Report: Perry’s internal polling confirms that Santorum’s surge is real

posted at 8:50 pm on December 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

So says Stephen Hayes, reporting for the Weekly Standard. If he’s right, then your final three for the Republican presidential nomination are the guy who came up with RomneyCare, the guy who got blown out in Pennsylvania by almost 20 points five years ago, and Ron Paul.

Second look at seppuku?

A CNN poll of registered Iowa Republicans released Wednesday puts Santorum in third place with 16 percent of the vote – his highest share yet. It’s not an outlier. In fact, data from Perry’s internal daily tracking polling shows that the Santorum surge is real and that he has the potential to continue gaining in the days before voters gather for the caucuses next Tuesday.

The polling was described to TWS by a strategist for a rival campaign and confirmed by a source familiar with the numbers. The four important takeaways from Perry’s polling: Mitt Romney is “pulling away” from a group of four second-tier candidates bunched together behind him; Ron Paul’s numbers have dropped steadily in the aftermath of the attention given his troubling newsletters; Santorum’s rise has coincided with the erosion of support for Newt Gingrich; and Michele Bachmann is in danger of becoming a non-factor in the race…

One number Team Romney is watching carefully is Bachmann’s. According to a senior Iowa Republican, Romney’s team is concerned that if her support dips below 8-10 percent of the vote – where she’s been hanging in recent weeks – Santorum could present Romney with a real challenge. And further erosion for Bachmann could happen. On Wednesday, her campaign chairman defected to Ron Paul’s campaign and now a Super Pac that was once supporting her candidacy is backing Romney.

If Romney’s pulling away then I’m not sure why it matters who’s surging and who isn’t. That said, the point about Bachmann’s fade is interesting and timely given that she lost another senior staffer today: Romney (and Paul) need to divide the social-con candidates in order to conquer, so if Santorum is emerging from that bracket, then the best hope for the “Anyone But Mitt” diehards out there is for Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann to fold ASAP. Bachmann will quit after Iowa, I think, but the other two will soldier on — potentially to Romney’s benefit and Santorum’s detriment in South Carolina.

One more detail about Bachmann, via Politico: The long-held suspicions that she’s been going easy on Mitt and hard on his opponents because she covets the VP spot are … confirmed.

She repeatedly passed up opportunities to ding Mitt Romney in the debates — a product, Rollins said, of preserving her options for sharing a ticket with him.

“There was some talk early on between her and her husband that she could end up as the vice presidential nominee,” Rollins said.

I’ve argued before that she couldn’t possibly seriously think Romney would put her on the ticket, but there you go. Strange days, my friends. Meanwhile, the good news for Santorum is that he’s in for a weekend full of sunny press and then, if he wins, another week after that in the run-up to New Hampshire. The media loves a cinderella story and political journalists find it gratifying to see his old-school Iowa strategy — camp out, hit all 99 counties, press the flesh — paying off. He’s their guy, right up until the moment when he starts to look like he has an outside shot at the nomination, when they’ll turn on him as some sort of “American Taliban” holy warrior or whatever. For a sharper critique, read Erick Erickson’s take on Santorum as more of a “pro-life statist” than a conservative. Reason enough not to prefer him to Mitt?

Here’s Perry’s ad taking aim at the new social conservative frontrunner; Santorum’s allies are already punching back. Just think, if all goes according to Romney’s plan in Iowa, we’ll be spending next Wednesday batting around suggestions for who should primary him four years from now. Exit question: In 2008, two-thirds of the party didn’t like the nominee. This year, three-quarters don’t. When do we get someone who can excite a majority of Republicans?


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 5

Harpazoon December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

That was a much better description of all of the dynamics that lead to Rick’s loss in 2006, than I’ve been able to put together.
Thanks! : )

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 11:52 PM

I’m not a big fan of Reason. Makes me sound kind of nutty. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 11:53 PM

I would like to back Santorum, but he opposes E-Verify for getting a handle on illegal immigration and voter fraud in this country — both of which are among the top issues facing us. Arizona is on the conservative front line on the issue of illegal immigration and it wants E-Verify (or comparable) technology to defend against illegal-immigrant abuse of state taxpayer-funded offices and social-service programs. (Minnesota is on the front line of election fraud, but it has a liberal Democrat governor who has no interest in protecting the rights of Minnesotans to an honest election process.)

So I’m for either Romney or Bachmann.

Sorry, Rick. I’m less interested in evangelical social positions and more interested in fundamental issues of U.S. sovereignty and electoral accountability.

minnesoter on December 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM

If the race goes badly..

…it’s time for Perry and MB to drop out.

NO MITT ROMNEY

NO more Progressive Gerald Ford/Bush/Dole/McCain nominees

PappyD61 on December 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM

The socon crowd just never gets tired of being jerked around. They just keep falling for the same line of bull.

Yeah, ________ is surging and will save you from Romney. That mean ole establishment RINO pick, or something.

Moesart on December 29, 2011 at 11:52 PM

The “socon crowd” or just actual conservatives of any stripe?

steebo77 on December 29, 2011 at 11:56 PM

I would like to back Santorum, but he opposes E-Verify for getting a handle on illegal immigration and voter fraud in this country — both of which are among the top issues facing us. Arizona is on the conservative front line on the issue of illegal immigration and it wants E-Verify (or comparable) technology to defend against illegal-immigrant abuse of state taxpayer-funded offices and social-service programs. (Minnesota is on the front line of election fraud, but it has a liberal Democrat governor who has no interest in protecting the rights of Minnesotans to an honest election process.)

So I’m for either Romney or Bachmann.

Sorry, Rick. I’m less interested in evangelical social positions and more interested in fundamental issues of U.S. sovereignty and electoral accountability.

minnesoter on December 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Somebody’s read Ann Coulter’s recent column shilling for Romney.

But let’s not forget, Romney was for McCain’s amnesty plan. Coulter leaves that out of her column though. Can’t give conservatives the full story. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 11:59 PM

To sustain the momentum, Santorum needs to gain either Bachmann (not likely) or Palin’s (not likely under SC at the earliest). However, look for Rush Limbaugh to plug the new polls in early January–particularly Santorum’s rise (for past 2-3 weeks Rush has been pushing Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry for conservatives).

