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

Do mechanical engineering schools teach people to be prigs?

Bishop on January 16, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Sounds like you are jealous of my accomplishment to me.

I didn’t bring up my success out of the blue, some Romneybot called me stupid so I threw up what I think is a fairly good self defense. Call engineers stupid if you want, but it sounds desparate to me. :)

I don’t know what you are so uptight about, Romney’s the probable nominee and yet I seem to be of more good cheer. Your guy’s winning, what’s the big deal with a few of us conservative ideologues criticizing him on ihs record? Why do you take it so personally? You Romney Fans are just as bad as the Palin Super Fans were, and that has always been of some amusement to me, since we were told that Romney supporters are more intelligent, more educated etc. But you hero worship some pol who doesn’t give a crap about you outside of your vote.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Hey did you read the ABC article on Perry at the Cafe Mom forum yesterday/today.

It was really sweet.

gophergirl on January 16, 2012 at 8:31 PM

I still can’t believe this is the field we have going up against the biggest failure in modern history. Hopefully a late entry saves the GOP.

Meat Fighter on January 16, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Hopefully the GOP implodes and is running its last Presidential election.

james23 on January 16, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Obama is better than having Romney in there for 4 years and trying to displace him after he’s already in. GOP Congress for next 4 years and then let’s get a true conservative in the WH.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Right on.

Sometimes you just have to punt the ball when you are on your own 5-yard line (which is where we’d end up with Mittens), and trust your defense to hold’em.

With Walker in the pocket in 2016 we can get a candidate we all can support. And if he don’t run, how about that nerdy guy in Louisiana?

We have prospects. We don’t have to destroy whatever is left of teh GOP’s credibility by pretending Romney is conservative.

KirknBurker on January 16, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Famous Sweater Boys….Mr Rogers, Rick Santorum, but by far the best Jimmy Carter.

Dr Evil on January 16, 2012 at 8:33 PM

The following is Santorum’s position on taxes.

Rick Santorum – Taxes

Summary

Senator Santorum has been a consistent proponent of lowering taxes. His overall theory is that lowering the tax rate is the key for attracting jobs to the US and increasing manufacturing in the nation. He opposes lopsided taxes on those that create jobs and believes that this acts as a disincentive to start and maintain businesses.

During his time in office Senatory Sentarum was a consistent supporter of the Bush tax cuts and their extensions. He voted in favor of those bills and their extensions each time they came up for a vote. He also co-sponsored one of those pieces of legislation and touts his spearheading of that bill in his campaign literature.

Senator Santorum has consitently opposed the marriage penalty, the AMT, and the death tax. In 1997, he co-sponsored legislation to end the estate tax, the gift tax, and a generation skipping tax. In 1997, he co-sponsored a bill to require a 2/3 majority in Congress for any vote that would raise taxes.

In the 2012 campaign, Senator Santorum discussed his opposition to Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan by noting that a single person earning an income paid the same taxes as a married couple with children that earned the same amount. He noted that this was one of the problems with a fair tax. His 2012 plan mirrors these views by proposing to triple the exemption for each person and child. Currently, each household receives a deduction of roughly $3,700 of their taxable income for each man, woman, and child in the family. Tripling that rate for children would make the deduction $11,100 per child.

Senator Santorum has been vocal during the campaign in his desire to see a fairer, flatter system. He has stated that the current system punishes the individual, the small business, and the corporation. Most of his platform is consistent with this viewpoint and his history in calling for the elimination of a number of taxes such as the death tax and the AMT. The plan also calls for moving to two brackets of 10% and 28%, lowering the corporate tax rate and ending it for manufacturers in the US. He also calls for making the R&D tax credit permanent and making the rate for repatriated funds 5.25%.

2012 Tax Plan – The Santorum Solution
•Cut and simplify personal income taxes by cutting the number of tax rates to just two – 10% and 28% and return to Reagan era pro-growth tax rate;
•Simplify the tax code and reduce middle income taxes by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);
•Simplify the tax code, encourage savings and investment, and reduces taxes by eliminating the Death Tax;
•Lower the Capital Gains and Dividend tax rates to 12% to spur economic growth and investment;
Reduce taxes for families by tripling the personal deduction for each child;•Reduce and simplify taxes for families by eliminating marriage tax penalties throughout the federal tax code;
•Retain deductions for charitable giving, home mortgage interest, healthcare, retirement savings, and children;
•Eliminate the cap on deductions for losses incurred in the sale of a principal residence;
•Cut the corporate income tax rate in half to make our businesses competitive around the world, from 35% to 17.5%;
•Eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers to spur middle income job creation in the United States and benefit from the job multiplier effect in manufacturing;
•Increase the Research & Development Tax Credit from 14% to 20% and make it permanent to spur on innovation in America;
•Eliminate the tax on repatriated taxable corporate income invested for manufacturers equipment investment, 5.25% corporate tax rate on other repatriated income invested in the USA, and 100% expensing for new business equipment;
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Taxes/

It appears that Santorum is for tripling the personal deduction for children NOT tripling the child tax credit. There is a difference.

