Tough new Santorum ad: Let’s face it, Romney = Obama

posted at 7:20 pm on January 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

It’s tough, but it doesn’t feel tough, does it? This is Romney 101, stuff that every conservative who hasn’t been in a coma for the past two years already knows and dislikes about Mitt. But since there are in fact plenty of near-comatose (or, per the polite euphemism, “low-information”) voters, it might actually move the needle once it starts airing in SC. Consider it payback for the Romney Super PAC ads that have Santorum so worked up today.

Just one question: If this spot does end up hurting Romney, is Santorum the likely beneficiary? Over to you, Newt:

Despite having earlier suggested an loose alliance with his “junior partner” Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich seemed eager to put further distance between himself and the former Pennsylvania senator in the lead-up to Monday’s GOP debate, warning conservatives that siding with Santorum was a vote for rival Mitt Romney.

If you vote for Sen. Santorum, in effect, you’re functionally voting for Gov. Romney to be the nominee. The only way to stop Mitt Romney, for all practical purposes, is to vote for Newt Gingrich. It’s a fact. It’s a mathematical fact,” Gingrich said to reporters after an event in Myrtle Beach, according to the Wall Street Journal…

“Evangelical voters would like to have a nominee that will win a general election, and somebody who set the all time Pennsylvania record for the size of their defeat has a harder case to make as to why they could be elected,” Gingrich said.

I don’t know what he means by “mathematical fact.” True, Santorum has slid in South Carolina since his post-Iowa bounce and now trails Gingrich, but if Newt’s supporters defected to him en masse, he’d still have a fantastic shot at surprising Romney. What Newt really means to say, I think — and maybe he’ll say this bluntly tonight — is that Santorum’s still widely thought of as a boutique social-issues candidate whereas Gingrich is known for being a policy polymath. If you’re an independent thinking of rolling the dice on Obama’s opponent, who are you more likely to take a chance on: The guy who, according to the media caricature, is obsessed with abortion and gay marriage or the guy who’s known for being able to debate about nearly anything? This is going to be Gingrich’s message for the next week, I think, especially at the debates — that Romney can’t beat Obama and Santorum can’t beat Romney, therefore there’s only one truly, frankly, profoundly, fundamentally electable option still on the table. Turns out it’s the guy who finished fourth in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Who knew?

Says Mark Halperin, “Amazing to think about what would have happened if this ad had been run in Iowa for all of December with real money behind it.” Ah, but that would have required even a single semi-competent candidate besides Romney to be running this year.

Update: A good point from Bill Kristol about Newt’s supposed electability: It ain’t Rick Santorum whose favorables are nearly 30 points underwater.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

It’s tough, but it doesn’t feel tough, does it? This is Romney 101, stuff that every conservative who hasn’t been in a coma for the past two years already knows and dislikes about Mitt. But since there are in fact plenty of near-comatose (or, per the polite euphemism, “low-information”) voters who insist on supporting Romney *anyway*, it might actually move the needle once it starts airing in SC.

Midas on January 16, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Gingrich and Santorum are now sounding as stupid as their supporters on Hot Air.

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Honestly, I’m sick to death of *all* of them, *and* all of their stupid supporters.

Midas on January 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Honestly, I’m sick to death of *all* of them, *and* all of their stupid supporters.

Midas on January 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Enlightenment comes painfully, but surely, to those who pay attention.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 10:41 PM

The really sad point is that the only real candidate is Ron Paul. (I can hear the groans!

Look, there is no money. NO MONEY. Dismantling our overseas bases is not “optional” because we don’t have the money to run them. We don’t have the money to keep blacks or illegals ETB cards flowing, keep the EPA open or do anything, really. We are on the same fiscal road like Greece (Which will implode this week) and unless we really embrace “asterity” measures like a stable dollar and cut Trillions from the Federal Wastecan, we will end up the same. We are riding on our reputation, not anything else.

Mittens is not going to close a single Dept, stop “Foreign Aid” or do any of the things necessary to get our house in order. The Party is over, guys. The Hippy generation spent everything our forefathers gave us. Real closings are Mitt’s Gitmo. He says it now, but it just is not happening.

Bulletchaser on January 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Look, there is no money. NO MONEY.

Bulletchaser on January 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Truer words were never spoken.

The Mittbots want to bang their sippy cups and then nap through the next 4 years, good luck with presenting any facts to them.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Not that engineers in general are smart to begin with if they were they wouldn’t be the diaper wearing helper monkeys for physicists, you know the tools that hand the smart people tools.

By the way, that closet door you’re hiding behind, it opens as well as closes. Walk out into the light you’ll be much happier when you stop self hating.

Your Mamma loves me on January 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Most physicists I know wish they had majored in engineering, b/c engineers generally get paid a lot more. Engineering is the application of physics….we dont’ work for phyicists. They tend to focus more on research, we focus more on design and application.

The whole self loathing gay conservative thing is so predictable. If you are so smart you wouldn’t be so predictable.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

There’s not a single plank in his policy platform (that is, what

he’s promising to do if elected) that doesn’t appear in all of the others’, with the possible exception of censuring China, which isn’t really all that conservative but is popular enough with the country at large to overrule the fact that it’s protectionist.