Santorum’s biggest hurdle will be the media bashing (destroying) his pro-life stance after his top 3 Iowa finish (still 4:3 odds to overall IA victory). Next 2 weeks Santorum can win on Terri Schievo, privatizing Social Security, and his fiscal conservatism. Santorum is only one of a few politicians who can out-talk Social Security with Newt. Remember also that Santorum provided the hardest rebuke to Paul’s Iran policy in the debate (go back and re-read the transcript…Bachmann got in the word “dangerous” in response to Ron Paul, but it was Santorum’s explanation of reality WRT Iran that really destroyed and exposed Paul’s foreign policy position. If Iran attacks our forces or shuts down Strait of Hormuz, Santorum’s strong military stance and hawkish views will get good response from electorate about to seeing $1.00-1.75 rise in gas prices.

As for the GOOGLE issue, I think Santorum will get sympathy from Americans tired of seeing TMZ ambush tactics and disgusted with freaks (i.e., OWS) hijacking common areas.

Deep Timber on December 30, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Now it’s Santorum’s turn to ride the Stop-Romney wave. But as that ad demonstrates, he can hardly pass muster as a fiscal conservative. He also has no experience as an executive or director of any large enterprise. He and the others, other than Perry, are all legislators, who think in terms of policies without having to worry about the details of implementing them. They can make bold and sweeping pronouncements and promises because they don’t know or care what it will take to make them happen.

The time to be preparing, organizing and fund raising for this election was the past three years. I read a lot of snarky remarks about Mitt having been running since 2008, but that seems to me to be his biggest advantage: his organizing, planning, fund raising and preparation. He seems to be the only one who has a realistic idea of what this campaign will take to win.

This country is suffering, like the traveler in the parable, lying wounded by the road, and when the one comes by who is best able to help, conservatives seem determined to turn him away because he’s a Samaritan and wait for a priest or Levite to come along. It ought to be clear by now that nobody else is coming except more of the thieves who brought us to this pass in the first place.

flataffect on December 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Dr T, besides TARP and supporting Bush when he was a backbencher and had no choice, what are you talking about?

Also, did you see my last post with the link? I’d like your opinion on that article.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/10/paul-ryan-radical-or-sellout

cpaulus on December 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM

So, really, what it boils down to is nobody really likes Romney, but when we look at everyone else, we don’t like them either.

Looks like we will be voting for the orange juice can after all.

Tennman on December 30, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Every Iowa Republican that voted for Palin to be VP can send a message to Republicans and Write-In P-A-L-I-N. 5 Letters can change the world!

CoolChange80 on December 29, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Optimistic, yes…But for Palins sake, I hope she decides NOT to run this cycle, but instead tries to go for the RNC chairmanship…THEN after or near 2014-15 she should attempt to make a candidacy for the WH.

She has strong following, but her weakness will be the attempts of the Pop Culture to define her politics. But to her defense, this is a problem for a lot of GOP candidates that are or at least give the appearance to being solid to Conservative values.

Gaffes will always be a part of the equation, more so when its a Republican, and to be fair, she’s made a few. But no way is she any worse than the Golfer-and-Chief Executive we’ve let win the WH.

BlaxPac on December 30, 2011 at 12:03 AM

Romney/Santorum 2012.

Deal with it.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 12:04 AM

cpaulus,

Google “Matt Lewis” “Paul Ryan” and something else like “TARP”.

He wrote a piece on Paul Ryan. Pretty funny actually.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:04 AM

The very conservative Heritage Foundation was one of the main contributors to Romneycare. You know, the Heritage Foundation that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity encourage people to join.

Also remember Ronald Reagan created the requirement that hospitals treat all comers for free if they have no insurance.

scotash on December 30, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Heritage disavows that idea now.

Romney still stands by it.

That’s the problem.

And it’s not like Romney was following Heritage on other issues outside of healthcare. His support for the ban on semi-automatic weapons wasn’t in Heritage, for example.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:07 AM

The very conservative Heritage Foundation was one of the main contributors to Romneycare. You know, the Heritage Foundation that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity encourage people to join.

Also remember Ronald Reagan created the requirement that hospitals treat all comers for free if they have no insurance.

scotash on December 30, 2011 at 12:06 AM

So what’s your alternative to EMTALA?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 30, 2011 at 12:09 AM

Yeah, I think that’s a fair criticism, though the article doesn’t say anything about the fact that he’s in a blue district. Do you think that a congressman should vote for what his constituency overwhelmingly want even if he personally disagrees? Obamacare comes to mind when thinking about this question, which I think it’s an interesting conundrum. I also think this is why Ryan needs to run for a higher office, so he’s not bound by a blue district.

cpaulus on December 30, 2011 at 12:12 AM

I don’t think most voters even know what TARP was about.

You are telling me if Ryan doesn’t vote for TARP, he loses re-election?

C’mon man. This blue district thing is an excuse.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:13 AM

..Santorum is only one of a few politicians who can out-talk Social Security with Newt. Remember also that Santorum provided the hardest rebuke to Paul’s Iran policy in the debate …Deep Timber

When he wasn’t grimacing and shaking his head, I thought that Santorum was the best debater of the bunch.

Is Santorum the NotRomney One we have all been looking for?

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Deep Timber…heh, what a screen name.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:17 AM

I don’t think most voters even know what TARP was about.

You are telling me if Ryan doesn’t vote for TARP, he loses re-election?

C’mon man. This blue district thing is an excuse.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:13 AM

No I was thinking auto bailout. He voted for TARP because a lot of conservatives believed that doing nothing, which was the choice Pelosi gave us, would have led to a collapse of the credit markets (the engine of capitalism) and allowed Obama to have a mandate to implement things during a crisis that would have put the US, long term, over the edge and turned us into Europe. Think FDR after his first election.

cpaulus on December 30, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Doing nothing meant not spending a pile of money on a manufactured crisis.

The deficit and debt are real problems. He adds to those problems by voting for things like TARP.

He shouldn’t be voting for auto bailouts if he’s a conservative. Sorry.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:19 AM

All ppoliticians like Paul Ryan do is advance the notion that certain companies are too big to fail, which is about as anti-capitalism and free market as you get. When the government starts propping up failures with our tax dollars, capitalism no longer exists.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:22 AM

Doing nothing meant not spending a pile of money on a manufactured crisis.

