Video: Romney vs. Newt on immigration, Santorum vs. Romney on RomneyCare

posted at 10:30 pm on January 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

Two highlights of the evening, both via BuzzFeed. Remind me again, what’s the evidence from this interminable debate series that Newt would totally PWN Obama in the debates this fall? He’s had two memorable moments, one attacking Juan Williams and the other attacking John King, neither of whom is actually running for president. All day long we heard about how angry he was on the stump about Romney’s Freddie Mac hypocrisy and his secret bank accounts and his richie-rich richness, and how Newt was spoiling for a fight. So what ended up happening? Romney neutralized him on the big immigration exchange at the beginning, and then it fell to Santorum — for the second debate in a row — to pick Romney apart on his core policy vulnerability. (He did a darned fine job of it too.) If you’re operating under the illusion that the election will turn on the presidential debates in October, kindly explain why Gingrich is somehow superior to Santorum. He wouldn’t even accept Blitzer’s invite to hit Romney on his Swiss bank account even though he’s been criticizing him on the trail for it for days. The hapless moderator/punching bag had to badger him into answering. Mystifying. Didn’t Newt realize that the primary was on the line tonight?

You’ll be pleased to know that Romney is now a 91 percent favorite to win Florida on InTrade as I write this, up from 74 percent earlier today. Stats guru Nate Silver thinks it’s possible that Romney wins by double digits, perhaps by as much as 20 points. And why not? After Santorum’s strong performance tonight, there are bound to be tepid Newt fans and true undecideds who prefer him as the anointed Not Romney and will start peeling away tomorrow. Who could blame them?

Exit question: Did Brett O’Donnell just cinch the nomination for Romney?


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 4 5 6

I remember that, it was the ’92 D-convention.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 7:02 AM

Thanks!

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 7:25 AM

Oh, it’s all very simple, really. This was all hashed out last night — right here, on this very thread! — by ardent Romney supporters.

“Every conservative vote is needed” [1:47 A.M.]… but they’re also “irrelevant” [2:32 A.M.], while simultaneously being “the same as Obama supporters,” if they don’t swear a blood-oath to vote for Romney in November [3:23 A.M.].

See? All perfectly, crystal clear! ;)

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 6:55 AM

I saw that!

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM

I remember that, it was the ’92 D-convention.
whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 7:02 AM

Thanks!
Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 7:25 AM

One of those little political tidbits that rings a bell, there was a bit of a to-do about not letting him address the convention. Although conservative media was nowhere as big as it is nowaday I recall it being a big topic for awhile.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 7:31 AM

3 Get rid of Holder and czars. The only reason left to support Romney. Maybe enough, maybe not.

Rose on January 27, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Romney as President would be competent and would not favor his cronies. That is sufficient reason to support anybody over Obama, who is incompetent and corrupt.

That said, you’re correct, Romney would be Obama Lite, no matter how conservative he’s talking now. Gingrich would be an anti-Obama but unpredictable. Santorum would be a lot more conservative, I think, but the likelihood that he’ll win the nomination is very small.

philwynk on January 27, 2012 at 7:32 AM

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 7:24 AM

philwynk on January 27, 2012 at 7:32 AM

How about Gingrich/Santorum ? Rick could tone down Newt’s wild side. They’ve known each other and worked together for a long time, and it would give Santorum time to grow into the job!

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 7:36 AM

Santorum would be a lot more conservative, I think, but the likelihood that he’ll win the nomination is very small.

philwynk on January 27, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Only if people keep thinking he can’t win. It’s like the saying goes: If you change the way you think you’ll change the way you feel. Santorum has lots of energy and drive but needs funds to keep going. Throw him a few bucks if you’d like to see him try and beat Romney. I know I’m going to :)

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 7:37 AM

His son is who Santorum ran against and lost to. No one here was that suprised by it, and besides wasn’t that a really bad year for all republicans? I have a pretty bad memory and I don’t like to waste it on stuff like that- LOL

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:47 AM

Robert Casey, Jr. and Robert Casey Sr. Both very popular in PA.

Santorum was targeted by progressives. He was vulnerable because of his stand of conscience on Terry Schaivo, which was successfully demonized in the press. Also, Santorum’s election rested in part on his opposition to abortion which pleased PA’s plentiful Catholics, and Casey took that issue away from him since he was also Catholic and anti-abortion.

I like Rick Santorum, and would be content to have him as our nominee, my support for Gingrich notwithstanding.

philwynk on January 27, 2012 at 7:42 AM

How about Gingrich/Santorum ? Rick could tone down Newt’s wild side. They’ve known each other and worked together for a long time, and it would give Santorum time to grow into the job!

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 7:36 AM

I would be happy with that combination in either direction: Gingrich/Santorum or Santorum/Gingrich.

philwynk on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 AM

Fun to dream, but it sure looks like it’s likely to be our Squish Romney vs. their Socialist 0bama.

Heaven help us.

