Santorum makes the case against Mitt Romney’s “electability”

posted at 1:55 pm on January 12, 2012 by Tina Korbe

At a townhall event in South Carolina yesterday evening, Rick Santorum suggested that Mitt Romney really doesn’t have any special claim to electability. According to Santorum, Romney — as the preordained, “establishment,” moderate candidate – actually resembles, say, John McCain or Bob Dole (both South Carolina victors, by the way) more than he does Ronald Reagan. CNN Political Ticker reports:

“Governor Romney – he’s run three races, lost two,” Santorum said, touting his own electoral success in traditionally Democratic Pennsylvania.

“The first race he ran as a liberal, lost to Ted Kennedy. And he actually claimed to be to the left of Ted Kennedy on many issues when he did that. Secondly he ran as a moderate and got elected in Massachusetts – didn’t run for reelection. And then ran for president as a conservative. So it’s sort of multiple choice.”

Santorum then scoffed at claims that Romney is the most “electable” candidate.

“I love this – so he’s the most electable. Says who? Where’s he ever proven that?,” the former senator asked. “He’s the most electable because the establishment feels comfortable with him. Right? That’s it. Well they’re not going to feel comfortable with me.”

Santorum isn’t the first to make the case that his electoral record is equally as strong or stronger than Romney’s. Quin Hillyer of the Center for Individual Freedom has written the same:

Usually, at this level, past performance is as good an indicator as anything else. Well, Romney’s past electoral performance is decidely weak. In 1994, as Rick Santorum was pulling an upset to win a Senate seat in Pennsylvania, Romney was getting crushed by Ted Kennedy — in a race where Kennedy actually was seen, even three weeks out, to be far more vulnerable than usual, because the tawdriness of his nephew’s late-1991 rape trial (and his role therein) combined with the overall tawdriness of his long-running behavior, combined with a nationwide revolt against Democrats, made Massachusetts voters unusually open (according to all sorts of polls and focus groups) to replacing him. But, again, Romney got absolutely crushed.

In 2002, Romney won the governorship; in 2006, he chickened out of running for re-election; and in 2008, despite all sorts of financial advantages, he found a way to lose the Republican nomination fairly decisively to a seriously underfunded John McCain, losing a long string of individual primaries in the process.

So, overall, his electoral record is 1-2 — or, if you count each state in 2008 as a separate contest, which might not be exactly fair, he’s something like 2-17. …

Which leaves, again, Santorum, having won four of five elections and overperformed so far on the presidential stage, and Romney, having so far lost two of three elections and badly underperformed on the presidential stage. So it makes no sense at all to assume that Romney is more electable in the fall against Barack Obama’s $800 million.

At the website RealReaganConservative.com, “Jack from Manhattan” makes a similar point:

The most insulting thing to conservatives about this argument is that it says that conservatism and electability are mutually exclusive. History says otherwise. Ronald Reagan, the standard bearer of modern conservatism, was unelectable. He was too conservative, a reactionary, and a deluded old fool who would bring about a nuclear war.

Of course he won two back-to-back landslides (44 and 49 states, respectively), and he did it, not by being a moderate, or seizing the center. No, on the contrary, Reagan did what Mark Steyn best describes. As Steyn points out, Reagan did not win by moving to the center. Rather, he moved the center towards him. That, Steyn says, is why Reagan was great. He knew how to speak to independents and centrists without losing his principles in the mix. He was a conservative who could move the center.

Romney has no such record. Candidates who have had success doing this are the unelectable Rick Santorum (in Pennsylvania, every bit as blue as Massachusetts, where he was successful in doing it four times) and the unelectable Michele Bachmann (in Minnesota, also every bit as blue as Massachusetts, where she was successful in doing it three times).