It was definitely not a manufactured crisis. It might have been overblown, but it was not manufactured. I know too many people who’s jobs it was to watch these kind of things–all very conservative–who convinced me that there was a very real crisis of banks collapsing left and right, causing some serious problems in the credit market. Overblown? Yes, not every bank should have been forced to take money. But it was definitely a crisis in which doing nothing was not really an option (though there were better conservative solutions that didn’t involve spending massive amounts of money).

cpaulus on December 30, 2011 at 12:24 AM

I think you present a false choice.

The choice doesn’t have to be government involvement and more spending to save the day.

The conservatives you talked to are boneheads.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Santorum represents everything we hated about the Bush years. He is the type of Republican that led to the disaster in 2006.

Go down the line:

1) No child left behind
2) Bloated Highway Bills
3) Earmarks, earmarks, and more earmarks. He gives McConnell a run for his money on earmarks
4) Medicare Part D
5) Followed the party line and endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004

So if you nominate Santorum, you really rile up the gay mafia, and every other lefty…… and what do you get in return?

A Big Government Bush Style Republican that won’t be able to say no to congress.

Rick Santorum actually makes Mitt Romney look good to me.

The Rick Santorum’s of the world are what destroyed the GOP to the point that led to the Democrat rise of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

One more thing, Santorum has no organization in any of the other states. So if he wins Iowa, he becomes the 2012 version of Huckabee. Later to be rewarded with a FOX news position by Roger Ailes or a cozy cabinet pick.

JB-STLMO on December 30, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Deep Timber on December 30, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Let me guess: you supported Cain too and thought he could beat Obama.

*Facepalm*

TheRightMan on December 30, 2011 at 12:27 AM

So I’m for either Romney or Bachmann.

Sorry, Rick. I’m less interested in evangelical social positions and more interested in fundamental issues of U.S. sovereignty and electoral accountability.

minnesoter on December 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Wow that’s really something.

It’s between a big gov’t liberal or a principled conservative for you??

You do realize that Mittens ran and governed as a liberal in MA right? THat he’s on the wrong side on health care mandates, global warming, and ethanoal subsidies.

That he has been absent on the issues of the day for the last three years. He wouldn’t even call Maobama a socialist and got rattled by a Bret Baier interview??

Oh and he appointed a bunch of liberal judges in MA and the state was 49th in job creation under him.

Now he has a 59 or something like that economic plan. Real concise!

Both Mittens and RuPaul must be stopped!

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Second look at seppuku?

Line of the day, had me cracked up, thanks AP…

HTnFBCoachnTX1980 on December 30, 2011 at 12:30 AM

If the race goes badly..

…it’s time for Perry and MB to drop out.

NO MITT ROMNEY

NO more Progressive Gerald Ford/Bush/Dole/McCain nominees

PappyD61 on December 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM

I agree. I’m a Bachmann supporter but it’s crucial to stop Mittens.

Santorum is my second choice so I’m happy to see him finally surging. I’d work hard to help him if he does well in Iowa to get a conservative to beat Mittens.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM

The choice doesn’t have to be government involvement and more spending to save the day.

The conservatives you talked to are boneheads.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM

No, actually, they’re heavily involved in economics and all agreed that doing nothing would have been a major risk. What percentage risk are you willing to take to give Obama unlimited power? Mine’s at 10%, doing nothing had a much higher risk of causing some real economic problems.

You are right, though. There were nonspending options to the problem, but of course, conservatives didn’t go and vote in 06 and lost us the House and Senate.

cpaulus on December 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Levin Fan,

That poster cut and pasted Ann Coulter’s recent pro-Romney column on here. Coulter throws in Bachman now that it looks like Bachman has no shot.

Anybody who thinks Romney is going to be the man on repealing Obamacare as well as immigration is delusional. That assertion isn’t based on anything his record or his past and current statements.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM

But it was definitely a crisis in which doing nothing was not really an option (though there were better conservative solutions that didn’t involve spending massive amounts of money).

cpaulus on December 30

I don’t know. Are the books on TARP open? My limited understanding is the whole thing is opaque. All we know is that there was a ton of devalued deriviatives that had been used like reall money all over the world. THere was a crisis and then ***poof*** problem solved by massive no interest loans and some 100 billion in give always. I would love a fuller explanation.

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 12:32 AM

cpaulus,

Everytime the Left cries Crisis, Paul is going to vote for huge spending bills that they claim will save the day.

Companies fail in capitalism. There may be some short term pain but life will go on. Government spending is out of control and we can’t afford to prop up failing companies with out tax dollars. That’s not the role of government.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Boxhead,

We are supposed to believe that politicians are experts on the banking industry and they could save the day.

This is the kind of “heroic” legislation they love to pass.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM

The very conservative Heritage Foundation was one of the main contributors to Romneycare. You know, the Heritage Foundation that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity encourage people to join.

Also remember Ronald Reagan created the requirement that hospitals treat all comers for free if they have no insurance.

scotash on December 30, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Wow that’s lame!

That was back in the 90′s and they were WRONG. The gov’t has NO business telling any citizen what to buy, period.

At least Newt has admitted he was wrong. Mittens is still defending his progressivism to this day.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 12:36 AM

I still don’t believe Romney got the idea from Heritage. He’s not the type to care what some conservative think tank cares about stuff.

He got the idea from Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the libs in Mass and he rolled with it.

Heritage is just his cover story now.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:38 AM

I don’t know. Are the books on TARP open? My limited understanding is the whole thing is opaque. All we know is that there was a ton of devalued deriviatives that had been used like reall money all over the world. THere was a crisis and then ***poof*** problem solved by massive no interest loans and some 100 billion in give always. I would love a fuller explanation.

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 12:32 AM

I know this isn’t going to make you feel better, but one of the people I’ve been talking about, who’s very conservative and helped me understand TARP, worked on those books, which aren’t public knowledge, and described the situation with enough evidence and detail for me to come to the conclusions I’m talking about. I know that’s not really going to instill a lot of confidence over the internet from some guy you don’t know, but I’m just trying to explain why Ryan did what he did (if he had the same numbers coming to him).

cpaulus on December 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Like Santorum, I am a social conservative and especially a right to lifer. I also have no regrets about voting for the traditional marriage amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution.

But I disagree with active campaigning against same sex marriage by candidates for federal office.

Unless and until the Defense of Marriage Act fails, this is not much of a federal issue, so why make a point of it?