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Remind me again, what’s the evidence from this interminable debate series that Newt would totally PWN Obama in the debates this fall?He’s had two memorable moments, one attacking Juan Williams and the other attacking John King, neither of whom is actually running for president.

He’s had three. He started his rise when he attacked Scott Pelley on the rights of an American terrorist. But the point is otherwise valid.

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM

Touche’ Mitt! “Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers” Newt has all but done himself in by this stance. Just as Rick Perry did. Mitt has helped himself. I think this might be the turning point of the campaign. DD

Darvin Dowdy on January 27, 2012 at 7:21 AM

Romney will lose to Obama.

workingclass artist on January 27, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Fun to dream, but it sure looks like it’s likely to be our Squish Romney vs. their Socialist 0bama.

Heaven help us.

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Pray for a brain. Mitt’s no Squish. You don’t accomplish what he has in life by being a squish. It’s a stupid attack. Mitt’s not a bomb thrower but as he showed last night, he will and can fight very effectively.

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 8:00 AM

The very notion that the GOP could wind up nominating Romney after the Tea Party uprising in 2010 is simultaneously disgusting and depressing.

I’ll be voting third party in November if that’s the case. And since I’m certain Romney will lose no matter how I vote, I don’t feel bad about it, either. I just hope he doesn’t jeopardize our House majority (for what little good it does us) or prevent us from taking the Senate.

It’s time to focus on the down ticket races, because the White House is Obama’s for the next four years.

DRayRaven on January 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Unfortunately, Romney is the epitome of a squish. He’s the GOP version of John Kerry. There is no core.

Celebrate your victory moderates, but nobody’s buying this Mitt is a conservative stuff. You got your squish, live with it.

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Jacksonville native here // will vote Santorum — The pettiness and heavy baggage of newt, coupled with the nervous, giggly “I want to buy the presidency” of mittens, is too much for me and hubster.

Ris4victory on January 27, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Are you SERIOUSLY asking this question? Romney can’t argue against a health care plan when he authored a very similar plan!

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 12:11 AM

and when he’s saying this at the end of last month.

http://www.therightscoop.com/romney-individual-mandate-is-fundamentally-a-conservative-principle/

INC on January 27, 2012 at 12:15 AM

I just do not understand it. I do not understand how people can complain about Obama’s health care plan and want to repeal it and then support Mitt Romney for the Republican Presidential nominee who authored the same plan when he was Governor of Massachusetts! You know, I’m saying to myself these people are brainwashed zombies under heavy mind control of FOX news and the establishment… programmed just the way they like lol

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 12:34 AM

I don’t understand either. I worry that nominating Romney will suck all of the energy from the base, energy needed to hold the House and win the Senate.

Thinking back to the fall of 2008, my district had a Democrat congressman. When TARP was being debated people here came unglued. They flooded his office with calls and bombarded his local office with calls, letters, and personal protests. It was impressive. Even though he was a Dem, he voted against it. Then a few months later, those same people went ape over Obama’s stimulus. He supported that. As a result, in the early spring of 2009 we held Tea Party rallies mere yards from his local office. The people pestered and protested so much that he was one of the few Dems who did not support Obamacare. He still lost his seat, mostly because he was in the party that implemented Obamacare.

Fast forward to today, we are looking at nominating a presidential candidate who defends health care mandates as conservative, supported TARP, and called for a Keynesian stimulus package. Romney is wrong on all three issues that really motivated the people in my district to work and fight. Since 1980, I’ve worked every presidential campaign on behalf of the GOP. I won’t do it for Romney and I’m not alone. The very people the GOP depends on to work are being bashed and mocked by the geniuses pimping Romney.

flyfisher on January 27, 2012 at 12:54 AM

I’ve been reading through the posts from late last night. This is one that should be read.

Stayright on January 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Sadly, I thnk I’m getting off the Newt train in Florida before it arrives in Ohio for my primary.

His attacks on Romney for owning Fannie and Freddie shares are riduculous. Arguing that he’s anti-immigrant was absurd too. It would have been fine–and very persuasive–for Gingrich to argue that Romney has a simple-minded plan for immigration reform, while Newt’s is well thought out and humanitarian to those who have been residing here a long time. Stop there, Newt. But this space program bullsh*te was nuttier than I can imagine. I reminded me of an episode from M*A*S*H featuring a guest spot by the late Harry Morgan (before he returned years laters as Col. Sherman T. Potter). Morgan paid a somewhat eccentric general who came for a visit. Although a stickler for protocal, the guy seemed fairly sensible for most of the program, until the end when it became abundantly clear that he was a crackpot. Maybe Newt can rebound, but he’s inexplicably blown his SC momentum on silly attacks and stupid issues. Call me anti-science, but I could give a rat’s *ss about the space program.