After New Hampshire, pundits proclaimed Santorum’s chances of actually winning the nomination to be slim to none. Polls show that Romney leads in South Carolina and Florida. That’s fine with me if voters actually prefer Mitt Romney to Rick Santorum and the other candidates — but if Romney is pulling away from the pack just because voters think he’s the most “electable,” that’s weak. Like many voters, my first priority is to beat Obama with anyone to the right of him — but, unlike many voters with that priority, I don’t necessarily think the way to do that is to try to predict a candidate’s electability. Instead, I’d rather we pick a candidate who can effectively make the case for conservatism to voters who might not otherwise hear it. Maybe that is Romney; his history at Bain has already begun an important debate about capitalism, and Romney is on the right side of it. But maybe it isn’t. Yes, national polls have indicated Romney is the only candidate who could beat Obama in a head-to-head match-up, but flip-flops are a significantly exploitable liability in the general no less than in a primary, whereas principled conviction is always attractive. No question Santorum has been more consistent than Romney — and that matters.


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

RICK! (either one)!!!!

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Of course it’s too late. Romney has 15 of 1500 delegates. Who else could catch up, Tina?

portlandon on January 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Santorum’s right. Romney’s a shell of a man. Just too bad that Santorum hates personal liberty more than loves America, seeing him and Huntssman throw their support behind Paul while Newt does his thing on the sidelines might be enough to stop Romney dead in his tracks.

abobo on January 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Mitt only won Iowa by 8 votes, and he only reached McCain’s level of support in New Hampshire, despite campaigning there – in his home turf – for 5 years, while the conservatives were split between other candidates!!

Don’t listen to the media!! Mitt Romney is not the most electable!!

Aizen on January 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

This surely will put an end to Jennifer Rubin’s new-found Santorum love.

steebo77 on January 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

They are both unelectable. Obama will run to the right of Romney, even if it’s all balloney.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Arlen Specter on line one for you Tina…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

And Santorum is MORE electable. give me a break.

Mitt is more electable than any of the other candidates. does it mean he’s the most electable in the country. No. Is he the most of what we have running-yes.

gerrym51 on January 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Santorum makes the case against Mitt Romney’s “electability”

Haha, that’s so rich I need a glass of milk to go with it…

thirtyandseven on January 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Of course it’s too late. Romney has 15 of 1500 delegates. Who else could catch up, Tina?

portlandon on January 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

15? Quit spreading lies, you anti-Romneybot! Mitt has 25 delegates!

///

25 of 2298.

steebo77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

SOPA and other Big Government Conservative projects are also in the mail.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM

All this inevitability crap about Romney? Based on a couple hundred thousand in Iowa and New Hampshire and polls? Is this how we want our electoral destiny decided??? Everyone needs to step back, take off the blinders the media and the GOP establishment wants you to wear. Review the candidates clear-eyed, look for the one who best fits your PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES, ignore establishment defined ‘electability’, and cast your votes accordingly. It may be a process of picking the best out of a bad litter. But clearly Romney is NOT the best fit for most GOP voters (even where he supposedly won- without breaking 40%).

michaelo on January 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM

And Santorum is MORE electable. give me a break.

gerrym51 on January 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Apparently he is…in North Carolina anyway.

steebo77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Wake me when it’s over, plz….

MTLassen on January 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM

steebo77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Ooooh, Romney trails by one while Santorum ties. That’s so significant that it’s inside the statistically insignificant margin!

… Yeah, you’re just grasping for straws now, sarcasm isn’t even fun anymore.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM

“… I’d rather we pick a candidate who can effectively make the case for conservatism to voters who might not otherwise hear it.”

This…

… and bringing to light Obowma’s record and the results of his Marxist/Socialist ideology and policies.

Seven Percent Solution on January 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I disagree.

I think they’re ALL electable over BHO.

But the rest of you feel free to continue wringing your hands in panic while saying “All is doom,” if you like.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM

15? Quit spreading lies, you anti-Romneybot! Mitt has 25 delegates!

///

25 of 2298.

steebo77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I think you are both wrong. Iowa doesn’t chose delagates until later. NH is proportional so I believe he has about 4.