The breakdown of traditional values regarding marriage, family and childbearing is a big time problem, probably our biggest by my reckoning. But where has most of the social damage come? I would say from “no-fault” divorce and remarriage, shacking up, and non-marital childbearing, in addition to abortion. Same sex relationships are in the mix, but a comparatively lesser factor. Successful politicians do not make blunderbuss attacks on the divorced and remarried, or on single parents, or women who have had abortions. It’s not just politically dumb, but unfair in any number of circumstances and for any number of reasons, notwithstanding the objective moral problems that are so often involved.

The question is why harp on people who act on same sex attractions, while ignoring those whose actions, in the aggregate, have caused much more social damage. Whatever one’s individual motivations, the contrast is an open invitation to charges of bigotry, and lends a certain coherence to Liberal arguments to that effect.

By contrast, the right to life issue is vastly more important, and at the federal level. Liberals don’t like us, but their usual trump card, i.e. that we’re just a bunch of narrow-minded bigots, has nowhere near the coherence.

Santorum seriously undermines himself by campaigning on the same-sex marriage issue, which is one reason I am likely to vote for Romney come Wisconsin primary time, though Jeb Bush remains my sentimental favorite.

Ronald Wallenfang on December 30, 2011 at 12:40 AM

It wasn’st just TARP and the auto bailout with Ryan.

It’s a big list of fiscal heresies.

He’s part of the problem in DC, not the solution.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:40 AM

ZGMF_Freedom on December 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Wow, you work really hard at being clever.

rubberneck on December 30, 2011 at 12:41 AM

We are supposed to believe that politicians are experts on the banking industry and they could save the day.

This is the kind of “heroic” legislation they love to pass.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Now that’s just being cynical. TARP had very little to do with saving companies and much more to do with keeping the credit market from going under.

cpaulus on December 30, 2011 at 12:42 AM

We are supposed to believe that politicians are experts on the banking industry and they could save the day.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Yeah, that’s another thing. Who made these decisions? Was there a debate? What sides were represented?

Good night HA.

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 12:42 AM

It seems like most of the criticism of Santorum is he isn’t gay enough, or pro-gay enough.

Seems such a trivial matter to disqualify him as our nominee, but I didn’t major in political science.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Now that’s just being cynical. TARP had very little to do with saving companies and much more to do with keeping the credit market from going under.

cpaulus on December 30, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Do you think pols like John McCain and Barack Obama know anything about credit markets?

C’mon man.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM

I’m out, I get worn out when I see citizens so easily duped by big spending pols.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Tennman

I believe you have discovered the Republican political thinking for the upcoming Presidential election:

“We need to nominate the candidate we don’t dislike the least and the one we don’t dislike any more than we dislike all the others.”

That should lead the Repubs to victory in 2012!

Too bad Rick Perry took early retirement – he coulda been a contender.

Horace on December 30, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Do you think pols like John McCain and Barack Obama know anything about credit markets?

C’mon man.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM

No, but I do think people like Paul Ryan do, which is whom we’re talking about. That was the problem, guys like Ryan need to be put in leadership position. You can only do so much when Pelosi and Obama are in charge.

cpaulus on December 30, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Santorum represents everything we hated about the Bush years. He is the type of Republican that led to the disaster in 2006.

Go down the line:

1) No child left behind

I agree this was a mistake. However, Mittens said during a recent debate that he likes parts of NCLB.

2) Bloated Highway Bills

This is bad.

3) Earmarks, earmarks, and more earmarks. He gives McConnell a run for his money on earmarks

Not good, but earmarks aren’t a major issue. The argument can be made that it’s money that’s already allocated to be spent. Why not have it spent on your district instead of letting Obama or whoever waste it? RuPaul has the same philosophy buy will put earmarks into bills and then vote against it when he knows it’ll pass just to say he voted against it. At least Santy is honest about it.

4) Medicare Part D

One of the biggest problems I have with Santy.

5) Followed the party line and endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004

The GOP needed to keep control of the Senate. Putting in Specter allowed the confirmations of ALito and Roberts which will be huge this spring for the Obamacare ruling.

So if you nominate Santorum, you really rile up the gay mafia, and every other lefty…… and what do you get in return?

A Big Government Bush Style Republican that won’t be able to say no to congress.

Rick Santorum actually makes Mitt Romney look good to me.

You’re kidding right?? The same Mittens who still supports the mandate to this day? The same Mittens who said let’s repeal the bad parts and keep the good parts of Obamacare? The same clown who had John Holdren as an advisor on how to implement carbon caps in MA??

The same coward who won’t call Maobama a socialist and is rattled by a Bret Baier interview??

In contrast, Santy refused to back off his support for the Iraq war despite its huge unpopularity during the election year in 2006.

He also told Iowans he’s against ethanol subsidies while Mittens has pandered to them saying he’s for it.

Santy is a conservative and Mittens is a big gov’t progressive wimp!

The Rick Santorum’s of the world are what destroyed the GOP to the point that led to the Democrat rise of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

One more thing, Santorum has no organization in any of the other states. So if he wins Iowa, he becomes the 2012 version of Huckabee. Later to be rewarded with a FOX news position by Roger Ailes or a cozy cabinet pick.

JB-STLMO on December 30, 2011 at 12:27 AM

If Santorum does well in Iowa anything can happen. He could even win SC and become the guy conservatives rally behind to beat the clown Mittens.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 12:49 AM

I have talked with Santorum many times. He did not come off distracted or ill at ease. He answered all my questions and was friendly. I have shared a beer with him at a BBQ and will be sharing another at ISU Bowl game party. I will be seeing him again on Sat. morning after I go over Caucus training with others. No I do not work for him. I am just a Iowa voter. When discussing serious issues he is a serious guy. When he is shooting the breeze, he is relaxed and friendly. I do not want another “cult of personalty” type. Obama drama can run on that. he has a good record as a Conservative. 2006 was a bad year for the GOP, remember Nanzi getting the gavel? PA has 1 million more Dems then Repubs. He is pro-life, guess what, the majority of Americans are too. He is not a progressive like Newt and Mitt and unlike Ron Paul he does see Iran as a threat. Iran has declared they want to blow up America many times, by government officials and the Imams that really rule Iran. He is not perfect but he does come closest to my principles. I do trust his word, he did not go wishy-washy middle of the road when running in a blue state. He has shown he can cut government by writing the Welfare Reform Bill. He has not shown himself to NOT have foot in mouth issues. I am voting for Rick Santorum.