KickandSwimMom on January 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

It appears that Santorum is for tripling the personal deduction for children NOT tripling the child tax credit. There is a difference.

KickandSwimMom on January 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Only in terms of degree, though. It’s still a reduction in the effective tax rate for poor people with many children, which is indeed a social engineering goal.

Whether that’s a good thing for the country or not is a value judgment I’d prefer not to make.

KingGold on January 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Sounds like you are jealous of my accomplishment to me.

Why would I be jealous of your ability to put down working class people while prancing around with your mechanical engineering degree?

That’s what snooty liberals do when they talk about “flyover country”, and I never get jealous of anything liberal.

Bishop on January 16, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Why is he known mostly for social issues then? And before you go off on a rant, I agree Romney is an unwise choice.

jazzuscounty on January 16, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Because to the media, being pro-life or anti-gay marriage is weird. And they want Romney so they think they are attacking Santorum by focusing on his social conservativism. Note that the media did the same think to Perry before his campaign imploded…

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM

I cannot vote for Romney as our nominee. Under any circumstances.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 8:21 PM

A sentiment gaining steam. Have we really fought for the last three years to merely try and replace the liberal with a (D) with the one with an (R)?

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

You’ve got to make a better argument than the other person and back it up with evidence. The Romney supporters here are arguing that he’s a strong conservative and the other candidates have glaring unconservative things in their records. You’re arguing exactly the opposite. That’s as far as it goes.

KingGold on January 16, 2012 at 8:27 PM

The Romneybots like you not make a case he’s a conservative.

You say he’s more electable, which you can’t prove.

You excuse, whitewash RomneyCare as being legit, usually going with the states rights defense, but that’s only going to work with political neophytes, not conservative ideologues who have some understanding of healthcare policy.

If we can excuse Romney’s RomneyCare, I’m not sure why I can’t cut Santorum some slack on some anti-free trade votes, etc. I don’t expect purity but I do expect somebody more pure than the RomneyCare guy. It’s really not that complicated.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Call engineers stupid if you want, but it sounds desparate to me. :)

I don’t think anyone here would call engineers stupid. Just you, “Dr.” Tesla.

MeatHeadinCA on January 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Anybody but Obama!

Any of you recall that?

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Santorum is a big-government loving authoritarian. He is no friend to liberty. So for him to equate someone else to Obama is laughable.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Santorum is a big-government loving authoritarian. He is no friend to liberty. So for him to equate someone else to Obama is laughable.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

“You just want to have sex with Mitt Romney!” /”Dr” Tesla

MeatHeadinCA on January 16, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Maybe this will cull some cognizant thought: Respect the mission, not the candidate.

Obama and his hell spawn minions MUST be sent home.

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM

If we can excuse Romney’s RomneyCare, I’m not sure why I can’t cut Santorum some slack on some anti-free trade votes, etc.

If I could pick ONE thing that the next president would do, it would be repealing Obromneycare. Romney, obviously, is not the guy going to do that.

Apparently though to some people, Obromneycare is fine, but if that Santorum guy voted for No Child Left Behind* before recanting it he is a vote too far!

*Which passed the Senate 91-8 mind you.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM

But you hero worship some pol who doesn’t give a crap about you outside of your vote.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

That’s EVERY politician out there you dip stick. You’re not really doing anything to disprove the fact that mechanical engineers are the short bus riders of engineers. 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

Because to the media, being … anti-gay marriage is weird.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM

It’s not just the media who think it’s weird.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Santorum is a big-government loving authoritarian. He is no friend to liberty. So for him to equate someone else to Obama is laughable.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Nothing more big-government or authoritarian than forcing people to buy health insurance…

Just Sayin on January 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Only in terms of degree, though. It’s still a reduction in the effective tax rate for poor people with many children, which is indeed a social engineering goal.

Whether that’s a good thing for the country or not is a value judgment I’d prefer not to make.

KingGold on January 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

From what I understand, tax credits, unlike deductions and exemptions, reduce your tax directly (as opposed to reducing your taxable income). Therefore, a credit is more valuable than a deduction of the same amount.

By the way, how is it social engineering for people to pay to the government less tax?

KickandSwimMom on January 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

The Romneybots like you not make a case he’s a conservative.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:42 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

Hopefully the GOP implodes and is running its last Presidential election.

james23 on January 16, 2012 at 8:31 PM

I’m almost at that point.