Anyone know for sure?

stenwin77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Um, neither PA or MN are “every bit as blue” as MA, so that last author is just plain wrong. We could run Santorum and have the election revolve around gays and contraception, I guess…I’m sure that’s a winning formula.

changer1701 on January 12, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Never too late! Hit Romney hard then hit him harder. All you have to do is look at the top 3 (stooges) in NH to see why the media are salivating and pushing so hard. Romney will lose as McCain and Dole did. We won’t lose if we put a solid, contrasting opposite to Obama and his policies. No more wishy-washy please.

mozalf on January 12, 2012 at 2:09 PM

We are rapidly approaching the point where the word “establishment” is useless.

Why is Romney the most electable? Easy answer – because he appeals more than any other available candidate to the part of the electorate that will win this election: independents and disaffected Democrats. Really, brutally simple.

And although I’m sure there are a few hardliners who will have nothing to do with Romney, the sane base will support him and he’ll pick up the extra scratch we need to evict a socialist from the White House and start putting America back to work.

Red Cloud on January 12, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Is he the most of what we have running-yes.

gerrym51 on January 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Uhh we disagree there, gerrym51.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Who knew Tina was a fan of the sweater vest?

BettyRuth on January 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Whoa! Where was this kind of analysis two months ago? Not on many high profile conservative blogs, that’s for sure.

bgibbs1000 on January 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

There is no viable non-Romney. Palin might have been that candidate but she was too lazy to actually do the work necessary to prepare and run for president. Perry would have been that candidate but the reality is that he was not ready to run. On the plus side it is good for diversity. We have not had a non-Christian president since Jefferson. On the other hand if Romney wins that means we cannot have a conservative president until 2020, which is probably to late to institute the kind of entitlement reforms necessary to stave off a fiscal collapse.

Ted Torgerson on January 12, 2012 at 2:12 PM

If electibility is about being best able to convey the conservative message, I think Santorum hands down is more capable than Romney of doing that. That does not mean that Santorum hasn’t screwed up himself on upholding conservative values, but he would surely be able to convey them with more conviction and integrity than Romney. You know, just because you falter on upholding your values does not mean you don’t continue to strive to meet them. Santorum is a decent guy and doesn’t deserve the dismissive treatment he has been given.

KickandSwimMom on January 12, 2012 at 2:12 PM

No Tina, it is not Romney.

KirknBurker on January 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I’d also like to point out that Mitt Romney is likely the most electable because the worst Barack can do to sustain a significant line of attack is to attack him on economic issues which, as per the current economy and job situation, is a dream come true.

Santorum would likely bring the election to Social Issues, a big loser, Gingrich would bring his baggage and Perry would bring it to his intelligence.

Oh, also, Mitt Romney leads by 19% in the latest Gallup poll. So much for that 25% ceiling, eh fellas?

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM

He’s still citing Pennsylvania as a strong point!? He lost by nearly 20% there, I’m pretty sure that was a blasted record! Even in a bad year for Republicans that is far too dramatic of a loss, nobody can credibly present that as a strength for the candidate!

As for the comparisons to McCain and Bob Dole. Well, Bob Dole hardly even RAN a campaign. He was almost invisible during the entire campaign, and ironically got more attention for the Pepsi and viagra commercials he did later.

McCain, well, that may be a little more apt, but there are still significant differences. McCain was most famous for actively running against Republican causes. While he never quite violated conservative orthodoxy, he did violate numerous other tenets of conservatism, and actively presented these violations as strengths. Additionally, its hard to tell how much McCain was hurt by events surrounding the election. I’m actually still somewhat surprised he didn’t lose worse than he did, so who knows, maybe under more favorable conditions he would have won.

Romney however, is a very different politician. He’s more calculated than McCain for starters, and tries to present himself as a calm, competent, and highly nuanced individual. McCain fancied himself a fist fighter, and but any advantage he might have gotten from this persona was at least partially nullified by the fact that he was unwilling to actually get in there and campaign like a fist fighter.

Being that these are highly different men, in highly different situations, its a near guarantee that they’ll run very different campaigns.