All the same, Romney convinced me that if he’s the nominee, I would send money, and I probably won’t vote for him. He’s the wrong guy on Obamacare–and Santorum nailed him on it. It’s good for Massachusetts, but it’s not good for the country? Romneybots, how do you make that argument? Answer: you can’t. Romney, moreover, is too vulnerable on the wealth and income issues. Low-information voters will not listen to the correct argument that Romney, in truth, pays effectively 44.75% tax on his dividend income and that the capital gains tax is rough justice for the effect of inflation and a means to attract capital. Where Romney is properly to be blamed, I think, is the 15% rate assessed on his carried interest income all those years. I’m no partnership tax expert, but I’m having a hard time understanding how that income is not compensation rather than return on investment. That said, I’ve read that a change was proposed in 2007, until a senator supported by Goldman Sachs helped to derail the change–a Senator Obama.

I’m not gravitating to Santorum. I don’t like his zero tax for manufacturing plan. There has to be a better way to pull manufacturing back–I think it’s the regulation that drives them overseas. This aspect is picking winners and losers with tax policy. He should grab Newt’s immigration plan–especially as a guy with an immigrant granddad.

Sorry, Newt supporters, but he’s lost me as he’s gotten himself bogged down in Floridan. But Romney supporters, I loathe Romney for wasting so much time blaming Newt for Fannie and Freddie mishaps. Whatever Newt did for them had nothing–NOTHING–to do with the fiasco those entities created. The blame for those entities belongs at the feet of the elected officials in office at the time and who fueled the subprime leading under the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act.

BuckeyeSam on January 27, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Good organization doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a vast moderate-wing conspiracy for Romney. It might just mean good organizaiton. This could be useful in beating Obama. Sure, in-your-face heated anger tastes great but as time passes it often reveals itself to be just empty calories. People aren’t going to be bludgeoned into voting GOP, particularly independents who find conflict distasteful.

rhombus on January 27, 2012 at 8:14 AM

The very notion that the GOP could wind up nominating Romney after the Tea Party uprising in 2010 is simultaneously disgusting and depressing.

I’ll be voting third party in November if that’s the case. And since I’m certain Romney will lose no matter how I vote, I don’t feel bad about it, either. I just hope he doesn’t jeopardize our House majority (for what little good it does us) or prevent us from taking the Senate.

It’s time to focus on the down ticket races, because the White House is Obama’s for the next four years.

DRayRaven on January 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM

When I was about to get a divorce and told my husband I was leaving, he told me I would starve to death without him. I told him I would rather starve to death than spend the rest of my life with him. LOL This situation feels kind of the same to me!

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 8:15 AM

BuckeyeSam on January 27, 2012 at 8:12 AM

You don’t need to be sorry, they do.

Cindy Munford on January 27, 2012 at 8:20 AM

I posted this on my blog and the other thread but I am gonna bring it here re: Sarah.

I got a theory and it is that she truly supports Santorum, but she is keeping it hush. Newt’s endorsement via Todd was the left curve. Besides, he’s Independent and he can think for himself. He supports what Sarah does and of course, all the ordeal they went through.

Me thinks she will jump in and then we MAY see the so-called “earthquake” but she really wants to go after Obama herself, and pick Santorum as VP. The process is flowing according to plan, let’s not allow a couple of states and the establishment to pick our “the one” so as soon as we’re done, Obama will start campaigning against us ASAP.

My brokered convention thoughts are really the delegates and super-delegates vs. the establishment, and I dunno how many of those are establishment per se. I hope there are a lot of populists as delegates that do care for their state and their country and don’t want to hand over the elections to Obama-regardless of the candidate.

I want as much war as we have it in our guts to stick up for our candidate and the constant in fights we have right now which are disgusting for me to read. HotAir is not anymore, at least till November or when we “regroup” as Governor Brewer said at the infamous tarmac meeting.

I want to remain positive, I want to keep this going as much as Sarah does-it’s good for everybody. And look at all the dirt that’s coming out! The Democrats are lovin’ all of this but they WON’T HAVE AMMO AGAINST US. They’re running out of it, the so-called billion dollar campaign against us will not endure nor prevail if we win.

-TPE

ProudPalinFan on January 27, 2012 at 8:22 AM

ProudPalinFan on January 27, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Before the Mittbots all gang up on you and start hurling invectives your way, let me comment as someone who is not necessarily hostile toward the notion of a Palin presidential bid: your reasoning aside, I don’t believe she is jumping into the race, and I find the notion of a brokered convention handing her the nomination dubious at best.

That said, your fantasy land is a lot more attractive than reality.

DRayRaven on January 27, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Romney as President would be competent and would not favor his cronies.

philwynk on January 27, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Of all of his faults, this perhaps is Romney most blatant…better look at Bechtel and their involvement in Mass–and his campaign for decades.
10 of his top 10, and 18 of his top 20 financial supporters are Wall Street groups that made a fortune off of TARP, the policy he heavily supported.
That, besides his liberalism, is his most glaring weakness.