KirknBurker on January 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

If we can excuse Romney’s RomneyCare, I’m not sure why I can’t cut Santorum some slack on some anti-free trade votes, etc. I don’t expect purity but I do expect somebody more pure than the RomneyCare guy. It’s really not that complicated.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM

This is where I stand as well. I’ve maintained that Santorum is no worse than any in the field on conservatism; and in fact, is better than many.

KickandSwimMom on January 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Santorum is a big-government loving authoritarian. He is no friend to liberty. So for him to equate someone else to Obama is laughable.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I would have thought a big government authoritarian would have supported higher taxes. That’s generally the first and most abused power by big government types. Yet Santorum was consistently against higher taxes and pro tax cuts.

He also supported Social Secureity reform to include privatization, but hey, some hack on the internet says he’s a big government authoritarian. Must be true.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Santorum is a big-government loving authoritarian. He is no friend to liberty. So for him to equate someone else to Obama is laughable.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I guess there comparative records bare repeating.

When Santorum was one of the leaders in the welfare reform fight, Mitt Romney was running to the left of Ted Kennedy.

When Santorum voted for NCLB (before recanting) with almost every Republican in the Senate, Romney was busy formulating Obromneycare which NONE of them would vote for in the Senate.

While Santorum was denouncing the healthcare mandate, Romney was calling it the conservative solution.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

It appears that Santorum is for tripling the personal deduction for children NOT tripling the child tax credit. There is a difference.

KickandSwimMom on January 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Why isn’t he calling for the elimination of the income tax?

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:51 PM

It’s tripling down on status quo tax policy, that’s what it is. It’s statism. It’s big government at its finest. Oh, and it doesn’t really work!

MeatHeadinCA on January 16, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Seriously? Santorum’s support for child tax credit is worse than Romney’s socialized medicine? In an election where one of the biggest complaints against Obama is Obamacare, you’re okay with making our nominee the guy who invented the plan that Obama adopted for his deeply unpopular initiative?

tom on January 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM

KingGold on January 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

That’s talk. Nobody trusts his words because he is a liar.

The only reason he has gotten this far is because of the ‘anybody but Obama’ lunacy.

Obama is mostly an effect, not a cause. Quick focusing on solely Obama and start thinking big picture. We are in a war with progressivism/statism.

KirknBurker on January 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM

It’s not just the media who think it’s weird.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM

True, liberals as whole find opposition to gay marriage to be weird.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM

From what I understand, tax credits, unlike deductions and exemptions, reduce your tax directly (as opposed to reducing your taxable income). Therefore, a credit is more valuable than a deduction of the same amount.

By the way, how is it social engineering for people to pay to the government less tax?

KickandSwimMom on January 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Exactly. Which is why I said it’s a difference in degree. But it’s still a rate reduction.

And every tax provision that’s not an outright rate reduction, and that wouldn’t apply to everyone equally, is social engineering. If you want to encourage more people to buy cars, you implement a car-loan interest write-off. If you want more people to get married, you give favorable tax status to married persons. It’s all social engineering, and entails certain value judgments.

KingGold on January 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM

I’d say Santorum is the best of those remaining.

I was open to Perry but he’s just not an effective campaigner. He doesn’t have a clue on how to best sell himself. He should at least be competing with Romney based on the fact he was a governor for 10 years and he’s from the South and those kind of candidates are usually preferred by Republicans. At this point, he’s just hurting Santorum, b/c he has no shot. Santy does if Perry gets out.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Nothing more big-government or authoritarian than forcing people to buy health insurance…

Just Sayin on January 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

It’s neither a sliding scale nor a contest. That Obama is a big-government authoritarian doesn’t mean Santorum isn’t.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM

November will be about isolating Obama and keeping him in check with GOP gains in the House and Senate. We will live to fight again, my fellow Tea Party conservatives.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Santorum is a big-government loving authoritarian. He is no friend to liberty. So for him to equate someone else to Obama is laughable.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Santorum won’t take us back to Coolidge, but worst case he gets us back to 2006.

Romney? The progressive may or may not do much to advance government, but he certainly isn’t rolling any of it back.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM

The people who don’t want any purity test applied to Romney are the same people breaking out the microscopes to find stuff in Santorum’s record that makes him less than pure. I find that most amusing.

IF we letting Romney slide on RomneyCare, it’s all good. You can’t have it both ways.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:55 PM

November will be about isolating Obama and keeping him in check with GOP gains in the House and Senate. We will live to fight again, my fellow Tea Party conservatives.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM

The problem is, with Romney at the top of the ticket, how many of those down races do we lose?

