My choice: Rick Santorum

posted at 3:45 pm on February 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As I wrote earlier, decision time has come to Minnesota, where I live.  Unfortunately, I can’t officially participate in that choice, since we have a caucus system rather than a primary — and one cannot cast an absentee vote in a caucus system.  I checked twice with my BPOU officials (a BPOU is a “basic political organization unit,” akin to a precinct) and there is no provision for proxy voting.  I will be in Washington DC for CPAC and some company meetings when the caucuses take place on Tuesday evening.

Very early in the process, I promised Hot Air readers that I would disclose my choice for President in the primaries when I had fully made up my mind.  Just as I did four years ago, I didn’t fully make up my mind until shortly before the caucus.  Last time I caucused for Romney; this time, if I had the opportunity, I would caucus for Rick Santorum.

Before I explain that decision, let’s be clear.  I could cast a vote happily for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich in a general election.  Both are massive improvements over the current incumbent, and both have admirable qualities that would reflect well on the GOP once in office — even if those admirable qualities aren’t always on display now.  I will enthusiastically support any of those three men should they win the nomination.    My focus will be on beating Barack Obama and promoting the conservative agenda, in that order, throughout 2012, and I also believe that any of those three could beat Obama in a general election campaign.

Why Santorum?  In my estimation, Santorum is the last consistent conservative standing, and the only one both promoting the conservative agenda and campaigning as a conservative in the race.  That doesn’t make Santorum perfect; he lacks the executive experience I’d like to see, and some of his positions in the past and present give me pause.  However, compared to the heterodoxies of his competitors in the GOP race, Santorum has a superior record on promoting conservative policies and values.

Even more than that, though, Santorum has demonstrated a level of personal integrity in this race that outshines the rest of the field.  Santorum has campaigned with blue-collar Reagan Democrats in mind, pushing for an economic plan that would revitalize manufacturing and small business.  He could easily have tipped over into class-warfare populism while Gingrich and Romney bashed each other over their work at Bain and Freddie Mac in order to ingratiate himself with that sector by playing on latent envy.  Instead, he defended capitalism and both of his competitors on the campaign trail more effectively than either could defend themselves.  In contrast, Romney keeps demonstrating a lack of fluency in conservative politics and philosophy, while Gingrich has conducted a personal, angry campaign that threatens to reinforce every negative stereotype about conservatives, both at times putting themselves and their ambitions above the party they seek to lead.

In the general election, I want to beat Barack Obama and send him into a prosperous retirement with his family.  In the primary, I want a party leader who demonstrates the kind of integrity and consistency that only Santorum has shown.  He worked hard for my vote, and I only wish I could be in the state to cast it on Tuesday.


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 6 7 8

Here is where things are right now.

Santorum is not taking votes away from Newt to the point where it makes Romney win.

Romney is winning more than the Newt and Santorum votes combines. Newt has peaked and might even start going down.

There are a good number of Romney voters and Newt voters who simply dislike the other candidate and are voting against Romney and Newt. They think Santorum has no chance, so they bypass Santorum.

If they thought Santorum had a chance, they would pick him over Romney and Newt. Santorum would gain most of Newt’s voters, some of Romney’s voters and some who are staying home.

It might be enough to defeat Romney. We know Newt (with or without Santorum) at this point probably won’t defeat Romney.

Santorum has not peaked yet. He has the most potential upside. He still could beat Romney if they went virtually head to head, if Newt starts to tank.

Elisa on February 6, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Your opinion of Brown v. Board please.

libfreeordie on February 6, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Do you have ADD?

NotCoach on February 6, 2012 at 11:49 AM

And if, tomorrow, the government began to “follow the constitution” what would specifically happen in regards to the authority of the Supreme Court. Please give a straight answer.

libfreeordie on February 6, 2012 at 11:49 AM

The straight answer is in the constitution and the authority that it explicitly vests the courts with. Try Article 3 on for size, Bub. I dunno why you’re busting my chops when men far wiser than you or I already addressed this back in the 1780′s.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 11:51 AM

The People do not want Obamacare, and they do want their privacy rights (whether or not it exists in the Constitution).