IowaWoman on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

He has shown himself to NOT have foot in mouth issues. I am voting for Rick Santorum.
correction

IowaWoman on December 30, 2011 at 12:52 AM

If he’s right, then your final three for the Republican presidential nomination are the guy who came up with RomneyCare, the guy who got blown out in Pennsylvania by almost 20 points five years ago, and Ron Paul.

Second look at seppuku?

Melt. The. Bunny.

Lawdawg86 on December 30, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Levin Fan,

That poster cut and pasted Ann Coulter’s recent pro-Romney column on here. Coulter throws in Bachman now that it looks like Bachman has no shot.

Anybody who thinks Romney is going to be the man on repealing Obamacare as well as immigration is delusional. That assertion isn’t based on anything his record or his past and current statements.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Figures. Coulter is a joke.

I knew something was wrong when she said she’d vote for Hillary over McCain. All of us conservatives hated voting for McCain, but we did it anyways to beat the socialists.

Then she whored it up for Krispy Kreme Christy. And now Romney.

Didn’t she once date Bill Maher too?

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 12:52 AM

No thanks. I’ll pass. I’m voting for Ron Paul

Capitalist75 on December 30, 2011 at 12:55 AM

Ah, the sad fate of Gov. Perry,

“He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.”

Groucho Marx

ebrown2 on December 30, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Unless and until the Defense of Marriage Act fails, this is not much of a federal issue, so why make a point of it?
Ronald Wallenfang on December 30, 2011 at 12:40 AM

You do realize it is under ongoing attack by Holder (he refuses to enforce it) and by Democrats in the legislature bodies? Support for DOMA should not be mentioned until it’s completely overturned?

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Rumpelstiltskin/McKinney??

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 12:59 AM

No thanks. I’ll pass. I’m voting for Ron Paul

Capitalist75 on December 30, 2011 at 12:55 AM

Rumpelstiltskin/McKinney??

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Not to disrupt the discussion on economics, but there is a point I’ve missed making today.
Within the Rick Santorum threads today there’s been a lot of grumbling that “if Mitt Romney wins the nomination, then I’m going third party or sitting out this election.”
Or “If anybody BUT Mitt Romney wins the nomination, I’m going third party or sitting out this election.”

This next President is going to be replacing two (or more) Supreme Court justices.
I really believe Mitt Romney, the RINO, will still pick much better replacements than BHO will, even though he’s second from the bottom on my list of the current Republican field (I’m not going to bother telling you who’s at the bottom). The same can be said for Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, or Bachmann (I’m not going to include Hunt or the guy who’s at the bottom of my list).
I really don’t want Mitt as our guy. But if he gets it, I’m not going “third party”, or sitting out the election.
Oh, ALRIGHT . . . IF . . . Ron Paul wins the nomination, then THAT’S going to be a “tough row to hoe.”

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 1:01 AM

IowaWoman on December 30, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Wow, that was a lightning fast correction.

Good job on that. : )

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 1:09 AM

No thanks. I’ll pass. I’m voting for Ron Paul

Capitalist75 on December 30, 2011 at 12:55 AM

: (

(is there some way to do ‘angry eyes?’)

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 1:11 AM

JB-STLMO on December 30, 2011 at 12:27 AM

(h e a v y . s i g h)

I’m going to bed.

Ya’ll on the third-shift are stuck dealing with this.

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 1:16 AM

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Excellent

PuritanD71 on December 30, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Not to disrupt the discussion on economics, but there is a point I’ve missed making today.
Within the Rick Santorum threads today there’s been a lot of grumbling that “if Mitt Romney wins the nomination, then I’m going third party or sitting out this election.”
Or “If anybody BUT Mitt Romney wins the nomination, I’m going third party or sitting out this election.”

This next President is going to be replacing two (or more) Supreme Court justices.
I really believe Mitt Romney, the RINO, will still pick much better replacements than BHO will, even though he’s second from the bottom on my list of the current Republican field (I’m not going to bother telling you who’s at the bottom). The same can be said for Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, or Bachmann (I’m not going to include Hunt or the guy who’s at the bottom of my list).
I really don’t want Mitt as our guy. But if he gets it, I’m not going “third party”, or sitting out the election.
Oh, ALRIGHT . . . IF . . . Ron Paul wins the nomination, then THAT’S going to be a “tough row to hoe.”

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Well said. I agree 100%

Good thing you don’t let everything Glenn says influence how you vote :) I think Glenn is great and have learned alot from him but he goes a bit overboard at times. He’s right that Newt is a Progressive, but Newt is much better than Obama. Bringing up racism with the Tea Party was a dumb thing to do. I’ll still listen to Glenn too though. It could get ugly though if a RINO gets the nomination to see what Glenn does.

Do you also listen to Levin? He seems to be more in line with your thought process and obviously mine as well.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Santorum seriously undermines himself by campaigning on the same-sex marriage issue, which is one reason I am likely to vote for Romney come Wisconsin primary time, though Jeb Bush remains my sentimental favorite.

Ronald Wallenfang on December 30, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Obviously, the Right-to-Life issue is not that important if Romney is your man. Mittens could not figure this out until his “uh-oh” moment. Even then, this did not stop him from appointing judges that did not align with his “conversion”.

I find it hard to believe that Santorum’s stance on a soci-con issue which you firmly plant yourself in converted your vote to a guy who is a kite in the wind, blowing wherever the wind will take him.

PuritanD71 on December 30, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Why don’t you Santorum supporters just vote for Romney now so we can just end this thing more quickly. Because that’s the same effect your vote for Santorum will have. He doesn’t have he resources to fight Romney beyond Iowa. Romney will crush him. I actually like Santorum, but he is so unelectable it staggers the imagination. He lost his own freakin’ state by 20 points! Seriously, to Bob Casey who has even les personality than Santorum. In fact, if you nominate him you might as well kick back and relax on election day because Obama will crush him. But, I day dream: Santorum wil not be the nominee. Either Perry takes Romney down or Romney’s the nominee. It’s just that simple. No else can pull it off. Only three people can beat Obama: Romney, Hunstman and Perry. I say that and I can’t stand Romney. But taht’s the truth.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 1:34 AM

Please. Enough with the only Mittens has a chance to beat Obama argument.

We’ve tried this game before. Didn’t work out too well with McLame, Dole, and Ford to name a few.

McLame refused to attack Obama over Rev. Wright and Ayers.

Mittens won’t call him a socialist. See a trend?