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:55 PM

It’s neither a sliding scale nor a contest. That Obama is a big-government authoritarian doesn’t mean Santorum isn’t.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Except I was talking about Romney.

Just Sayin on January 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I would argue that Santorum’s record in the Senate has been much more fiscally conservative than Paul Ryan’s votes, yet Paul Ryan is hailed as a fiscal hero.

Republican voters don’t look at records on their own. They just trust what they read by people promoting somebody over somebody else.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM

True, liberals as whole find opposition to gay marriage to be weird.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Not who I was referring to. Opposing gay marriage – at least, to the extent that one demands government be involved in the opposition – is opposing freedom and liberty.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:58 PM

I never heard anybody say Santorum wasn’t a fiscal conservative until Perry fans saw he was a problem for Perry in Iowa.

Then they smeared Santorum as a statist. It hasn’t seemed to help Perry any.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:58 PM

And every tax provision that’s not an outright rate reduction, and that wouldn’t apply to everyone equally, is social engineering. If you want to encourage more people to buy cars, you implement a car-loan interest write-off. If you want more people to get married, you give favorable tax status to married persons. It’s all social engineering, and entails certain value judgments.

KingGold on January 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Well, the deduction (which merely reduces your taxable income)would apply to everyone equally–if you have children. Why shouldn’t a family keep more of its own money when it has more mouths to feed?? If you think that this position of Santorum’s is a vote killer, I would have to disagree.

KickandSwimMom on January 16, 2012 at 8:59 PM

I guess there comparative records bare repeating.

When Santorum was one of the leaders in the welfare reform fight, Mitt Romney was running to the left of Ted Kennedy.

When Santorum voted for NCLB (before recanting) with almost every Republican in the Senate, Romney was busy formulating Obromneycare which NONE of them would vote for in the Senate.

While Santorum was denouncing the healthcare mandate, Romney was calling it the conservative solution.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Why are you talking about Romney?

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:59 PM

“Republican voters don’t look at records on their own.”

Projection anyone?

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Trying to say Santy is just as bad as Obama is absurd.

I get the gay-centric types are not going to go for Santy, but let’s not crazy here.

Just admit you don’t like Santy b/c you think he’s out to get the gay folk. That’s why you think he’s “big government”.

People are so insincere about why they believe certain things and it’s silly.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Santorum won’t take us back to Coolidge, but worst case he gets us back to 2006.

Romney? The progressive may or may not do much to advance government, but he certainly isn’t rolling any of it back.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM

And again, you counter with Romney when he isn’t even the subject. This is like the Palin fans who, whenever a criticism of Palin is made, respond with, “Oh, yeah? Well Obama…”

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:02 PM

99.99999999% of peole opposed to Santy are so b/c they think he’s out to get the gays and/or he is pro-life.

It’s that simple. They haven’t looked at the rest of his record, b/c this is the stuff they vote on.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM

I would have thought a big government authoritarian would have supported higher taxes. That’s generally the first and most abused power by big government types. Yet Santorum was consistently against higher taxes and pro tax cuts.

He also supported Social Secureity reform to include privatization, but hey, some hack on the internet says he’s a big government authoritarian. Must be true.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Well I guess that’s one way to make a straw man.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Not who I was referring to. Opposing gay marriage – at least, to the extent that one demands government be involved in the opposition – is opposing freedom and liberty.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Conservatives oppose cheapening the definition of marriage, liberals support it. Pick a side.

And again, you counter with Romney when he isn’t even the subject.

So, your answer to Romney’s liberal record is to avoid talking about it?

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Just admit you don’t like Santy b/c you think he’s out to get the gay folk. That’s why you think he’s “big government”.

People are so insincere about why they believe certain things and it’s silly.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Irony.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:06 PM

“Republican voters don’t look at records on their own.”

Projection anyone?

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 9:00 PM

If you looked at Romney’s record as govenor in Mass, and you liked it, including RomneyCare, you aren’t a conservative, or you are very very very confused.

As Dr. Thomas Sowell had opined, Romney doesn’t have a single conservative accomplishment. His signature legislattion was a failure and leftwing…RomneyCare. His big thing was supporting the ban on semi-automatic weapons which he thinks are the same as machine guns. He’s for banning something he doesn’t even understand at a basic level. But he’s our smartest candidate? Let’s be honest here.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Irony.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:06

It never hurts to elaborate but I’m guessin you can’t so you keep it vague. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Dante, you are an Obama supporter right? I seem to recall you saying that.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Conservatives oppose cheapening the definition of marriage, liberals support it. Pick a side.

Another straw man. I just said opposing gay marriage is opposing freedom and liberty, and instead you come back with “cheapening the definition of marriage”? Really???