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 8:32 AM

I think Rick won the debate last night…but I see the Mitt lovers picked up on his “don’t be so angry” line and are repeating it.
That is the problem with obsessed people, they can’t think for themselves, they let their “leaders” dictate to them what to do…it’s very cultist.
Rick tried to keep them on focus with Obama, and this administration’s failure…but both Mitt and Newt have to play in the sandbox.
Both of them were childish and foolish in the debate…no sooner had Newt got an agreement from Mitt, and Mitt turned around and got personal…it was laughable, in fact they laughed and booed at Mitt.
And quite frankly, Newt was just a little bit better…but both of them had told horrible lies about the other.
And btw, I don’t go along with this “blind trust”…as if a money manager doesn’t understand the roll and the desires of his client…yeah, sure.
And Newt should have laid off the “anti-immigration” stuff…both of them were not “Presidential” by any definition, besides petulant.

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Conservative North Florida voters: Romney’s too rich

@mattklewis ‘Mitt Romney’s Struggle With Truth Continues’ http://t.co/WYvbC3a8

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Conservative North Florida voters: Romney’s too rich

@mattklewis ‘Mitt Romney’s Struggle With Truth Continues’ http://t.co/WYvbC3a8
Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM

The next few days ought to be interesting. No pressure, but it’s all up to you now!

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 8:49 AM

All Santorum did was repeat the same thing over and over again, which is that Romney was associated with the Massachusetts plan. Is that news? Is that some new development? Stating the obvious doesn’t equal good debating skills, although he came off looking much better than Newty.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM

ProudPalinFan on January 27, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Sarah Palin made her decision, PPF, and there won’t be a brokered convention where Sarah descends from the rafters with a celestial choir singing background Hosannas. We play the cards we’re dealt. And who knows? We might even win.

troyriser_gopftw on January 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Conservative North Florida voters: Romney’s too rich

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM

They’re not that “conservative” if that’s the way they think.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 8:52 AM

The next few days ought to be interesting. No pressure, but it’s all up to you now!

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Have you seen this?

Floridian claims he likes Newt, but paid to campaign for Romney [VIDEO]

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 8:53 AM

And btw, I don’t go along with this “blind trust”…as if a money manager doesn’t understand the roll and the desires of his client…yeah, sure.

And Newt should have laid off the “anti-immigration” stuff…both of them were not “Presidential” by any definition, besides petulant.

not2bright on January 27, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Put some ointment on the rash and get some fresh air. You need to clear your head and start being rational. You don’t understand what a blind trust is and why people in public life use one? Your ingnorance is not Romney’s problem, is it? And you talk about “obsessed” people? The “obsession” lies with anti-Romney paranoids like yourself. Santorum was the petulant one.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Have you seen this?

Floridian claims he likes Newt, but paid to campaign for Romney [VIDEO]

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 8:53 AM

So anti-Romney paranoia is now causing folks to complain that campaign workers are getting paid? Huh? That’s just weird. It reminds me of Obama’s bad attitude towards jobs for Americans.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I’ll be voting third party in November if that’s the case. And since I’m certain Romney will lose no matter how I vote, I don’t feel bad about it, either.

DRayRaven on January 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Pathetic. You’re exactly the kind of hysterical moron that puts a smile on the faces of Obama and Axelrod, and the rest of their crew. Go get your bottled water and cannded goods and crawl away to your hole. You are of no use to anybody who is serious about taking back the White House.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

ProudPalinFan on January 27, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Only a totally in the tank Palinista could seriously believe what you posted.

Bradky on January 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

They’re not that “conservative” if that’s the way they think.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 8:52 AM

That’s not for me to say, but North Florida voters always vote for the “most conservative” candidate, whether it’s in a national or state race.

Something to think about, if “Conservative North Floridians” are of the mind that “Romney’s too rich”, how do you think it’s going to resonate with the Independent voter, or disenchanted Dems?

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Like I said in the debate thread, I’ve had no dog in the hunt up this point. That changed last night.

I’m going with Rick and I put my money where my mouth is. Made a donation to his campaign this morning.

I want to volunteer for this election. I wouldn’t for Romney and and be embarrassed to do it for Newt.

Is he perfect? No But it’s a time for choosing and for me, its Santorum.

WisRich on January 27, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Something to think about, if “Conservative North Floridians” are of the mind that “Romney’s too rich”, how do you think it’s going to resonate with the Independent voter, or disenchanted Dems?

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM

As I said, they’re not “conservatives” at all if that’s the way they think. And I expect the clueless, dishonest Left to pretend that they hate money in order to further their usual class warfare agenda. Independents still believe in capitalism and don’t begrudge someone his success. And as for “disenchanted Dems” the odds are that the thing that MAKES them “disenchanted” is that they DON’T agree with the class warfare argument coming from the whackos that control the Democratic Party. Next question.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Have you seen this?