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 11:49 AM

It IS on the basis of Romney’s stated intent and reasonings that I have issues with his trustworthiness, so much so that he is not getting my primary vote.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Wasn’t my recollection of the publicly-available news reporting on the incident…. do you have a link for that?

zarathustra on February 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Look it up. Prove me wrong and I’ll apologize publicly.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I’ve read a lot of the reporting on this case, and I don’t recall that detail ever being mentioned. A quick review of the readily available reporting shows up nothing. I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong on this issue, so do you have any recollection of where you heard this? Police report, newspaper, television?

FYI, wiki jumping off point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Arrest_of_Lawrence_and_Garner

zarathustra on February 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM

FYI, wiki jumping off point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Arrest_of_Lawrence_and_Garner

zarathustra on February 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I wouldn’t generally be inclined to trust Wiki as a reliable source in such an emotionally/politically fraught case.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Good move Cap’n Ed!

DaMav on February 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM

FYI, wiki jumping off point:

I wouldn’t generally be inclined to trust Wiki as a reliable source in such an emotionally/politically fraught case.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Hence the “jumping off point”, from where one can begin to explore primary and secondary sources, which I believe they even teach high school kids to do these days.

zarathustra on February 6, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Anti-gay marriage is the mainstream position. I don’t know that any attacks concerning the issue on Republicans have ever worked at the national level.

NotCoach on February 6, 2012 at 11:31 AM

The government should not be in the marriage business at all. It should be left to the cults with contract law defining an appropriate framework for those that need it. Unfortunately, that ship has already sailed so the irrational quasi religious debate of this subject will continue for some time.

Annar on February 6, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Bash away at Santorum. He’s been holding his own in the fringe states. Let’s see what happens when he hits this heartland.

Norky on February 6, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Sorry, I’m usually paid to educate those who will not listen and/or think.Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM

You must be self employed, and wealthy!

Since you fancy yourself an academic, I think I can explain what you are missing, in a way even the highly educated can understand.
You’s gots no common sense.

Haldol on February 6, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Bash away at Santorum. He’s been holding his own in the fringe states. Let’s see what happens when he hits this heartland.

Norky on February 6, 2012 at 12:06 PM

I found the county-by-county returns in Florida and Nevada to be very telling. This thing isn’t over yet. Not by a longshot.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I’ve read a lot of the reporting on this case, and I don’t recall that detail ever being mentioned. A quick review of the readily available reporting shows up nothing. I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong on this issue, so do you have any recollection of where you heard this? Police report, newspaper, television?

FYI, wiki jumping off point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Arrest_of_Lawrence_and_Garner

zarathustra on February 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM

If your only source is WikiPedia, I feel sorry for America.
Take the challenge or stay home.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 12:08 PM

why would you vote for Romney over Santorum?

18-1 on February 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM

It just depends on what flavor of big government you prefer. Here are some reasons why I won’t be voting for Santorum:

* He filibustered the National Right to Work Act
* He voted against repealing the Davis-Beacon Act
* In 2006, he published a pamphlet touting his support for raising the minimum wage, guaranteeing Social Security benefits, protecting Food Stamps, and increasing federal funding for Head Start
* He supported Arlen Spector
* He loves pay-for-play pork
* He’s a career politician
* He supported NCLB (2001)
* He voted to expand Medicare (2003)
* He supports SOPA (2012)
* He’s a crony capitalist who steers tax dollars to favored companies
* He thinks government should “get involved in the bedroom,” whatever that means
* He wants to expand the welfare state (calls this “compassionate conservatism”)
* He seems to think contraception is dangerous
* He lost an important swing state (where Obama is now polling poorly) by the largest margin of any incumbent Republican senator in history
* He supported the individual mandate (1994)
* He repeatedly voted for massive, debt-funded federal budgets
* He wants to start a few more wars in the Middle East

EddieC on February 6, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I found the county-by-county returns in Florida and Nevada to be very telling. This thing isn’t over yet. Not by a longshot.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Oh, but the powers that be would very much like everyone to think it is.

Norky on February 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Oh, but the powers that be would very much like everyone to think it is.