So, your answer to Romney’s liberal record is to avoid talking about it?

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 9:06 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

Dante, you are an Obama supporter right? I seem to recall you saying that.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM

As if the rest of your posts weren’t proof that you’re delusional…

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:11 PM

How is opposing gay marriage opposing liberty?

Gays are asking for more government in their life, government perks simply for being gay.

There’s a lot of confusion about the gay issues.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:12 PM

As if the rest of your posts weren’t proof that you’re delusional…

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Who do you support? Big government in your healthcare Romney? You’re the freedom lover here, brother? Good luck with that phony position.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I wonder why this thread has so many commen… Oh.

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Good job staying on point WRT Santorum and his positions/voting record. If he were still viable to get the nomination I would be firmly in his camp. I could have supported Santorum, Perry or Palin for the GOP nomination this year. However, with Romney I’m electing to set up a defensive position for 12′-16′ and go on the offensive in 16′.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Considering the bulk of the attacks on Palin from our side came from Romney supporters, I call it karma.

Sekhmet on January 16, 2012 at 8:00 PM

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

Palin had nasty stories leaked to the media before the 2008 election was even over, accusing her of being trashy, spending like a redneck who won the lottery, too stupid to know anything about foreign policy, so uninformed she thought Africa was a nation rather than a continent, and so forth. The leaks were determined to come from Romney supporters who had moved to the McCain campaign after Romney’s campaign had flamed out.

No one has ever proven that Romney was behind it, but it’s never been Romney’s way to go on the attack anyway. So, yeah, there’s a certain amount of karma involved.

Now, if these leaks had been done in a primary contest between Rommney and Palin, I could accept this as just a part of politics as usual. But the election was over, and there was no primary campaign expected for another 3 years. The purpose seemed to be a preemptive strike to paint Palin as a low-class airhead unsuitable for higher office before she could go back to the governor’s mansion in Alaska and fade from view. Needless to say, the media and the Democrats — but I repeat myself — were all in favor of character assassination.

I know of no evidence that the bogus ethics complaints levied against Palin could be traced back to Romney. As far as I know, the Democrats were behind all of those. But the first blood was drawn by a putative ally years before there was even a contest on the horizon.

So yes, there is some history of attacks from Romney supporters on Palin long before the primaries.

tom on January 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM

If I were a Romney supporter, I wouldn’t try to make the case he’s a conservative. Just stick to calling him a moderate who can win over moderates and beat Obama. That’s really the only case for him.

Why engage in a bunch of intellecctual dishonest for a serial flip flopper who appears to have the nomination locked up? He’s doing just fine without you. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM

The problem is, with Romney at the top of the ticket, how many of those down races do we lose?

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:55 PM

In my district, very purple, the GOP won everything in 2010, I mean every race, big to small. That won’t happen again, here.

james23 on January 16, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Good job staying on point WRT Santorum and his positions/voting record. If he were still viable to get the nomination I would be firmly in his camp. I could have supported Santorum, Perry or Palin for the GOP nomination this year. However, with Romney I’m electing to set up a defensive position for 12′-16′ and go on the offensive in 16′.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Well he is still viable to get the nomination if people vote for him. If you are just voting for ROmney b/c he’s the frontrunner, it seems like you miss the point of primaries. It’s about who you support, not voting for the frontrunner.

I don’t buy you support Romney over Santorum only b/c of viablity.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:18 PM

wonder why this thread has so many commen… Oh.

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 9:13 PM

McDuck, we’ve never been best buddies on here but I thinnk we have always been cordial.

Have I ever called you gay?

Some say that I accuse everybody of being gay on here, but you have actually admitted that you are gay and it wasn’t me trying to drag it out of you. Yet I have never talked about you being gay, have I?

Thanks for being available for me to use as a prop to make a point that effectively slaps down my criticis who say I’m gay obsesssed. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:21 PM

I don’t buy you support Romney over Santorum only b/c of viablity.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I will NEVER support Romney or vote for him. My primary isn’t for another couple of months, and I’ll vote for Santorum. As a political scientist and poller I can see how this race will unfold next week and following 6 weeks. NH and SC really screwed our country.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM

NH and SC really screwed our country.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM

…along with Newt and Perry remaining in the race.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 9:25 PM

It appears that Santorum is for tripling the personal deduction for children NOT tripling the child tax credit. There is a difference.

KickandSwimMom on January 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Only in terms of degree, though. It’s still a reduction in the effective tax rate for poor people with many children, which is indeed a social engineering goal.

Whether that’s a good thing for the country or not is a value judgment I’d prefer not to make.