Floridian claims he likes Newt, but paid to campaign for Romney [VIDEO]

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Proof, please. Some guy saying some guy paid him to campaign for Romney even though he really supports Gingrich isn’t good enough, especially since the accusation could torpedo the Romney campaign if proven true. It wouldn’t/shouldn’t be difficult to get a description or even a name of the Romney operative spreading around payola. And teeshirts. Can’t forget the teeshirts. I’m sure some of the more edgy fashionistas would sell their souls for one of those cool Romney campaign teeshirts.

troyriser_gopftw on January 27, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Pathetic. You’re exactly the kind of hysterical moron that puts a smile on the faces of Obama and Axelrod, and the rest of their crew. Go get your bottled water and cannded goods and crawl away to your hole. You are of no use to anybody who is serious about taking back the White House.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Cicero must be spinning in his grave at the childish insults that pass for debate points in your posts. Next time open enrollment comes up, do the rest of us a favor and change your handle to something more accurate, like “Condescending Douche.”

DRayRaven on January 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Like I said in the debate thread, I’ve had no dog in the hunt up this point. That changed last night.

I’m going with Rick and I put my money where my mouth is. Made a donation to his campaign this morning.

I want to volunteer for this election. I wouldn’t for Romney and and be embarrassed to do it for Newt.

Is he perfect? No But it’s a time for choosing and for me, its Santorum.

WisRich on January 27, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Good on ya! I have liked Santorum for a while now along with Newt. Santorum is the most steady for the long haul. Newt looks beaten down by the Romney hit machine. You can count on the Romney hit machine starting the nasty antics with Santorum really soon since people who move from Newt will go to Santorum. I, too, donated to Santorum to help him keep up the fight.

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM

BuckeyeSam on January 27, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Agree on all your points and with AP that Newt was shockingly weak last night. His biggest handicap this primary season is his awkward response attacks on his opponents. I do think that Newt sounding the alarm on Romney’s extraordinary wealth was mostly to warn against the potential liability it’d make on a general electorate in this divided class warfare climate.

Santorum did win the debate. He really had Romney on the ropes desperately trying to parry his blows.

RepubChica on January 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Proof, please. Some guy saying some guy paid him to campaign for Romney even though he really supports Gingrich isn’t good enough, especially since the accusation could torpedo the Romney campaign if proven true.

troyriser_gopftw on January 27, 2012 at 9:09 AM

What? How would it torpedo Romney? Nobody is preventing the dude from voting for whoever he wants. If he’s getting paid to work for somebody, what’s the problem? How is it Romney’s problem? Payola? WTF?

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Another quick thing that I’m sure has been mentioned in the 4k comments or so. In his attempt to be the biggest smartass in the room, Romney quipped with a sly smile on his face that he’d “fire” Newt for presenting an idea to him.

What a stupid ass. The DNC really loved that moment.

RepubChica on January 27, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Newt seems to be tiring. Plus he sees the FL polls and knows the reality of his situation. Romney will be the nominee but last night Santorum proved he has a spot in the next GOP administration.

FireBlogger on January 27, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Have you seen this?

Floridian claims he likes Newt, but paid to campaign for Romney [VIDEO]

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Wow. I find it sad that that is what a job consists of these days.

So anti-Romney paranoia is now causing folks to complain that campaign workers are getting paid? Huh? That’s just weird. It reminds me of Obama’s bad attitude towards jobs for Americans.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Yeah, we’re just like Obama. I don’t think we’re paranoid, we just don’t like someone purchasing the nomination. I have no idea if this is legal, I wonder though if they are being paid to stand there or to vote? If it’s just to stand there and pretend to be a Romney supporter, bless him for employing people.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:14 AM

All Santorum did was repeat the same thing over and over again, which is that Romney was associated with the Massachusetts plan. Is that news? Is that some new development? Stating the obvious doesn’t equal good debating skills, although he came off looking much better than Newty.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Romney is a horrible candidate. Nominating him will take the biggest issue off the table for all the people who worked so damn hard getting conservatives in office in 2010 that would repeal Obama/Romneycare. Why should conservatives knee-cap themselves?

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Good on ya! I have liked Santorum for a while now along with Newt. Santorum is the most steady for the long haul. Newt looks beaten down by the Romney hit machine. You can count on the Romney hit machine starting the nasty antics with Santorum really soon since people who move from Newt will go to Santorum. I, too, donated to Santorum to help him keep up the fight.

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Anti-Romney paranoia causes people to drift from candidate to candidate in a pathetic, forlorn attempt to defeat Romney. Let me guess, if Romney is the nominee you’ll do…what? Go rogue and vote for Obama? That’ll “show ‘em” down at GOP headquarters, right?

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Romney is a horrible candidate. Nominating him will take the biggest issue off the table for all the people who worked so damn hard getting conservatives in office in 2010 that would repeal Obama/Romneycare. Why should conservatives knee-cap themselves?

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 9:14 AM

People keep mindlessly repeating that same line. But nobody ever stops to explain how that makes any sense. Why, exactly, can’t Romney criticize ObamaCare? What is stopping him from pointing out the obvious flaws with the bill? The question comes down to is ObamaCare a good piece of legislation or not?