This doesn’t necessarily make Romney, “electable,” but it does render such comparisons rather sophomoric. Trying to create analogies between separate people is always an exercise in intellectual shoe-horning.

For example, people often say that Obama is like Carter. Well if he was really like Carter his approval would be around 30% by now. Even if the two individuals are not completely dis-similar, they are still different people, so you cannot expect them to follow the same patterns.

WolvenOne on January 12, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I think you are both wrong. Iowa doesn’t chose delagates until later. NH is proportional so I believe he has about 4.

Anyone know for sure?

stenwin77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Iowa’s aren’t set in stone, but CNN shows the delegate breakdown as:
Santorum – 8
Romney – 7
Paul – 7
Gingrich – 2
Perry – 2
Remaining unpledged – 2

New Hampshire:
Romney – 7
Paul – 3
Huntsman – 2

So that’s 14 right there. Romney already has 2 unpledged delegates backing him in Maine, 3 in Massachusetts, 1 in Puerto Rico, 1 in D.C., 1 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Rhode Island, and 2 in West Virginia. All adds up to 25.

steebo77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Rick Santorum is claiming that Mitt Romney is unelectable? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

theoddmanout on January 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM

On the other hand if Romney wins that means we cannot have a conservative president until 2020, which is probably to late to institute the kind of entitlement reforms necessary to stave off a fiscal collapse.

Ted Torgerson on January 12, 2012 at 2:12 PM

If Mitt loses, maybe we can get Walker in 2016. Assuming the US is still holding elections and stuff then.

Kataklysmic on January 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Can someone explain why I should care what NH does? They allow crossover voting. Why are they the first primary??

WryTrvllr on January 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM

question how many election losses did Abraham Lincoln have before he finally won? From http://www.rogerknapp.com/inspire/lincoln.htm
called Lincoln Never Quits:

1832 Ran for state legislature – lost.
l832 Also lost his job – wanted to go to law school but couldn’t get in.
1833 Borrowed some money from a friend to begin a business and by the end of the year he was bankrupt. He spent the next 17 years of his life paying off this debt.
1834 Ran for state legislature again – won.
1835 Was engaged to be married, sweetheart died and his heart was broken.
1836 Had a total nervous breakdown and was in bed for six months.
1838 Sought to become speaker of the state legislature – defeated.
1840 Sought to become elector – defeated.
1843 Ran for Congress – lost.
1846 Ran for Congress again – this time he won – went to Washington and did a good job.
1848 Ran for re-election to Congress – lost.
1849 Sought the job of land officer in his home state – rejected.
1854 Ran for Senate of the United States – lost.
1856 Sought the Vice-Presidential nomination at his party’s national convention – get less than 100 votes.
1858 Ran for U.S. Senate again – again he lost.
1860 Elected president of the United States.

Seriously, according to all these pundits if around during Lincolns time, he should have given up. What a loser.

Not that I am saying Romney is the next Lincoln, but come on folks this whole ‘electability’ phrase is getting old. I wish Rick Perry would not have been the typical southern democrat, but alas, he is/was and he has gone no where. We do not need to congress critters (gingrich and santorum) if Obama is running on Washington is broken, since these two are/were part of the broke DC mess.

Now, Romney is really an outsider and so is Perry. But alas, Perry’s true colors came through. He is still a Southern Democrat.

uhangtight on January 12, 2012 at 2:18 PM

steebo77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Comment of the Year!!! Thanks

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM

“Republicans” for $500:

a candidate who can effectively make the case for conservatism to voters who might not otherwise hear it

What is “What is missing in this field?”

The Daily Double!

kunegetikos on January 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I hope Romney is electable because Santorum certainly is not. Santorum is conservative on social issues only. He could care less about economic issues except how he believes they are tied to social issues. We don’t need a president whose focus will be on gay marriage anymore than we need one whose focus is on green energy or appeasing labor unions. Go home Rick!

bopbottle on January 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM

The guy who lost his last election by 18% (thanks to his big government leanings and his too-narrow focus on social issues) is lecturing us about electability. That’s cute.