KingGold on January 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

According to Mark Steyn, it’s a great thing. The birth rate in America is barely above the replacement rate. A big part of the reason for that is economic. Making children a bit less expensive might well lead to more children, and thereby make us a stronger country, so it at least meets the standard of promoting a policy with genuine national benefit.

Is that a good enough reason? I don’t know that I’m sold on the idea, but it sure beats voting for the architect of socialized medicine.

And it’s certainly more conservative than socialized medicine. I honestly don’t see how anyone could argue anything different.

Except, of course, Romney supporters, who are impervious to such logic.

tom on January 16, 2012 at 9:26 PM

will NEVER support Romney or vote for him. My primary isn’t for another couple of months, and I’ll vote for Santorum. As a political scientist and poller I can see how this race will unfold next week and following 6 weeks. NH and SC really screwed our country.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Well I’m from SC and I’m suprised Romney may win there, especialy since we are always told evangelicals hate Mormons, which I was always knew wasn’t true. Your average evangelical is hazy on exactly what Mormons believe so it would be hard for them to hate Mormons even if they were inclined to do that.

I still think Santy or Gingrich got a shot in SC, but no primary run-off favors a well funded moderate with strong support from moderate voters. A divided conservative vote is winning the nomination for Romney, not Romney and his ideas assuming he really has any.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Heres what I dont get about “Anyone but Obama”. If you dont like Obama because of his policies then I understand that, but if thats the case then “Anyone but Obama” doesnt make sense. What if that person wants to continue his policies or what if that person has WORSE policies? So unless your just against Obama for something totally unreleated to his governing I dont get how a vote for “anyone but Obama” is acceptable.

Politricks on January 16, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Well I think Newt still has outside shot, despite his heresies. He does have some conservative accomplishments he can point to, and he can debate.

Perry should have gotten out after coming in 5th or 6th in Iowa. You got to do better than that if you are going to be the eventual nominee.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM

How is opposing gay marriage opposing liberty?

If two people wish to be married, what business is it of government’s or anyone elses’s? It doesn’t affect my life or yours. We all have a right to pursue our own path without infringing upon the rights of others. Why would anyone wish to use the force of government to prevent consenting adults from making a personal choice that harms no one else and affects no one else’s life, especially a choice of love and marriage?

Gays are asking for more government in their life, government perks simply for being gay.

There’s a lot of confusion about the gay issues.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:12 PM

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to, but it isn’t marriage, which is what I’m talking about.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:31 PM

A vote for Romney will basically be based on a hope he will be better than Obama. That shouldn’t be too hard for even Romney to pull off. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Except I was talking about Romney.

Just Sayin on January 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Him, too.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM

This debate reminded me of something. Why is The Beacon such a popular place for politicians to meet? Yeah, I get that it’s got a unique way of ordering and it does have space large enough for meetings and such, but I don’t think the food is that good.

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Oops, wrong thread.

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Marriage was based on the fact that women have babies, and men knock them up.

It just doesn’t apply to gay couples because gay couples don’t reproduce.

I don’t see what’s so complicated about this and why it’s anti-gay if you look at the purposeo f marriage logically.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM

McDuck,

The Beacon in Spartanburg SC? Hamburger place downtown?

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Who do you support? Big government in your healthcare Romney? You’re the freedom lover here, brother? Good luck with that phony position.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:13 PM

The only conservative, Constitutionalist, and defender of liberty in the race: Ron Paul.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:35 PM

The only conservative, Constitutionalist, and defender of liberty in the race: Ron Paul.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I think he would prefer to be president of Iran. Nobody a bigger fan of Iran than the good doctor Ron Paul.

Ron Paul comes across as crazy and who wants crazy associated with the political philosophy you support? I don’t.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Thanks for being available for me to use as a prop to make a point that effectively slaps down my criticis who say I’m gay obsesssed. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Maybe because that’s all you talk about?

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Dante seriously proposes we run the racist newletters guy (he had no idea!) against the black man.

That’s what you call high risk, low reward.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:34 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

True, liberals as whole find opposition to gay marriage to be weird.

18-1 on January 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Not who I was referring to. Opposing gay marriage – at least, to the extent that one demands government be involved in the opposition – is opposing freedom and liberty.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 8:58 PM

If the government does nothing at all, do we have gay same-sex marriage?

Nope.

So who exactly is calling for the government to override the social conventions the people already have in place?

Does it bother you that you make such a big deal of promoting freedom and liberty, and do such a bad job of it that you try to make the government override the accepted meaning of marriage?

Nah. Probably not. You’ve already rationalized your way to demanding an activist government while preening as a libertarian.

tom on January 16, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Ron Paul comes across as crazy and who wants crazy associated with the political philosophy you support? I don’t.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Irony once again.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Maybe because that’s all you talk about?