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Anti-Romney paranoia causes people to drift from candidate to candidate in a pathetic, forlorn attempt to defeat Romney. Let me guess, if Romney is the nominee you’ll do…what? Go rogue and vote for Obama? That’ll “show ‘em” down at GOP headquarters, right?

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Face the facts. 75% of the base does not want Romney that is why they are desperately looking for anyone else. Now, as to me, I’ve been consistently supporting both Santorum and Newt for weeks now. If Romney is on the ballot, I’ll vote 3rd party. I played the establishment game in 2008–no more. I’m just not that dedicated to the GOP. I’m a conservative.

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Yeah, we’re just like Obama. I don’t think we’re paranoid, we just don’t like someone purchasing the nomination. I have no idea if this is legal, I wonder though if they are being paid to stand there or to vote? If it’s just to stand there and pretend to be a Romney supporter, bless him for employing people.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:14 AM

I don’t know if it’s illegal either, but why do I get the feeling that if the roles were reversed, cicerone would be one of the loudest claiming that it was dirty politics.

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM

What? How would it torpedo Romney? Nobody is preventing the dude from voting for whoever he wants. If he’s getting paid to work for somebody, what’s the problem? How is it Romney’s problem? Payola? WTF?

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Lighten up, Francis. People are making unsubstantiated claims that Romney is paying people to promote his candidacy. The Romney campaign has claimed several times that his campaign doesn’t engage(or endorse) paid advocacy. This dates back to the 2007 primaries, specifically Iowa, when Romney had paid lower-level campaign staffers in positions usually staffed by campaign volunteers. The optics were terrible.

troyriser_gopftw on January 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Yeah, we’re just like Obama. I don’t think we’re paranoid, we just don’t like someone purchasing the nomination. I have no idea if this is legal, I wonder though if they are being paid to stand there or to vote? If it’s just to stand there and pretend to be a Romney supporter, bless him for employing people.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:14 AM

“Purchasing a nomination” is BS that sounds like it’s straight out of OWS. I know it makes you feel good to spout that kind of nonsense but please, stop for a second and think about what you just said. At least you admit that you have “no idea” about this. Self-awareness is useful. If you’re implying that working for Romney even though he claims to favor Gingrich is some sort of violation then you need to check yourself into a clinic somewhere and get some counseling. Desperate last-minute smear tactics that don’t even make sense is not a good look for you.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:21 AM

People keep mindlessly repeating that same line. But nobody ever stops to explain how that makes any sense. Why, exactly, can’t Romney criticize ObamaCare? What is stopping him from pointing out the obvious flaws with the bill? The question comes down to is ObamaCare a good piece of legislation or not?

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

From Jeffrey Anderson at the Weekly Standard:


Romney then replied by issuing a defense of Romneycare that sounded a lot like the defense that Obama (who might have even been taking notes) is likely to give of Obamacare: “I didn’t say I’m in favor of top-down government-run health care. Ninety-two percent of the people in my state had insurance before our plan went in place.” (For Obamacare, it’s nearly the same percentage of people, only nationwide) “And nothing changes for them. They own the same private insurance they had before.” (As Obama likes to say, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”) “And for the 8 percent of people who didn’t have insurance, we said to them, if you can afford insurance, buy it yourself, any one of the plans out there, you can choose any plan.” (The same is true for Obamacare — except, as in Romneycare, for the large numbers of people who get shuttled onto Medicaid.) “There’s no government plan.” (There isn’t one in Obamacare either, as the public outcry caused the “public option” to be nixed.) ….

So if Republicans are going to have a mandate to repeal [Obamacare's] unprecedented threat to liberty and fiscal solvency, they will have to bring it up — or, rather, their nominee will have to bring it up. And he will have to know why he opposes it — not merely that he does.

This is why nominating Romney takes it off the table.

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Pathetic. You’re exactly the kind of hysterical moron that puts a smile on the faces of Obama and Axelrod, and the rest of their crew. Go get your bottled water and cannded goods and crawl away to your hole. You are of no use to anybody who is serious about taking back the White House.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

You are starting to sound like Bluegill. It’s a good thing Romney isn’t paying you, I assume, because you people aren’t getting him any new fans around here.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:22 AM

That’s not for me to say, but North Florida voters always vote for the “most conservative” candidate, whether it’s in a national or state race.

Something to think about, if “Conservative North Floridians” are of the mind that “Romney’s too rich”, how do you think it’s going to resonate with the Independent voter, or disenchanted Dems?

Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM

It’s one of his vulnerabilities, and he’s going to have to do a better job in talking about his success and relating to people. But, if those cons think he’s too wealthy, then I would ask what amount is “proper” for someone to have. Just a few mill, like Newt? That’s not elitist?