Caiwyn on January 12, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Now, Romney is really an outsider and so is Perry. But alas, Perry’s true colors came through. He is still a Southern Democrat.

uhangtight on January 12, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Outside of what? The Heartland? He’s a G.O.P. Insider, second generation.

kingsjester on January 12, 2012 at 2:21 PM

The problem with Santorum is that he is running for Pastor in Chief…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

“Governor Romney – he’s run three races, lost two,” Santorum said, touting his own electoral success in traditionally Democratic Pennsylvania.

I like Santorum, but that’s a very weak argument coming from the guy who ran two races, lost one.

Buy Danish on January 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The champagne sales reports are as accurate as Obama’s unemployment reports, “unexpectedly”.

Yes, Associated Press, spontaneously combust, for dereliction of duty. All others in your camp too…

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Let’s see how well Santorum does in Massachusetts, and how well Romney does in Pennsylvania, and then have this argument.

Mr. Arkadin on January 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM

uhangtight on January 12, 2012 at 2:18 PM

My goodness, between you and blink the intelligence of Hot Air is rising rapidly. Thank you for the historical context, I couldn’t have applied it better myself.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM

The champagne sales reports are as accurate as Obama’s unemployment reports, “unexpectedly”.

Yes, Associated Press, spontaneously combust, for dereliction of duty. All others in your camp too…

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Do you realize that Mitt doesn’t drink?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Just ignore him, that’s what I do.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM

If you want to keep Obromneycare, vote for Romney.

If you want to change course in DC, vote for Santorum.

18-1 on January 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I like Santorum, but that’s a very weak argument coming from the guy who ran two races, lost one.

Buy Danish on January 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Agreed. He lost his senatorial race and he is the one who backed the Penn. sphincter, er Specter.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I like Santorum, but that’s a very weak argument coming from the guy who ran two races, lost one.

Why does his time in the House get ignored like this?

18-1 on January 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Do you realize that Mitt doesn’t drink?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Of course I do. Do you realize that I was not referring to his drinking?

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Santorum would likely bring the election to Social Issues, a big loser, Gingrich would bring his baggage and Perry would bring it to his intelligence.

I’ve been saying the same thing about that with Santorum. He would be knocked off message every day by screeching Democrats saying he will lock up their gay friends and take away their abortions. I can see it now.

Roymunson on January 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I like Santorum, but that’s a very weak argument coming from the guy who ran two races, lost one.

Buy Danish on January 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Santorum was elected twice to Congress from PA’s 18th District (1990, 1992), twice to the Senate (1994, 2000), and lost his last Senate race (2006). That makes 4 wins, 1 loss.

steebo77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I fight for your freedom to do so, proudly, gladly, and always.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Just ignore him, that’s what I do.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM

You will miss out on a lot of wise commentary if you do. The two of you may not agree on candidates, but I guarantee you agree on many conservarive principles.

Kataklysmic on January 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Santorum is like Pawlenty – best fit for High School Class Treasurer.

jake-the-goose on January 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM

The most insulting thing to conservatives about this argument is that it says that conservatism and electability are mutually exclusive.

Agreed.

shinty on January 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM

They are both unelectable. Obama will run to the right of Romney, even if it’s all balloney.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Jim DeMint will soon give up any TEA party creds he ever had, same as Nikki Haley, the harlot.

Schadenfreude on January 11, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Winning!!

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Kataklysmic on January 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Well, here’s the small problem with that: everyone here agrees on conservative principles (save for the liberal trolls).

The reason I tend to ignore Schadenfreude is because I can quite practically predict what every comment of his is going to be: whatever Mitt Romney has done is wrong, his electability is a fraud, he’s a fraud and a liar and just about any candidate who stands between him and the nomination is a God-send.

Really, I get enough giggles out of poking at angryed, who’s truly, truly unhinged in this regard. Schadenfreude’s insistence on this line is just predictable. At least angryed can surprise me sometimes by calling people whores, Schadenfreude just parrots talking points as if they were the ABCs and an officer pulled him over to recite them.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I like Santorum, but that’s a very weak argument coming from the guy who ran two races, lost one.