Norky on February 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM

If the powers that be try to tell me how to cast my vote, they can take a flying leap.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Nate Silver NYT: “Mr. Santorum can also make a credible claim to challenging Mr. Romney on electability. Mr. Santorum’s current unfavorable rating among all voters is 11 points lower than Mr. Romney’s, 36 percent versus 47 percent.”
As we gave peace a chance, consider giving Santorum a chance.

anotherJoe on February 6, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Bash away at Santorum. He’s been holding his own this week’s Not-Romney in the fringe states. Let’s see what happens when he hits this heartland.

Norky on February 6, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Good Lt on February 6, 2012 at 12:18 PM

720
Ed any surprise for you with this number of comments on this thread?

Bmore on February 6, 2012 at 12:21 PM

If your only source is WikiPedia, I feel sorry for America.
Take the challenge or stay home.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 12:08 PM

WikiPedia is not my source; but from wiki you can find the primary and secondary sources. Do you want me to copy and paste that list of sources here, or can you click the link and check them yourself? Here’s the actual Supreme Court decision to make it easy for you:

https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/case.pdf?ts%3D1326411915&pli=1&chrome=true

I find no mention there of the “chortling” you reference, nor in any of the other reporting. Since you’re the one asserting a fact – one not readily found in the literature – can you provide a link to reporting that informed you of this fact?

zarathustra on February 6, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Good Lt on February 6, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Call it what you want. Out here in the sea of read live a different kind of conservative than what’s been voting for the progressive Romney so far. It’s far from over…for Rick and Mitt anyway. Newtella is toast.

Norky on February 6, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Call it what you want. Out here in the sea of read live a different kind of conservative than what’s been voting for the progressive Romney so far. It’s far from over…for Rick and Mitt anyway. Newtella is toast.

Norky on February 6, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Newtella?

You mean yesterday’s “true conservative?”

Good Lt on February 6, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Newtella?

You mean yesterday’s “true conservative?”

Good Lt on February 6, 2012 at 12:27 PM

No, yesterday’s clothes pin on my nose conservative.

Norky on February 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Mr. Santorum’s current unfavorable rating among all voters is 11 points lower than Mr. Romney’s, 36 percent versus 47 percent.”
As we gave peace a chance, consider giving Santorum a chance.

anotherJoe on February 6, 2012 at 12:18 PM

That would last about five minutes after he became a real threat to Bishop Romney. He has had a free ride so far with respect to Willard’s attack machine.

Annar on February 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM

That would last about five minutes after he became a real threat to Bishop Romney. He has had a free ride so far with respect to Willard’s attack machine.

Annar on February 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM

What are you saying? That we shouldn’t vote for Rick because Mitt will attack him? Is that it?

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 12:34 PM

If nominated, Santorum would not even carry Pennsylvania.

CatoRenasci on February 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM

If nominated, Santorum would not even carry Pennsylvania.

CatoRenasci on February 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Damn those primary voters for not knowing their place!/

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

He has had a free ride so far with respect to Willard’s attack machine.

Annar on February 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM

One of the big tests for GOP primary candidates has been how well (or badly) they react to negative campaign tactics. Although there are few absolute certainties in human affairs, it’s a safe bet the Obama and the Chicago Machine will conduct the most negative campaign in the history of the country, fueled by a billion dollar campaign war chest, a blatantly biased media, and the inherent power of the incumbency. By comparison, a few hard-hitting and sometimes unfair TV spots from the Romney campaign during the primaries will seem like a kiss from an angel.

Gingrich, thin-skinned and peevish, couldn’t take the heat. I thought he was going to cry in his last concession speech. Santorum is hopefully made of sterner stuff.

troyriser_gopftw on February 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Instead, he defended capitalism and both of his competitors on the campaign trail more effectively than either could defend themselves.

He. Hehehe. Hehehehaha. Pffft. Bwahahahahahahah-hooo!

Better then Gingrich perhaps. I am pretty sure when the Speaker launched into his assault on Bain and capitalism he eroded a good portion of his support.

Santorum won’t be wearing the big-boy pants any time soon. Because they don’t fit.

Marcus Traianus on February 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

If nominated, Santorum would not even carry Pennsylvania.

CatoRenasci
on February 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM

ALL of the Republican primary candidates (including the drop-outs) would win Pennsylvania, as the Republican nominee.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Post: If nominated, Santorum would not even carry Pennsylvania.

CatoRenasci on February 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Reply: Damn those primary voters for not knowing their place!/

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

It’s not about primary voters, it’s about the general election – Santorum LOST his last election in Pennsylvania. I haven’t seen anything to suggest he can win the state today.