The class envy/warfare thing is incredibly frustrating. I don’t care whether someone makes more, and I don’t know why it should bother anyone else. For Gingrich to be using the language of the left on this too, imo, is inexcusable…conservatives usually don’t buy into that garbage. And shouldn’t, I don’t care what you’re trying to win.

changer1701 on January 27, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Lighten up, Francis.

troyriser_gopftw on January 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM

You just made the list, buddy! lol

But seriously, the “optics” are total BS. It’s just another intellectually dishonest attempt to portray Romney as a bad guy because he’s got his own money. There are only two types of people who roll with that idea: the clueless idiots squatting in an OWS camp and the desperate nitwits who claim to be “conservative” but can’t stop vomiting up Michael Moore-style rhetoric about the “evil rich.”

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:25 AM

You are starting to sound like Bluegill. It’s a good thing Romney isn’t paying you, I assume, because you people aren’t getting him any new fans around here.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Aww, gee! U mad? I’m dealing with people who have already stated that they’ll:

a. stay home in November
b. vote third party
c. douse themselves with gasoline and spark up

The people who are serious about defeating Obama in November will support the GOP nominee. If they refuse to do so then they are helping the other guy. It’s that simple. And frankly, the idea that I’m the mean guy and everybody else commenting on here is gentle and kind is absurd. Be real or be gone.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:28 AM

This is why nominating Romney takes it off the table.

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 9:22 AM

So you can’t come up with an argument yourself. That’s okay, I get it. It’s hard and you’re not equipped. But as to the “argument” that you copied and pasted I’ll just say this…

The issue is ObamaCare, not “RomneyCare.” The Dim-o-crats can claim that the latter “inspired” the former all they want to. The ObamaCare legislation is deeply flawed, not just in principal but in the specifics. Obama can make just one accusation against Romney but Romney has 2,000 pages of worthless federal legislation to attack. That’s 2,000 pages that Obama will have to defend. Obama will have to defend the disreputable way the bill was rammed through Congress. He’ll have to defend the fact that his administration has granted thousands of waivers. He’ll have to defend all the loopholes and “fill-in-the-blanks” parts of the bill where the rules and regulations are essentially TBD (to be determined) at a later date, which of course gives the government a tremendous amount of leeway for bureaucratic intrusion. And on and on.

The idea that the Massachusetts plan prevents Romney from attacking the million-and-one flaws in ObamaCare is absurd

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM

People keep mindlessly repeating that same line. But nobody ever stops to explain how that makes any sense. Why, exactly, can’t Romney criticize ObamaCare? What is stopping him from pointing out the obvious flaws with the bill? The question comes down to is ObamaCare a good piece of legislation or not?

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Now that someone has stopped to explain why that makes any sense are you going to keep mindlessly pretending not to understand? What do you see as the obvious flaws with the bill? Is ObamaCare a good piece of legislation or not?

Lighten up, Francis. People are making unsubstantiated (as of now) claims that Romney is paying people to promote his candidacy. The Romney campaign has claimed several times that his campaign doesn’t engage(or endorse) paid advocacy. This dates back to the 2007 primaries, specifically Iowa, when Romney had paid lower-level campaign staffers in positions usually staffed by campaign volunteers. The optics were terrible.

troyriser_gopftw on January 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM

What he said.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Face the facts. 75% of the base does not want Romney that is why they are desperately looking for anyone else. Now, as to me, I’ve been consistently supporting both Santorum and Newt for weeks now. If Romney is on the ballot, I’ll vote 3rd party. I played the establishment game in 2008–no more. I’m just not that dedicated to the GOP. I’m a conservative.

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 9:19 AM

You’ve been “consistently supporting” two different candidates? Really? How am I supposed to take that seriously? But thanks for admitting that you have no desire to defeat Obama but simply go rogue and sabotage the GOP nominee. Some people just like to burn the village to the ground because it’s fun, I guess. You’re a “conservative” who would rather Obama get re-elected? Maybe you’re like Newty, a “conservative” who talks like Michael Moore when it seems politically expedient. Real “conservatives” DON’T adopt OWS talking points and the DON’T make moves that only help Barack Obama.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:41 AM

LunaRick pastes Romney on universal health care despite having come out for it himself in 1994. LunaRick is without question the most dangerous guy in this race. If he should somehow win the Presidency, we will have four years of big government conservatism infused with religious fervor. It will make the Meese commission look like Sesame Street. LunaRick is a religious fanatic that needs to be stopped.

libertarianlunatic on January 27, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Now that someone has stopped to explain why that makes any sense are you going to keep mindlessly pretending not to understand? What do you see as the obvious flaws with the bill? Is ObamaCare a good piece of legislation or not?

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Can you read? Or do you just copy and paste? I just answered that question.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You are starting to sound like Bluegill. It’s a good thing Romney isn’t paying you, I assume, because you people aren’t getting him any new fans around here.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Aww, gee! U mad? I’m dealing with people who have already stated that they’ll:

a. stay home in November
b. vote third party
c. douse themselves with gasoline and spark up

The people who are serious about defeating Obama in November will support the GOP nominee. If they refuse to do so then they are helping the other guy. It’s that simple. And frankly, the idea that I’m the mean guy and everybody else commenting on here is gentle and kind is absurd. Be real or be gone.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Why would I be mad? You are the one trying to persuade people to your view of things, and for some reason you think insulting them and belittling them is the way to go about it. I’m just wondering where the heck you got the idea this is a good plan. I’m starting to picture you and Bluegill working in adjoining cubicles, because you sound the same, but I can’t imagine your superviser would approve of your tactics, but since I’m not a Romney supporter I don’t know what goes on in your circle.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Another quick thing that I’m sure has been mentioned in the 4k comments or so. In his attempt to be the biggest smartass in the room, Romney quipped with a sly smile on his face that he’d “fire” Newt for presenting an idea to him.