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I talk about everything so that doesn’t hold up, but I understand why you do it….it’s about getting me to self censor, you call me obsessed if I engage people who bring up the subject of gay issues. They aren’t obsessed of course, just teh people who willing to debate the issue with them. It’s about shouting down peole on this topic for you. I understand that but it’s not going to work.

The gay topic is fun b/c peoiple get so batty about it. I’m attracted to it on that reason alone.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Irony once again.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM

You know what’s ironic? Ron Paul going on Leno and calling Santy anti-gay when Ron Paul wrote anti-gay stuff in his newsletter, along with the racist stuff.

You support a anti-gay bigot and a racist in Ron Paul. I don’t.

I wouldn’t be playing the tolerance card on anybody if I was a Paul-bot, brother.

Come back when you got something legit for me to slap down. I just nailed you to the wall and you know it.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM

I still think Santy or Gingrich got a shot in SC, but no primary run-off favors a well funded moderate with strong support from moderate voters.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I think 6 of the following 9 things would have to happen for Santorum to win SC…

1. Sarah Palin endorsement
2. Petraeus selected as Santorum’s VP
3. Jim DeMint endorsement
4. Israel strikes Iran
5. Rush Limbaugh endorsement
6. Romney have 73-seond pause in debate
7. Dexter takes Ron Paul for a ride on his boat
8. Romney sex scandel erupts
9. Bob Dole comes out in support of RomneyCare

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM

If the government does nothing at all, do we have gay same-sex marriage?

Nope.

So who exactly is calling for the government to override the social conventions the people already have in place?

Does it bother you that you make such a big deal of promoting freedom and liberty, and do such a bad job of it that you try to make the government override the accepted meaning of marriage?

Nah. Probably not. You’ve already rationalized your way to demanding an activist government while preening as a libertarian.

tom on January 16, 2012 at 9:38 PM

A government that does nothing at all? Ah, to dream…

But for the rest of your post…you aren’t making any sense. First, get government out of marriage completely. Would there be same-sex marriage? Of course there would. Would it affect your life even the tiniest little bit? No.

I don’t care what you think the accepted meaning of marriage is. I don’t care what anyone else thinks the accepted meaning of marriage is, either. Why? Because it’s irrelevant to the issue. Your church could continue to deny (I’m assuming here for argument’s sake) sanctifying same-sex marriage and that would be ok, too.

I don’t think you quite know what you’re saying about demanding an activist government be involved, especially when I’m saying for government to get out of it completely.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Two questions:

1. I know I was a bit rude to you earlier about this, but I’m curious about your thoughts on RP’s electability. Ron Paul seems to associate himself with some strange people with extremist views. In certain cases, some might consider those views to border on racism. Given the fact that he is running against the nation’s first black President, how do you think he’d have a chance in heck of beating Obama? Or is it not about winning, but making a statement?

2. Is Dante a reference to the author, the video game, or something else entirely?

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I talk about everything so that doesn’t hold up, but I understand why you do it….it’s about getting me to self censor, you call me obsessed if I engage people who bring up the subject of gay issues. They aren’t obsessed of course, just teh people who willing to debate the issue with them. It’s about shouting down peole on this topic for you. I understand that but it’s not going to work.

The gay topic is fun b/c peoiple get so batty about it. I’m attracted to it on that reason alone.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM

You have got to be the most deluded person on the internet.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I think 6 of the following 9 things would have to happen for Santorum to win SC…

1. Sarah Palin endorsement
2. Petraeus selected as Santorum’s VP
3. Jim DeMint endorsement
4. Israel strikes Iran
5. Rush Limbaugh endorsement
6. Romney have 73-seond pause in debate
7. Dexter takes Ron Paul for a ride on his boat
8. Romney sex scandel erupts
9. Bob Dole comes out in support of RomneyCare

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Well DeMint’s not endorsing anybody. I think Santy and he had a little argument over right to work and/or free trade. I agree with DeMint on the issue, but I understand the politics of PA to know you can’t win up there as a free trader and “anti-union”.

Rush doesn’t endorse, but he seems to be favoring Perry which doesn’t really make sense at this point.

Romney sex scandal would kill him as his family man image defintely helps him with the ladies. Even worse wouuld be if were to go bald and gain a lot of weight. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Dante,

I’m doing the best with what God gave me. I have epilepsy which basically means my brain is abnormal yet I’m doing better than a lot of people with normal brains. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Two questions:

1. I know I was a bit rude to you earlier about this, but I’m curious about your thoughts on RP’s electability. Ron Paul seems to associate himself with some strange people with extremist views. In certain cases, some might consider those views to border on racism. Given the fact that he is running against the nation’s first black President, how do you think he’d have a chance in heck of beating Obama? Or is it not about winning, but making a statement?