Since departures from conservative orthodoxy in the record being ignored in favor of “ideology,” which is just another word for policy stances, is good enough for every other candidate, it’s good enough for Mitt Romney. Ergo, he’s at least as conservative as the other candidates in the field.

With the big difference, of course, being that he’s not using the capital economy as a cudgel against a conservative.

KingGold on January 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

His entire policy platform is a complete shift from how he governed as a liberal in Mass.

You want to completely brush off RomneyCare has it’s not big deal. It’s a big deal, especially since he’s still saying it was a swell idea.

I go by how candidates govern/vote, you want to go by what pols say, at least in Romney’s case.

You are the illogical one, not I. Nobody has deviated from conservativism as consistently as Romney has.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Yes. When I went there to eat, I enjoyed how they would call the order and the serving sizes were generous, but the quality seemed just OK. I know several groups meet there, and of course all the politicians seem to go there when they are in that city doing meet-and-greets, but I’m curious about the history. What made it a big deal?

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Well it’s basically the only locally own restaurants in downtown Spartanburg and it’s been there forever. It’s kind of a landmark in Spartanburg. I ate there for lunch a few times when I worked in S’burg.

I think it’s the serving size that made it popular with people.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

I was talking about Santorum. Santorum is the subject. Why are you trying to change the subject?

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM

The topic is about a Santorum ad claiming Romney is similar to Obama. Ergo, the topic is Romney and Romney’s record and how they are, or are not, similar to Obama.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 11:12 PM

The really sad point is that the only real candidate is Ron Paul. (I can hear the groans!

If Paul somehow won the Republican nomination he’d face the explicit opposition of a good chunk of the party – both activists and establishment types. He can’t win.

But let’s suppose he does.

He’s shown he can’t build any sort of coalition, even with conservatives.

Now, his son Rand? Presuming Romney loses the 2016 election, Rand seems to have the good parts of his father without the insane parts.

He could, I think, seriously reform the government. But he isn’t running for president now.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Well it’s basically the only locally own restaurants in downtown Spartanburg and it’s been there forever. It’s kind of a landmark in Spartanburg. I ate there for lunch a few times when I worked in S’burg.

I think it’s the serving size that made it popular with people.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t raised in SC, and I don’t live there now, but I was there for a short bit. Didn’t see as much as I would have liked, but tried to get to the major spots.

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM

The thing about ROmney is I want to like the guy. I don’t have a natural hate for the man. He seems likeable enough. It’s hard to believe somebody who seems so reaonable at the surface level acould immplement ROmneyCare.

20-30 years ago he’d be one of those Democrats you dislike politically, but have no special animus against.

Yet somehow he’s likely the conservative standard bearer.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t raised in SC, and I don’t live there now, but I was there for a short bit. Didn’t see as much as I would have liked, but tried to get to the major spots.

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM

You should check out downtown Greenville, about 30 minutes west of S’burg on 85. Best downtown in America in my opinion.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM

You should check out downtown Greenville, about 30 minutes west of S’burg on 85. Best downtown in America in my opinion.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Went to the Peace and Bi-Lo Centers a few times. Tried a few of the restaurants on Main. Neat little map shop there, too.

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 11:34 PM

The topic is about a Santorum ad claiming Romney is similar to Obama. Ergo, the topic is Romney and Romney’s record and how they are, or are not, similar to Obama.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 11:12 PM

That may be the topic of the blog entry, but it wasn’t the topic of my post that you responded to. Keep dancing and evading.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Actually, Obamacare has more to do with Hillarycare and a century long Progressive dream for universal health care. In the end, pouting conservatives gave them the majorities to finally get there. The perfect has become the enemy of the good. This mania to “take back” something will end up causing it all to be given away.

flataffect on January 17, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Where did I say marriage was invented in the church? I didn’t, so who’s the one pretending?

Really? Who brought up marriage being a function of the church?

Your church could continue to deny (I’m assuming here for argument’s sake) sanctifying same-sex marriage and that would be ok, too.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:46 PM

I guess I’m not the one pretending.

Well this is nothing but ignorance. The government is most certainly NOT out of marriage. No one is married unless the government says so. That’s about as involved as you can get, wouldn’t you say? I see nothing but intellectual dishonesty from you, unfortunately it isn’t contained to these two recent posts.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM

So because the government sets some restrictions on marriages, like not allowing close relatives to marry due to the risk of inbreeding, which is not exactly vigorously enforced anyway, you jump to the conclusion that the government is “involved” in marriage. And to fix that, you want to get the government involved in redefining marriage.

There’s a vast difference between saying, “No, brothers and sisters can’t get married,” and “marriage must be defined without respect to gender or it’s not marriage.” The first simply restricts those from getting married who would produce inbred children, while the second changes the very definition of marriage by government fiat.

tom on January 17, 2012 at 2:58 AM

Finally!