What a stupid ass. The DNC really loved that moment.

RepubChica on January 27, 2012 at 9:13 AM

What’s the matter? Didn’t you like it when Newty was the biggest smartass in the room? This is part of the problem. Anti-Romney paranoia causes people to forget their own pointless arguments. All week long the Newtists have been saying that they support him because he’s got those “debate skilz” and he “fights.” And that Romney is the opposite. But when that turns out to be false and Romney takes Newty down, suddenly Romney is criticized for – oh, I don’t know – fighting “too hard” or being a “smartass.” Suddenly flashing some debate skilz is a bad thing? Give me a break! The fact of the matter is that the SOLE REASON so many folks were claiming to support Newty was his debating prowess. But twice this week he lost. Deal with that.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:50 AM

You’ve been “consistently supporting” two different candidates? Really? How am I supposed to take that seriously? But thanks for admitting that you have no desire to defeat Obama but simply go rogue and sabotage the GOP nominee. Some people just like to burn the village to the ground because it’s fun, I guess. You’re a “conservative” who would rather Obama get re-elected? Maybe you’re like Newty, a “conservative” who talks like Michael Moore when it seems politically expedient. Real “conservatives” DON’T adopt OWS talking points and the DON’T make moves that only help Barack Obama.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Why would she care whether you take that seriously?

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM

You spelled it wrong, you better hope cozmo doesn’t see that or this.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Who is Cosmo ??? lol

My eyes are shot… And no edit option… So it is what it is…

Y314K on January 27, 2012 at 3:09 AM

Now you’re really going to be in trouble, you spelled his name wrong too.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Now that someone has stopped to explain why that makes any sense are you going to keep mindlessly pretending not to understand? What do you see as the obvious flaws with the bill? Is ObamaCare a good piece of legislation or not?

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 9:37 AM
Can you read? Or do you just copy and paste? I just answered that question.

cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM

If you will note the times you will see that I was typing while you were posting. I’m bored with you so I’m done. Good luck in your future endeavors!

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Bradky on January 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

And yet you felt compelled to comment with your keen sense for the obvious considering the commenter’s name.

Cindy Munford on January 27, 2012 at 10:41 AM

So, Romney says that he’s not going to round people up and deport them, but he doesn’t want to change the law. He claims that he wants to enforce the law, but that is not what he is advocating in practice. He is advocating the status quo. What a shock.

besser tot als rot on January 27, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Romney’s body language in response to these accurate characterizations is awful.

besser tot als rot on January 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM

So, Romney says that he’s not going to round people up and deport them, but he doesn’t want to change the law. He claims that he wants to enforce the law, but that is not what he is advocating in practice.

besser tot als rot on January 27, 2012 at 11:25 AM

When one’s party tirelessly promotes a potential candidate based, chiefly, on the quality of his tonsure, rather than adherence to any specific and/or inviolable political principle: that’s pretty much all you can expect, sadly.

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 11:31 AM

The only one of the above list that can be called a state solution is tort reform.

In short, a pathetic attempt to justify Romneycare by pretending it’s just another state solution.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Yes, most of the things that were in that list were proposed back to me by the commenter who was basing their knowledge of the issue on their personal experience. However, the commenter did not recognize that some of that list did require federal legislation. I was just trying to figure out just how much of that facade was true. Seems like they only had talking points to offer and no knowledge of practical application of those solutions.

But my position is the same when it comes to health care and insurance reform. The federal government can pass the laws to allow the States to develop their own solutions. MA can run their own program, and Texas will do the same. In that vein, RomneyCare vs ObamaCare is a good example.

This is not a new issue and it didn’t just come up under Obama/Pelosi. The rising cost have been the issue for almost 2 decades. Remember HillaryCare?

Texas Gal on January 27, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Santorum won the Florida debates this week. Most late breaking voters went to Newt in SC based off of his tremendous debates there. I’m guessing that Santorum may do much better in FL than he did in NH and SC.

Deep Timber on January 27, 2012 at 2:01 PM

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Now I don’t go that far.

These guys talk to each other. People have egos and people in politics have the biggest of all. It’s been going on a long time, but it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a grand conspiracy by all the players.

INC on January 27, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Give it time. You’ll see. You’re gonna look back one day and say you know what he was right. Peace.

apocalypse on January 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I’ve been reading through the posts from late last night. This is one that should be read.

Stayright on January 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Props to Stayright…

apocalypse on January 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6