2. Is Dante a reference to the author, the video game, or something else entirely?

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Well, I don’t recall that, so no big deal, I suppose.

1. I think he has the strongest chance of any of the candidates. And many seem to consider the Constitution to be extremist these days. It’s a word without meaning; its only use is to marginalize through fear rather than engage in content. The “some say” and “some may say” tricks the media likes to use don’t mean anything to me.

2. That’s personal

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:55 PM

But for the rest of your post…you aren’t making any sense. First, get government out of marriage completely. Would there be same-sex marriage? Of course there would. Would it affect your life even the tiniest little bit? No.

I don’t care what you think the accepted meaning of marriage is. I don’t care what anyone else thinks the accepted meaning of marriage is, either. Why? Because it’s irrelevant to the issue. Your church could continue to deny (I’m assuming here for argument’s sake) sanctifying same-sex marriage and that would be ok, too.

I don’t think you quite know what you’re saying about demanding an activist government be involved, especially when I’m saying for government to get out of it completely.

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Marriage isn’t a government institution. It precedes all forms of government. The first governments were based on families, which were based on marriage.

But you and others keep pretending that marriage was invented in the church, and that only a church could possible protest same-sex marriage.

The fact remains, there is only one way that we get the same-sex marriage you want, and that is if the government passes laws and policies requiring same-sex marriages to be treated exactly the same way that marriage as it exists now is treated.

You keep dishonestly trying to put the blame on me or people like me. You’re the ones demanding government action. Worse, you’re the ones demanding that the government require everyone else to accept marriages that they don’t even believe are really marriages.

You’re asking for a heavier hand of government than existed when they were enforcing the Prohibition.

The “Oh I want the government to get out of it completely” defense is laughable. The government is already out of it. About all they do now is recognize that a marriage has happened and that those people are now living as a family. You want the government to get into it, and to tell everyone else in the country, “No matter what you think marriage is, it now includes two men or two women. Because we say so.”

Why exactly should the government have the right to redefine marriage?

tom on January 16, 2012 at 9:55 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.

It is unfortunate for conservatives that the RomneyCare guy is handsome and does seem likeable and smart enough. HOw you look and come across is what matters to most voters in the end.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I don’t see how anybody could think Ron Paul is electable, and even our most electable candidate against Obama. He makes Obama seem almost conservative on foreign policy, plus he wrote racist newsletters. It’s easy to paint him as angry old white racist crank becaue he probably is.

Ron Paul is starting to think he is the Constitution, he says that word so much.

Dr. Tesla on January 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM

1. I think he has the strongest chance of any of the candidates. And many seem to consider the Constitution to be extremist these days. It’s a word without meaning; its only use is to marginalize through fear rather than engage in content. The “some say” and “some may say” tricks the media likes to use don’t mean anything to me.

2. That’s personal

Dante on January 16, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Thanks for the reply. I just see the media pushing the whole newsletter thing way too much for him to have a chance in the general.

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Speaking of burger places, there is nothing better than making your own burger. I think I will make myself one while chatting on Hot Air. With a little sharp cheddar on top. Mmm.

McDuck on January 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Marriage isn’t a government institution. It precedes all forms of government. The first governments were based on families, which were based on marriage.

But you and others keep pretending that marriage was invented in the church, and that only a church could possible protest same-sex marriage.

Where did I say marriage was invented in the church? I didn’t, so who’s the one pretending? And yes, if government is out of marriage altogether, churches would still be free to marry whomever they wish or deny marriage according to their own doctrines. That isn’t to say that only churches could marry someone. It’s a matter of rights, which you don’t seem to understand: a church would have the right to grant or deny marriage, as they should.

The fact remains, there is only one way that we get the same-sex marriage you want, and that is if the government passes laws and policies requiring same-sex marriages to be treated exactly the same way that marriage as it exists now is treated.

You keep dishonestly trying to put the blame on me or people like me. You’re the ones demanding government action. Worse, you’re the ones demanding that the government require everyone else to accept marriages that they don’t even believe are really marriages.

You’re asking for a heavier hand of government than existed when they were enforcing the Prohibition.

The “Oh I want the government to get out of it completely” defense is laughable. The government is already out of it. About all they do now is recognize that a marriage has happened and that those people are now living as a family. You want the government to get into it, and to tell everyone else in the country, “No matter what you think marriage is, it now includes two men or two women. Because we say so.”

Why exactly should the government have the right to redefine marriage?

tom on January 16, 2012 at 9:55 PM

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4