Buy Danish on January 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Actually he ran five races and lost one. He ran for Congress against a Democratic incumbent in a blue-collar district, and won. He was reeelected. Then he turned around and ran for Senate against another Democratic incumbent, and won. And he ran for reelection and won that.

And, he was elected chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

rockmom on January 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Romney is not a McCain.
In ’08 Romney was in fact the Not McCain. Old McCain ran a horrible campaign, and couldn’t raise $. Mitt will raise $, and IF he excites the base, huge $.
I think he will actually excite the base. His anti-conservative negatives have been echo-chamber ultra-amplified by the opposition. This will dissipate.
And 1 thing that I just saw gives me huge hope. It’s a Romney banner ad. It has Romney’s picture, and says Let’s fight for the America We Love. It is moving, my gawd. It, and its ilk, will get the base. Hallelujah. It is a sign that — yes, Romney will bring us the BIG fight that we need now.

anotherJoe on January 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Schadenfreude on January 11, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Oh hey, I didn’t notice this. So you’re calling Nikki Haley a whore too Schadenfreude. Well then, let me apologize, you’re not as mind-numbingly boring as I thought you were. I’ll be giving you my full attention from now on you sod you!

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Winning!!

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Annoying!!!

Nineball on January 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

rockmom on January 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yeah, Santorum’s problem isn’t that he lost elections, he won most of his.

Santorum’s problem is that post-2000 he became a Big Government Conservative who’s big focus was on finding a way to intrude on the private lives of citizens no matter what and for whatever reason offended him at the moment.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Winning!!

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Loser, get a brain. Your imagination, interpretation and observation are all wanting.

The first example is true, if you contemplate deeper, if that is possible. It focuses on Obama’s charlatanry, which has no bounds.

The second one is not what you, and other simpletons, jumped to. It’s “political harlot”.

She, Ayotte, soon DeMint, will all be political harlots, selling their TEA party souls/creds, selling the ones that brung them.

TEA in “TEA party” stands for “Taxed Enough Already”, if you care ot research. Most assume that it stood only for the analogy with the Boston Harbor tea party…sorry to waste so much time/effort on you, but maybe others will get it and spread it. It’s all for freedom and liberty. Contemplate deeper, if you can.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

DOOM DOOM DOOM! WE ARE ALL DOOOOOMED!
Sorry just had to get that out of my system. I feel better now, carry on.

dmn1972 on January 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I think people have their gears crossed a little bit.

Romney isn’t seen as most electable because he’s the most conservative, most consistent, or anything like that. He’s seen as most electable because he’s calm, articulate, and comes across as a highly competent individual.

Competence is the key to his electability argument in this case. Simply put, to most people the other candidates come across as horribly inarticulate, or horribly incompetent. Which in most peoples minds make them unelectable.

If you could put forth a solid conservative that was as articulate and competent as Romney or Obama, they would have dominated the primary. Even a candidate as competent and articulate as Bush would have done it.

Simply put, the batch of candidates we have this time around make Romney look like a friggin Einstien. Which is exactly why attacks on Romneys electability haven’t gained any traction.

WolvenOne on January 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Romney is electable because it says so on In-trade. That’s how we elect Presidents now.

Keep up the pressure on Romney folks…he’s going to crumble.

monalisa on January 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

monalisa on January 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Yes, he’s going to crummble. That growing 19% lead in the Gallop poll and the 22% lead in the Ras poll in Florida is proof as such.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Outside of what? The Heartland? He’s a G.O.P. Insider, second generation.

kingsjester on January 12, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Believe me anyone running for the nomination is a Republican insider. Seriously, think about it logically, for one moment, please. Gingrich, insider Republican and Lobbyist. Santorum, insider Republican and ex Senator/lobbyist. Perry, insider Democrat turned Republican and now Governor of Texas. (He was working for Al Gore, remember?) Huntsman DC insider, Ron Paul DC insider and part of the Republican caucus of the US Congress. They are all insiders.. please pay attention and read slowly now.