He does appeal to part of the conservative base which is repelled by Romney, but that part of the base is not even a majority of those who don’t like Romney, let alone a majority in the party or in the country.

There are a whole lot of Tea Party types who find Santorum’s preoccupation with social issues demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what the nation needs today as well as a hostility to economic, political and religious liberty that is deeply troublesome and as scary as that of the religious and secular left.

CatoRenasci on February 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I am not jumping on any bandwagons this time even if it means sitting out the election. I am going to caucus for Newt Gingrich tomorrow in Colorado, and then change my voter registration to unaffiliated. I will not vote for Romney because I am going to stand by my principles for once and not cave to a Party who, obviously, does not represent conservatives and is willing to destroy people, not just politically, but personally.

lea on February 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM

It’s not about primary voters, it’s about the general election – Santorum LOST his last election in Pennsylvania. I haven’t seen anything to suggest he can win the state today.

Are you aware that Romney also lost his reelection bid in Massachusetts as well to McCain in 2008? In fact, he has only won one election in his life. Yet, he’s the one the Republican Party say can beat Obama.

lea on February 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Are you aware that Romney also lost his reelection bid in Massachusetts as well to McCain in 2008? In fact, he has only won one election in his life. Yet, he’s the one the Republican Party say can beat Obama.

Romney did not run in 2006. I hold no great brief for Romney, I just think he has the least worst chance of beating Obama and would do the least worst harm to both the country and the cause of individual liberty if elected.

Gingrich is brilliant, but petty and erratic – his temperament is not presidential.

Santorum isn’t all that bright and is a social con comfortable with a lot of big government, and no friend of individual liberty.

The choices stink, but Santorum or Gingrich will turn off a whole lot more people than Willard will.

CatoRenasci on February 6, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Ed … good well thought out piece …
for me it is ABO … anyone but Obama in the general …

in the primary … if it matters by time it gets to NC …

1. Santorum …

2. Newt …. Nancy P … NY23 … and a few other recent mess ups leave me ill …

3. my yellow lab Shelly … (she at least listens to me …. doesnt always do what I say ya understand …)

4. Mitt … BTW EddieC on February 6, 2012 at 12:12 PM the ONLY reason Mittens ISN’T a “career politician” is that he could not get enough people to vote for him…

conservative tarheel on February 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Well said, Ed. Go Rick!

Mycroft Holmes on February 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Romneycare.

SparkPlug on February 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Poor wittle Romney. He sits back with that little sly, smug smirk on his mug and issues attack after attack against his enemies (Newt & Santorum); however, whenever anyone says one word against him, he gets defensive and cries foul. He dishes it out but he can’t take it.

Frankly, I don’t see how for the life of me how anyone could support Romney with his weird, cult beliefs (Mormonism). This group is right up there in weirdness with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

jfs756 on February 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Poor wittle Romney Gingrich. He sits back with that little sly, smug smirk on his mug and issues attack after attack against his enemies (Newt & Santorum capitalism); however, whenever anyone says one word against him, he gets defensive and cries foul. He dishes it out but he can’t take it.

FIFY

Frankly, I don’t see how for the life of me how anyone could support Romney with his weird, cult beliefs (Mormonism).

jfs756 on February 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM

(sigh) Must we quote Leviticus?

EddieC on February 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM

(sigh) Must we quote Leviticus?

EddieC on February 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Poor, “EddieC.” You’re so wrong it’s scary. Of course, these are your typical Romney-heads, though. (Sigh….)

jfs756 on February 6, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I am not jumping on any bandwagons this time even if it means sitting out the election. I am going to caucus for Newt Gingrich tomorrow in Colorado, and then change my voter registration to unaffiliated. I will not vote for Romney because I am going to stand by my principles for once and not cave to a Party who, obviously, does not represent conservatives and is willing to destroy people, not just politically, but personally.

Same here. I’m just gonna wait for the inevitable Obama landslide and then come back here to laugh at the Romneybots.

tkyang99 on February 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yes. I agree. Newt has been destroyed by Romney in exactly the same way Palin was destroyed by Hollywood and the left. The “good” man Mitt has effectively demonized Newt. I believe many people have voted for Mitt because they’ve been told by the establishment that he’s the only person with a chance against Obama. And every time I hear Ann Coulter et al do their Romney number, I get all conservative and resistant to being told to get in line.