Let’s stop Romney now so that we can stop Obama in November!
In other words, let’s stop Obamneycare!

Go Santorum,Newt, or Perry or even Paul!

Pragmatic on January 17, 2012 at 7:05 AM

tom on January 17, 2012 at 2:58 AM

Try to come back with an actual argument instead of a straw man argument. Your ignoarance is a waste of time.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Perry, sure. Santorum, sure.

The rest of the dwarf’s…not even if hell freezes over!

Willard – Untrustworthy, has caved into dem’s too often, is the perfect poster boy for Obama’s brand of class warfare and affords him huge cover on ObamaCare…and ad’s like Santorum’s are not wrong. If I were Obama this is the guy I want to destroy in the General.

Paul – He is Janus, perfectly sane when talking fiscal matters, and a batcrap bleeping lunatic on anyting else. His debate performance last night was a glimpse into insanity people should be sprinting from.

gNewt – Big Govt Repub, thinks Govt can still actually fix things…in the face of so much that is broken, this is a farce…and he’s been more than accomodating to dem’s in the past…do not trust him, not in the Big Chair, no way.

Perry, Santorum…or going Galt. Those are my only three choices.

!

insidiator on January 17, 2012 at 7:54 AM

I think this is EXACTLY the sort of ad all of these candidates should be running during this primary season.

They should then ramp it up during the general election run up because there’s a whole lot of folks who are distrustful of Obamacare.

It’s Romney’s biggest weakness…not Bain….not even his dastardly dog treatment.

patfish on January 17, 2012 at 7:55 AM

The Romneybots are really making this nomination process a confederation of dunces, to pinch a term from great book.

Romney is a loser when it comes to getting sufficient numbers of conservatives to come out for him, that is just a fact.

And if you think that all the Wall Street fat cats and their media allies coming out and being apoplectic about poor little Mitt being asked to be held accountable for his business decisions will help you are wrong… the number of those voters is tiny and statistically insignificant

The fact is now that conservatives can go with Santorum or Newt, I am Newt guy, but both of them have a better chance of beating Obama than Romney. My hard numbers concern with Santorum is that Obama will cast him an extremist on women’s and gay issues, fair or unfair, it will be a problem with women’s votes.

In either case if we want to stop Obama from getting another 4 years, either Newt or Santorum need to get the nomination, this, of course barring a brokered convention that gives us Palin

georgealbert on January 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Tough talk from a guy who never met a piece of pork he didn’t like….

easyt65 on January 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM

That may be the topic of the blog entry, but it wasn’t the topic of my post that you responded to. Keep dancing and evading.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:01 AM

…says the dervish. Try to stay on topic…ok?

18-1 on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Romney = Obama on social issues?

Romney is a “vulture capitalist?”

Romney has to hold a press conference and take us through the history of his time at Bain, company by company?

If Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich are wondering why they can’t consolidate the conservative voters, they need look no further than their attacks on Romney. I live in MA. I don’t need to know Romney’s foibles.

Do I wish Jeb, Ryan or Rubio were running? Yes.

Am I going to support Gingrich with his capsized approve/disapprove rating? With his proclivities toward “innovations” that are usually big government programs?

Santorum, who got waxed in a bluish swing State?

Romney is not ideal to me. However, if this country ever needed a turn around specialist, it’s now.

diplomatsteve on January 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Now if that ain’t a bunch of crap, I don’t know what is.

Romney supporters certainly contributed, but who had more to gain by keeping her out? Romney, or the three conservative candidates now tearing each other’s throats out to claim the True Conservative position she’d just walk into?

KingGold on January 16, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Damn!!!

There you go again. Fighting stupidity with logic.

Gunlock Bill on January 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM

The Romneybots are really making this nomination process a confederation of dunces, to pinch a term from great book.

Romney is a loser when it comes to getting sufficient numbers of conservatives to come out for him, that is just a fact.

And if you think that all the Wall Street fat cats and their media allies coming out and being apoplectic about poor little Mitt being asked to be held accountable for his business decisions will help you are wrong… the number of those voters is tiny and statistically insignificant

The fact is now that conservatives can go with Santorum or Newt, I am Newt guy, but both of them have a better chance of beating Obama than Romney. My hard numbers concern with Santorum is that Obama will cast him an extremist on women’s and gay issues, fair or unfair, it will be a problem with women’s votes.

In either case if we want to stop Obama from getting another 4 years, either Newt or Santorum need to get the nomination, this, of course barring a brokered convention that gives us Palin

georgealbert on January 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM

I like Newt and Santorum, but I think Newt has a better chance against Obama. Here’s hoping that SC conservatives consolidate around Newt to beat Romney.

IndeCon on January 17, 2012 at 12:55 PM

tom on January 17, 2012 at 2:58 AM

Try to come back with an actual argument instead of a straw man argument. Your ignoarance is a waste of time.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 7:46 AM

non sequitur. Rejecting the homosexual agenda does not constitute “ignorance.” Equating a rejection of the homosexual agenda with ignorance, however, does suggest a certain inability to process logic.

tom on January 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4