’re a zombie Paulbot. You blindly post his views withtout any regard for whether or not they make any sense.

Excuse me while I stop taking you seriously.

What happened? Are YOU not serious about your beliefs? Not confident? Iran’s government … Afghanistan … al Qaeda … Taliban. They’re called “radical Islamists.” Say it with me. Sound it out. I’m 100% serious. I’ll pay for your tickets. What’s the matter? You don’t believe in your own policy, that you can work things out with the Islamists? Or are you just a coward?

Says the guy complaining about people driving on your roads.

Of course, I didn’t say they were mine though, did I? I said they were “ours.” I know the two words look almost identical.

“Mine”
“Our”

You’re a clown, aren’t you?

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:36 PM

You are the one who brought up going to Iran to have tea with the Taliban. Its obvious that you just string together “scary” buzzwords, but are clearly ignorant. You have beclowned yourself enough, Gregoo.

Daikokuco on December 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Um … when the legal guardian is actually suspected by many to have caused the condition, possibly via attempted murder?

Ridiculous. Another attempt to smear and demonize the man to get around the law.

Also, your wording is intellectually dishonest. Substituting the phrase “someone’s wishes” in place of the phrase “wishes of the entire immediate family” is not exactly accurate, is it?.

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

There was nothing intellectually dishonest in what I wrote. Perhaps you aren’t familiar with grammatical rules and rhetorical devices?

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:36 PM
You are the one who brought up going to Iran to have tea with the Taliban. Its obvious that you just string together “scary” buzzwords, but are clearly ignorant. You have beclowned yourself enough, Gregoo.

Daikokuco on December 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Wrong. Gregor has the courage to stand up to a Paulbot.

Rumpelstiltskin is a dangerous wacko who wants to cut our military by 40-50% and allow Iran to get the bomb.

He’s a modern day Neville Chamberlain who makes Maobama look like General Patton.

The only clowns are you Paulbots. What are you going to say next, that he didn’t know what was in those newsletters? Just like Maobama never heard any of those racist or anti-Semite remarks after sitting in that church for 20 years right?

Actually, it’s worse in RuPaul’s case. He made a million dollars a year off those hateful newsletters in the 90′s!

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Do you submerge a drowning man in water to save him? Do you set a burn victim on fire? Do you bring peace through war?

I’m completely serious about my beliefs. I point that out because you’re credibility is in question here.

You also don’t understand clusivity and the direct implications of your words.

Now, with that said, I’ll let you continue to peddle your hatred.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM

I wonder what his support would look like after some democrats run ads quoting him and his wife stating that they showed off their dead child to their other children and then slept with the body overnight before returning it to the hospital.
thphilli on December 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM

I think that you have never had a miscarriage. I also think that you underestimate how many women in the country have.

This is not creepy. What they did is deal with death in a way that our society usually deals with death…display the body, mourn over it, pray over it, then bury it.

Have you never gone to an open casket funeral?

cptacek on December 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 3:44 PM
========================================

Probably just over zealous Paul supporters. Both groups appear to be of the same ilk…jilted Obama voters.

Norky on December 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Norky:I fully agree,(Political Insurgents)I kid!!

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM

blondie2011 on December 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM

You didn’t say what you think of Perry?

cptacek on December 29, 2011 at 5:50 PM

You are the one who brought up going to Iran to have tea with the Taliban. Its obvious that you just string together “scary” buzzwords, but are clearly ignorant. You have beclowned yourself enough, Gregoo.

Daikokuco on December 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Reading comprehension 101.

No, I didn’t. I said he believes you can walk through the desert and work things out over a few cups of tea with the Taliban. That was in response to his comment that countries can work things out with Iran. My response was suggesting that you’re not able to work things out with radical Islamists. I never said “fly to Iran to have tea with the Taliban, but since when does reality matter to Ron Paul nutjobs?

Go smoke another joint Daikookoo

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Iran would only be successful blocking the gulf under Obama or Ron Paul. You get that, right? But then, you don’t CARE if Iran blocks the gulf and the world’s economy crashes, right? You don’t believe it’s any of our business.

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Iran is reacting to being provoked and threatened. There would be no talk of blocking the gulf if they were left alone to pursue their sovereign interests. And I don’t care if they do block the gulf. One, it’s not ours, and two, it would not collapse the world economy. It is not our business nor is it our problem.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Well I think it’s probably over for Newt….too many attacks on him by people consider conservatives.

I think in the final analysis, Newt has been more or less been the stalking horse for Romney, not by design, but because his “baggage” overshadowed all the flaws Romney has.

It’s easier to paint Newt as a villian than Romney because Romney has a mild mannered personality and is the good family man.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Thanks rubberneck. It’s good to know that although Santorum disagrees with the act of homosexuality, he understands that it’s a states rights issue and that the supreme court over steps when ruling on cases such as Roe v. Wade. Again, feeling stronger about him.

mtucker5695 on December 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM

lol, that’s what I got out of his quote too! I think that one kind of backfired, rubberneck.

cptacek on December 29, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4