Please follow carefully from my comment post: “We do not need t[w]o congress critters (gingrich and santorum) if Obama is running on Washington is broken, since these two are/were part of the broke DC mess.” and then my comment regarding Romney.

Also, I do not think you have Romney’s family history completely accurate. Our founding fathers expected the common man (business men, which were land owners farmers, etc) to run for office. Facts about Romney’s ancestory from wikipedia:”George Wilcken Romney (July 8, 1907 – July 26, 1995) was an American businessman and Republican Party politician. He was chairman and CEO of American Motors Corporation from 1954 to 1962, the 43rd Governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, and the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1969 to 1973.”

That being said, we do not need an ex senator or ex congressman to replace the incompetent ex Senator now POTUS. Executive experience is needed. He (Romney) is not a DC insider.

uhangtight on January 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Its too late unfortunately.

SparkPlug on January 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Can someone explain why I should care what NH does? They allow crossover voting. Why are they the first primary??

WryTrvllr on January 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM

SHUT UP! That’s why

– RNC

angryed on January 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

The problem with Santorum is that he is running for Pastor in Chief…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

And Romney is a Bishop in the mormon church. If true, this seems more relevant than Santorum’s layman pursuits and moralism.

kenny on January 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Well, here’s the small problem with that: everyone here agrees on conservative principles.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Don’t be so sure. I have noticed more than a few of the Brooks/Frum variety who seem to be hypnotized by pants creases etc.

Either way, to each his own.

Kataklysmic on January 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Annoying!!!

Nineball on January 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Exactly!

Calling conservative a women a “harlot” is very much annoying.

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Winning!!

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Using the catch phrase of a has been liberal actor to advance a liberal governor who will be a has been on Nov 7, 2012.

Clever.

angryed on January 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Sarcasm, gotta love how some people can’t read it over the internet. Winning Bro-Fist?

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I like Santorum, but that’s a very weak argument coming from the guy who ran two races, lost one.

Buy Danish on January 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Santorum was elected twice to Congress from PA’s 18th District (1990, 1992), twice to the Senate (1994, 2000), and lost his last Senate race (2006). That makes 4 wins, 1 loss.

steebo77 on January 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Stop with the facts lies already! Santorum ran for dog catcher and lost 83-17%. That’s a RomneyFact.

angryed on January 12, 2012 at 2:46 PM

angryed on January 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

U mad?

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:47 PM

angryed on January 12, 2012 at 2:46 PM

He mad!

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:47 PM

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Liar. If you’d ignore my comments you wouldn’t have analized them.

You have no principles, no discipline, your claims to the contrary.

You also have no self-control. Your name-calling deserves no mention. My enemies are not you. My enemies are Obama and theirs.

However, in spite of your misinterpretations and comments, I will fight for you and yours to be free to do/say/be whatever you/they want, always, proudly and gladly.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I have no doubt conservatives are electable. The question lingers however, is Rick Santorum the candidate to prove the point. He lost some credibility on the argument when he convinced PA conservatives only Arlen Specter could be elected here in deep blue PA. Never mind all those guns and bibles we are clinging to. Never mind the fact we elected that same conservative, Pat Toomey, Santorum told us was a sure loser.

Flip-flopping is all the rage these days.

Santorum sold out conservatives because he owed Arlen Specter.

In other words, it was all about Rick the alpha and omega of conservatism:

When Specter pulled off the primary win, “I knew at that point Rick would become responsible for all of Arlen’s inevitable future misdeeds,” Taylor said.

From the conservative standpoint, those misdeeds were monumental. Specter was a pivotal vote in passing Obama’s stimulus package in early 2009. In April of that year he switched parties and became a Democrat. He later went on to help his new party pass Obama’s health reform bill—the “Obamacare” law that outraged conservatives have vowed to repeal or kill in the courts.

msmveritas on January 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:47 PM

My goodness, it really doesn’t take much at all for you to start slinging mud at someone does it?