We need a real conservative to contrast their differences with Maobama, not someone that agrees with him on health care mandates, global warming, and ethanol subsidies.

It could be entertaining though to see Maobama and Mittens fight over John Holdren.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 1:40 AM

Nobody is going to stop Romney. The only chance is a late Palin entry. Santorum may do well in Iowa, but then what.

P-A-L-I-N only 5 letters. Iowa, you have the power to change the course of history. 30,000 people voting for Palin in Iowa could change 2012 as we know it!

Every Iowa Republican that voted for Palin to be VP can send a message to Republicans and Write-In P-A-L-I-N. 5 Letters can change the world!

CoolChange80 on December 30, 2011 at 1:44 AM

Please. Enough with the only Mittens has a chance to beat Obama argument.

We’ve tried this game before. Didn’t work out too well with McLame, Dole, and Ford to name a few.

McLame refused to attack Obama over Rev. Wright and Ayers.

Mittens won’t call him a socialist. See a trend?

We need a real conservative to contrast their differences with Maobama, not someone that agrees with him on health care mandates, global warming, and ethanol subsidies.

It could be entertaining though to see Maobama and Mittens fight over John Holdren.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 1:40 AM

Clearly you corrupt girl Bachman thinks Romney’s the electable one since she was doing his dirty work in hopes of being his VP. As to Santorum? Please. 20 points. Yes, 20 points is what helots by. Newt has more baggage than an airport terminal, Ron Pal is an anti- Semitic nut job. There are other considerations than ideology when gauging electability.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 1:46 AM

Nobody is going to stop Romney. The only chance is a late Palin entry. Santorum may do well in Iowa, but then what.

P-A-L-I-N only 5 letters. Iowa, you have the power to change the course of history. 30,000 people voting for Palin in Iowa could change 2012 as we know it!

Every Iowa Republican that voted for Palin to be VP can send a message to Republicans and Write-In P-A-L-I-N. 5 Letters can change the world!

CoolChange80 on December 30, 2011 at 1:44 AM

You’re more delusional than Levin fan boy. Palin isn’t going to run. Get counseling or start drinking. Whatever helps you get over that fact.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Santorum lost in 2006 for five main reasons:
1) It’s Pennsylvania, a state that is deeply Democrat in its two main cities, and socially-conservative/economically-liberal in its rural areas. It’s very tough for a Republican to win there. There’s a reason Bob Casey, Sr., was so popular as Governor: he was a Dem who was a staunch social-con and economic moderate.
2) “Bob Casey” was once again on the Democrat ticket, even if Jr. was a far cry from his father. Just like Teddy rode Bobby’s & Jack’s caskets into office, Bob Jr. gained votes simply for being Bob Sr.’s son.
3) Santorum spent much of the 2004-2006 period talking about the threat that Iran posed, and the need for the US to address Iran sooner rather than later. By 2006, war fatigue from Iraq & Afghanistan was setting in, and the prospect of opening up at third Mid-East front to fight bearded misogynists was decidedly less popular.
4) Santorum was in the national press a lot in the few years leading up to ’06 taking unpopular (and overly-blunt) stands on principle. Pennsylvania doesn’t like Republicans who take strong stands or make the electorate feel uncomfortable [Dems get away with it b/c of party-line voters in PHL/PIT]. See: Specter, Arlen.

Santorum also burned a lot of bridges among state conservatives by supporting Specter (who the base loathed) over Toomey in ’04. Yes, he was essentially strong-armed into it by the Bush Admin. and RNC, but they didn’t bear the blame and he did.

Are those factors (or similar) in play nationwide? and Could Santorum overcome them? Maybe and maybe.

A Santorum presidency, however, would not be the worst option among the field by far, nor would his presidency result in either theocracy or DHS breaking into bedrooms to imprison sodomites (or other such nonsense).

One area he is certainly far ahead of the field on is Iran, who he’s been accurately ringing the warning bell about for a solid decade.

Harpazo on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Excellent. Thanks for that.

I’ve always liked Santorum and have always had alot of respect for him and I trust him in all 3 areas (economic, foreign policy and social issues.)

I didn’t think he had a chance and he was whiney in the early debates. He’s been great this past month and more relaxed in interviews and debates.

He could be peaking at just the right time. Who knows? Stranger things have happened and this year is crazy and anything is possible.

He’d be a great President, that is for sure. If Perry doesn’t pull this off (and it doesn’t look good right now) then I hope it’s Santorum.

Elisa on December 30, 2011 at 1:54 AM

The very conservative Heritage Foundation was one of the main contributors to Romneycare. You know, the Heritage Foundation that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity encourage people to join.

Also remember Ronald Reagan created the requirement that hospitals treat all comers for free if they have no insurance.

scotash on December 30, 2011 at 12:06 AM

I get very tired of the constant lies to support Romney. First, hospitals are not required to treat all comers for free. They are only required to provide emergency care to anyone who needs it whether they can pay or not at the time. Then, they’re stuck with the problem of collecting from them. That does not mean that the patient doesn’t owe money for the treatment, or that the hospital can’t take the standard steps to collect whatever they’re owed.

Second, Romney always distanced himself from Reagan, but his supporters then try to blame Reagan for Romney’s bad ideas.

Third, a government mandate that people buy insurance — insurance which is carefully and tightly controlled by that same government, which dictates to the supposedly private companies what their insurance policies MUST pay for — is not conservative. It doesn’t matter who you try to enlist on your side. It’s basically socialized medicine.

Romney is a fraud every time he claims he’s a conservative. Which makes his spinners frauds also every time they try to pretend the same.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 30, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Clearly you corrupt girl Bachman thinks Romney’s the electable one since she was doing his dirty work in hopes of being his VP. As to Santorum? Please. 20 points. Yes, 20 points is what helots by. Newt has more baggage than an airport terminal, Ron Pal is an anti- Semitic nut job. There are other considerations than ideology when gauging electability.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 1:46 AM

Romneybot:

I don’t buy the Bachmann conspiracy. Rollins is a political whore who’ll do anything for attention. Either way, I support conservatives. I hate big gov’t, both on the right and the left. You do not, why not just become a full blown socialist instead of dabbling in it with Mittens?

Santorum lost in a bad year for the GOP. He refused to back down from his support for the Iraq war despite how unpopular it was. Just like now when he told Iowans that he won’t support ethanol subsidies. It’s called having a backbone, something Mittens has never had. Pa has a million more Dems than Repubs, yet Santorum still won 2 out of 3 times in PA.