What is Romney going to do to Santorum? An honorable and good man who knows more about the federal government, our founding documents and conservative thinking than the Mass CEO ever did.

We already know Romney doesn’t excite anyone. Look at the number of Republicans who showed up in Florida and Nevada. Romney and his followers apparently think they can do away with the conservatives and the Tea Party and somehow pick up enough independents to win. We’ve got problems and if we don’t wake up and nominate someone who is knowledgable about the issues and who can give a speech without a teleprompter, we are going to be in real trouble and Obama can finish dismanteling this country over the next four years.

Portia46 on February 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I am not jumping on any bandwagons this time even if it means sitting out the election. I am going to caucus for Newt Gingrich tomorrow in Colorado, and then change my voter registration to unaffiliated. I will not vote for Romney because I am going to stand by my principles for once and not cave to a Party who, obviously, does not represent conservatives and is willing to destroy people, not just politically, but personally.
Same here. I’m just gonna wait for the inevitable Obama landslide and then come back here to laugh at the Romneybots.

tkyang99 on February 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM

You’ve both echoed my feelings exactly. I’ve had it with the Republican Establishment picking the candidate and trying to tell me how to vote. If Romney’s our nominee, I’m definitely sitting out the President’s race in November. I SIMPLY WILL NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. PERIOD!!!

jfs756 on February 6, 2012 at 3:06 PM

My focus will be on beating Barack Obama and promoting the conservative agenda, in that order

I’m not sure your choice follows that though. Santorum may be all that you say he is but he doesn’t exactly have a national level campaign to run with and I’m not sure he can build one in time, if he even knows how.

jnelchef on February 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Totally agree with Ed!

rightConcept on February 6, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I am voting for Santorum in the Oklahoma primary because I refuse to vote for a candidate that is a bigger flip flopper than Kerry and is one of the coldest candidates I have ever met. Romney is also thin skinned as evidenced by his throwing his new debate coach under the bus because he was getting some press. He also would be prone to keep a vendetta list.

I would vote for Ron Paul before I would vote for Romney. Romney is not getting my vote for President period.

As far as I am concerned if he is the nominee it is time to focus on House and Senate races so we don’t get shellacked like we did in 2008. We have to get people convinced who are saying they are staying home to go vote for House and Senate races. I will never ask anyone to vote for Romney, but I will plead with them to get out and vote for House and Senate races to stop the lunge to the left even if Romney won. We need more conservatives in the House and Senate to get new leadership.

PhiKapMom on February 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Good Lt – If you will look again at what i posted, you will see that the information given is from the American Psychiatry Association, not the opinion of the website I found it on.

The APA has not issued a retraction since, so that information is still good.

kingsjester on February 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I am voting for Santorum in the Oklahoma primary because I refuse to vote for a candidate that is a bigger flip flopper than Kerry and is one of the coldest candidates I have ever met. Romney is also thin skinned as evidenced by his throwing his new debate coach under the bus because he was getting some press. He also would be prone to keep a vendetta list.

I would vote for Ron Paul before I would vote for Romney. Romney is not getting my vote for President period.

As far as I am concerned if he is the nominee it is time to focus on House and Senate races so we don’t get shellacked like we did in 2008. We have to get people convinced who are saying they are staying home to go vote for House and Senate races. I will never ask anyone to vote for Romney, but I will plead with them to get out and vote for House and Senate races to stop the lunge to the left even if Romney won. We need more conservatives in the House and Senate to get new leadership.

PhiKapMom on February 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Again, my sentiments exactly! Good post!

jfs756 on February 6, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Please re-post this same thread each time Ron Paul and his kooks get more votes than Santorum.

Just to keep it all in view.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 6, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Frankly, I miss Sarah!

Don L on February 6, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Santorum 2012!!!