I can tell that you’re going to be a lot of fun my overly-sensitive but still amazingly delusional friend.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I’ve been saying the same thing about that with Santorum. He would be knocked off message every day by screeching Democrats saying he will lock up their gay friends and take away their abortions. I can see it now.

Roymunson on January 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Screeching Democrats is a very good thing.

However, if Santorum is to have any hope of winning the whole shebang, he needs to learn how to deftly deflect questions on abortion and gay issues to talk about what voters actually want to hear talked about: Jobs.

fadetogray on January 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Calling conservative a women a “harlot” is very much annoying.

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

God, you guys are obtuse!

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Birth control foe, frothy mixture is electable?

borntoraisehogs on January 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM

“He knew how to speak to independents and centrists without losing his principles in the mix. He was a conservative who could move the center.”
The author of this quote mentions Santorum and Bachmann as having done this… (I agree about Santorum but Bachmann is from a very conservative district in MN) but shouldn’t he also mention Ron Paul?
I don’t want to get the PDS (paul derangement syndrome) guys going but Ron Paul has been saying the same thing about the economy for 40 years… and people (from both sides of the aisle) are starting to listen and gravitate towards his ideas, beliefs, and opinions (on the economy).

therambler on January 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM

anotherJoe on January 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yes. The ultra echo chamber of 10% of the conservatives.
Who would find Ronald Reagan unelectable and unable to beat Obama.

uhangtight on January 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM

No, you’re just too a-cute by one-half.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM

On Insiders

Chances are that those that win primaries are always going to be insiders, to one degree or another. You simply cannot get the polish and experience necessary to run that sort of campaign without inside experience.

Rather than looking for an outsider, I’m more interested in changing the system to be more friendly towards conservatism in the first place. Thus why I think that election more conservative senators, representatives, and governors, is more important in the long run.

WolvenOne on January 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Calling conservative a women a “harlot” is very much annoying.

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Yes. That’s exactly it. We’re calling ALL conservative women harlots for no reason whatsoever. My, what a sleuth you are.

angryed on January 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Can someone explain why I should care what NH does? They allow crossover voting. Why are they the first primary??

WryTrvllr on January 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM
SHUT UP! That’s why

– RNC
angryed on January 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

(yes sir……sorry)

WryTrvllr on January 12, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Just think what Obama will do in his next term.

ElenaKagan on January 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM

angryed on January 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM

We aren’t saying you’re calling all of them harlots Mr. Thick. We are saying that it’s stilling annoying that you’re calling women who you have a disagreement over candidates with harlots.

By the way, which candidate do you support?

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I can tell that you’re going to be a lot of fun my overly-sensitive but still amazingly delusional friend.

WealthofNations on January 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Except that you are so wrong. It only takes little for me to sling mud at the lefties because they are such easy targets and deserve no less, the plankton and gnats that they are. They are also our leeches.

I expect so much more from our side.

Still, we fight together, never to worry. I will not be affected at all if you read/don’t read my comments, misinterpret them or whatever you wish to do. I really believe in your freedom to do/be whatever you wish.

Also, delusins are indignant, sadly.

I harbor no malice toward you, or anyone on our side. Sadly, our side is becoming a strange string of words.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Just to recap the relationship between the virtuous virgin Nikki Haley and Mitt Romney:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley came out for Romney last month – a year after his Free and Strong America PACs funneled $36,000 to the Tea Party darling’s 2010 election bid. And 19 state and Washington, D.C., lawmakers in three Super Tuesday states – Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia — are backing Romney after his PAC poured a total of $125,500 into their coffers for elections held in 2009 and 2010.

No way she’s a harlot. No freaking way man!

angryed on January 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM

WolvenOne on January 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Exactly!!!

uhangtight on January 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM

And Romney is a Bishop in the mormon church. If true, this seems more relevant than Santorum’s layman pursuits and moralism.

kenny on January 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

WAS, not IS, he also WAS a Stake President, which is step up from Bishop, both of with a non-paid positions.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Correction

Sadly, our side is becoming a strange string of words.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2