This has all been stated already in the thread if you bothered to pay any attention instead of repeating the same establishment mouthpiece talking points.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 1:58 AM

SOME Republican women get all worked up with a woman is on the ballot.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 9:12 PM

correct would be: ‘when dumb women are on the ballot’…:-)

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Palin’s not dumb. Which means your comment is.

Funny how that works.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 30, 2011 at 2:04 AM

Go Perry!

John the Libertarian on December 30, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Clearly you corrupt girl Bachman thinks Romney’s the electable one since she was doing his dirty work in hopes of being his VP. As to Santorum? Please. 20 points. Yes, 20 points is what helots by. Newt has more baggage than an airport terminal, Ron Pal is an anti- Semitic nut job. There are other considerations than ideology when gauging electability.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 1:46 AM

Romneybot:

I don’t buy the Bachmann conspiracy. Rollins is a political whore who’ll do anything for attention. Either way, I support conservatives. I hate big gov’t, both on the right and the left. You do not, why not just become a full blown socialist instead of dabbling in it with Mittens?

Santorum lost in a bad year for the GOP. He refused to back down from his support for the Iraq war despite how unpopular it was. Just like now when he told Iowans that he won’t support ethanol subsidies. It’s called having a backbone, something Mittens has never had. Pa has a million more Dems than Repubs, yet Santorum still won 2 out of 3 times in PA.

This has all been stated already in the thread if you bothered to pay any attention instead of repeating the same establishment mouthpiece talking points.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Trouble with your response is that I’m a Perry supporter. You don’t have to believe Rollins, your corrupt girl’s actions speak for themselves. If she had any concern for electing a conservative she would rip out so that one could be elected. But that isn’t her goal. She’ll dropout after she’s done the most to split conservative vote hat she can.

So was Santorum’s vote for No Child Left Behind or Medicare D principled? How about pushing the interests of his Accuweathe donors? Right, I know yo have a big problem with crony capitalism so I figured I would mention that. No matter, your support for these two spoilers will probably nominate Romney so it won’t make a difference how awfulme reallyaree. Maybe you’re he true Mittbot?

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 2:16 AM

A Perry supporter?

He’s by far of the “conservatives”.

1. In state tuition

2. Entertained binational health care between US and Mexico. What a conservative!!

3. Said the Arizona law would not be good for Texas.

4. Took money from Merck for the Gardasil mandate.

5. Crony capitalist. The review board rejected Convergen Life Sciences but with no appeal the decision was reversed after a closed door meeting. Convergen’s founder just happened to donate $335K to Perry.

6. Spending quadrupled under his term.

I’d still take Perry over Mittens but it probably won’t come down to that. He’s trying to buy Iowa but Santorum had down the groundwork and went to all 99 counties.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 2:29 AM

*By far the worst of the “conservative group*

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 2:30 AM

A Perry supporter?

He’s by far of the “conservatives”.

1. In state tuition

2. Entertained binational health care between US and Mexico. What a conservative!!

3. Said the Arizona law would not be good for Texas.

4. Took money from Merck for the Gardasil mandate.

5. Crony capitalist. The review board rejected Convergen Life Sciences but with no appeal the decision was reversed after a closed door meeting. Convergen’s founder just happened to donate $335K to Perry.

6. Spending quadrupled under his term.

I’d still take Perry over Mittens but it probably won’t come down to that. He’s trying to buy Iowa but Santorum had down the groundwork and went to all 99 counties.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 2:29 AM

Nice, distort his record and outright lie about it. You’re just upset because you corrupt congresswoman got busted for being a Mitt Mole. try thinking for yourself instead of just doing what your idol Levin tells you to do, Levin fan boy.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 2:41 AM

You’re more delusional than Levin fan boy. Palin isn’t going to run. Get counseling or start drinking. Whatever helps you get over that fact.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Everyone knows Palin isn’t going to run. That’s why there’s a campaign to try to change her mind. Try to keep up.

I doubt it will work, but Palin will have a role to play in 2012 whether she runs for president herself or just works to get other candidates elected to Congress. Which is more than you can say for Rick Perry. If he doesn’t win the nomination — and it looks increasingly unlikely — then he’ll have no real impact on Congressional elections.

That’s no knock on him, really, since being governor of Texas is a pretty important job. But Palin will play a big role in the 2012 elections either way.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 30, 2011 at 2:48 AM

You’re more delusional than Levin fan boy. Palin isn’t going to run. Get counseling or start drinking. Whatever helps you get over that fact.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Everyone knows Palin isn’t going to run. That’s why there’s a campaign to try to change her mind. Try to keep up.

I doubt it will work, but Palin will have a role to play in 2012 whether she runs for president herself or just works to get other candidates elected to Congress. Which is more than you can say for Rick Perry. If he doesn’t win the nomination — and it looks increasingly unlikely — then he’ll have no real impact on Congressional elections.

That’s no knock on him, really, since being governor of Texas is a pretty important job. But Palin will play a big role in the 2012 elections either way.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 30, 2011 at 2:48 AM

She’s not going to change her mind. If she wanted to have abigimpact, she neds to endorse Perry, the only electable, conservative, experienced executive, federalist in the race.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 3:02 AM

Nice, distort his record and outright lie about it. You’re just upset because you corrupt congresswoman got busted for being a Mitt Mole. try thinking for yourself instead of just doing what your idol Levin tells you to do, Levin fan boy.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 2:41 AM

I support the best conservative candidates.

I haven’t said anything that’s not true about Perry. Too bad the truth hurts. All day long I’ve seen so called conservatives do nothing but made excuses for in state tuition for illegals and crony capitalism.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 3:05 AM

She’s not going to change her mind. If she wanted to have abigimpact, she neds to endorse Perry, the only electable, conservative, experienced executive, federalist in the race.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 3:02 AM

Now you’re full of it. Palin can make up her own mind who to endorse or whether to endorse. The last thing we need is someone demanding she stay out of the election, but first, endorse my candidate! Also, Perry’s not showing signs of electability right now, though I’m willing to consider him if he does. That puts him well above Romney or Paul, at least.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 30, 2011 at 3:43 AM

Nice, distort his record and outright lie about it. You’re just upset because you corrupt congresswoman got busted for being a Mitt Mole. try thinking for yourself instead of just doing what your idol Levin tells you to do, Levin fan boy.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 2:41 AM

I support the best conservative candidates.

I haven’t said anything that’s not true about Perry. Too bad the truth hurts. All day long I’ve seen so called conservatives do nothing but made excuses for in state tuition for illegals and crony capitalism.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 3:05 AM

Sure you did, Levin fan boy. You lied and distorted his record. Your corrupt congresswoman is going to be dropping out soon. That must bum you out and put you in a foul mood. hence, your lies and distortions about Perry.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 4:00 AM

She’s not going to change her mind. If she wanted to have abigimpact, she neds to endorse Perry, the only electable, conservative, experienced executive, federalist in the race.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 3:02 AM

Now you’re full of it. Palin can make up her own mind who to endorse or whether to endorse. The last thing we need is someone demanding she stay out of the election, but first, endorse my candidate! Also, Perry’s not showing signs of electability right now, though I’m willing to consider him if he does. That puts him well above Romney or Paul, at least.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 30, 2011 at 3:43 AM

Somehow I don’t think Palin cares what I think. All I’m saying is that she’s wasting her endorsement if she endorses anyone other thanPerry.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 4:02 AM

Do you really think any of these clowns can beat Obama?

I used to think that Romney was the biggest phony but he isn’t. Romney doesn’t hide who he is. He is a flip-flopper and he keeps flip-flopping.

The biggest phony out of this bunch is Bachmann. She has used everybody and anybody to try and get ahead and now the walls are caving in around her. Look at what the thought of power has turned Bachmann into.

Now do you understand why so many people can’t or won’t give up on Palin. They know Palin doesn’t need power or title. She has the history to back it.

Her supporters know they can trust her with the power of the Presidency.

Her supporters know that she would be a selfless leader and would lead with a servant’s heart.

But most of us know that the only way you can become President is to sell your soul.

oldyeller on December 30, 2011 at 5:14 AM

Somehow I don’t think Palin cares what I think. All I’m saying is that she’s wasting her endorsement if she endorses anyone other than Perry.

Malachi45 on December 30, 2011 at 4:02 AM

I would suggest that if Perry is looking for an endorsement from Palin that he should drop the Bridge to Nowhere part in the ad.

oldyeller on December 30, 2011 at 5:24 AM

Or “If anybody BUT Mitt Romney wins the nomination, I’m going third party or sitting out this election.”

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 1:01 AM

I don’t recall reading a single post like that. Could you point to a Romney supporter who said it?

MJBrutus on December 30, 2011 at 7:05 AM

I still don’t believe Romney got the idea from Heritage. He’s not the type to care what some conservative think tank cares about stuff.

He got the idea from Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the libs in Mass and he rolled with it.

Heritage is just his cover story now.

Dr. Tesla on December 30, 2011 at 12:38 AM

I an REALLY getting tired of your repetitive misleading babble. Your like a broken record….I guess you must think that if you repeat a lie long enough and loud enough people will eventually swollow your b.s.

By the way, the inclusion of “Dr.” in your screen name, which is I am sure meant to add credence to your misleading statements, only leads me to believe that you have an inflated opinion of yourself.

Physican, heal thy self.

jibjab75 on December 30, 2011 at 7:06 AM

New NBC/Marist IA poll:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Romney 23%, Paul 21%, Santorum 15%, Perry 14%, Gingrich 13%, Bachmann 6%, Huntsman 2%.

Perry at 14%, 1% ahead of Gingrich and 1% behind Santorum. Three-way tie for third. Now where’s the threads about Perry’s “surge”? He’s ONE POINT behind the guy with the supposed momentum! I bet AP and Ed IGNORE this again.

Perry had more packed crowds at his stops yesterday. Meanwhile, Santorum had to cancel a trip to a Wilson candy store because it was closed… and he’s so competant, lol. Remember, he didn’t even TRY to get on the VA ballot. Yeah, he’s the “not-Romney” that’ll win////// :rollseyes:

Aslans Girl on December 30, 2011 at 7:50 AM

If the Republican Party chooses Romney, it will mark the beginning of the end of the Republican Party. Romney will lose BIG TIME time to whomever the Democrats put forward. I will vote down-ticket for only conservatives on the ballot but Romney will NEVER GET MY VOTE! I know many, many Republicans and conservative independents who will do likewise. The nomination of Romney will be a HUGE MISTAKE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Pragmatic on December 30, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Didn’t Santorum endorse Romney in ’08? Add that to Bachmann’s running interference for Team Mitt, and what do you get?

This should have been the GOP’s banner year but I’m starting to feel like “anybody but Romney” might be too high a standard.

Kelli_D on December 30, 2011 at 8:07 AM

…though Jeb Bush remains my sentimental favorite.

Ronald Wallenfang on December 30, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Third time’s a charm?

Fallon on December 30, 2011 at 8:10 AM

I love the irony in all of these noobie “fiscal Conservatives” (libertarians, squishes, or Libs in disguise) coming on a site founded by a Reagan Conservative, attacking “social Conservatives” (Reagan Conservatives.

They’re sitting on a one-legged stool.

kingsjester on December 30, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Aslans Girl on December 30, 2011 at 7:50 AM

That’s the way to start off a Friday :)

gophergirl on December 30, 2011 at 8:18 AM

gophergirl on December 30, 2011 at 8:18 AM

Amen, sister!

I loved Perry’s “dude” quote about not quitting, made me lol!

Aslans Girl on December 30, 2011 at 8:23 AM

I love the irony in all of these noobie “fiscal Conservatives” (libertarians, squishes, or Libs in disguise) coming on a site founded by a Reagan Conservative, attacking “social Conservatives” (Reagan Conservatives.

They’re sitting on a one-legged stool.

kingsjester on December 30, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Reagan conservative = libertarian.

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” – Ronald Reagan.

TXGOP on December 30, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Amen, sister!

I loved Perry’s “dude” quote about not quitting, made me lol!

Aslans Girl on December 30, 2011 at 8:23 AM

I still believe he’s going to win Iowa. All those packed events have to mean something IMO.

gophergirl on December 30, 2011 at 8:25 AM

TXGOP on December 30, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Except Reagan did not want to legalize pot. He was speaking in classical terms. He was not identifying with the tin foil hat wearing, dope-smoking, “Libertarians” (Liberals in disguise) of today.

kingsjester on December 30, 2011 at 8:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5