PhiKapMom on February 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Again, my sentiments exactly! Good post!

jfs756 on February 6, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Agreed!

pannw on February 6, 2012 at 4:42 PM

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1726/749/Video-_Rick_Santorum_Was_Against_The_Tea_Party_Before_He_Was_For_It.html

a reminder to people that hear GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum saying nice things about the Tea Party movement, Santorum was originally opposed to the movement and said he would “vocally and publicly oppose” the movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KEeHDCsetLc

reliapundit on February 6, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Of course, these are your typical Romney-heads, though. (Sigh….)

jfs756 on February 6, 2012 at 2:24 PM

You think I support Romney? That’s funny.

EddieC on February 6, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Frankly, I miss Sarah!
Don L on February 6, 2012 at 4:37 PM

So do a lot of others, here. Myself, included.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2012 at 5:48 PM

It’s not about primary voters, it’s about the general election – Santorum LOST his last election in Pennsylvania. I haven’t seen anything to suggest he can win the state today.
CatoRenasci on February 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM

If Rick Santorum would have tried for his old Senate seat, instead of the Presidency, I believe he would win it, easily.

But he opted to go for the White House. So, repeating my prior post:

ALL of the Republican primary candidates (including the drop-outs) would win Pennsylvania, as the Republican nominee.
listens2glenn on February 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM

listens2glenn on February 6, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Also next time someone tells you that Bonobos engage in cannibalism, check before you say they dont.

1. A person who eats the flesh of other humans.
2. An animal that feeds on others of its own kind.
Not other species it is hunting.

Random on February 6, 2012 at 6:49 AM

This is what was in the link I posted. So please before you wrongly say that Bonobo’s are not cannibals please pull your head out of your butt, follow the link, and read.

Abstract
We describe the cannibalization of an infant bonobo (circa 2.5 years old) at Lui Kotale, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The infant died of unknown causes and was consumed by several community members including its mother and an older sibling one day after death. Certain features concerning the pattern of consumption fit in with previously observed episodes of cannibalism in Pan, whereas others, such as the mother’s participation in consuming the body, are notable. The incident suggests that filial cannibalism among apes need not be the result of nutritional or social stress and does not support the idea that filial cannibalism is a behavioral aberration. Am. J. Primatol. 72:509–514, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Also you might want to look at some of the other articles on such behavior since the scientists call the other stuff cannibalism. I go by what they call it, cause after all they are scientists.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Santorum in 2003

SANTORUM in the video: What we need to do is when we look at an economic stimulus package is not look at what the cost is but what the impact will be on the economy. And you want job creation, job growth, and you want the creation of new federal revenues as a result of that economic activity. So I don’t think we should look at it in terms of how much money it costs the federal treasury. You have to look at how many new jobs it is going to create, how much economic activity and new revenues will flow to the federal government as result. And so the President’s package is, from my perspective, what the doctor ordered. It is exactly right for investors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZKuHhYNqjA&feature=player_embedded

ryandan on February 6, 2012 at 10:15 PM

If both Newt and Paul were to drop out, Santorum might have a chance to beat Romney. Otherwise, forget about it. Romney has the GOP elites backing and most all of the money.

aposematic on February 6, 2012 at 11:08 PM

It just depends on what flavor of big government you prefer. Here are some reasons why I won’t be voting for Santorum:

* He filibustered the National Right to Work Act
* He voted against repealing the Davis-Beacon Act
* In 2006, he published a pamphlet touting his support for raising the minimum wage, guaranteeing Social Security benefits, protecting Food Stamps, and increasing federal funding for Head Start
* He supported Arlen Spector
* He loves pay-for-play pork
* He’s a career politician
* He supported NCLB (2001)
* He voted to expand Medicare (2003)
* He supports SOPA (2012)
* He’s a crony capitalist who steers tax dollars to favored companies
* He thinks government should “get involved in the bedroom,” whatever that means
* He wants to expand the welfare state (calls this “compassionate conservatism”)
* He seems to think contraception is dangerous
* He lost an important swing state (where Obama is now polling poorly) by the largest margin of any incumbent Republican senator in history
* He supported the individual mandate (1994)
* He repeatedly voted for massive, debt-funded federal budgets
* He wants to start a few more wars in the Middle East

EddieC on February 6, 2012 at 12:12 PM

You just described every politician in the Country.

aposematic on February 6, 2012 at 11:11 PM

The choices stink, but Santorum or Gingrich will turn off a whole lot more people than Willard will.

CatoRenasci on February 6, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I submit the above post into evidence as exhibit #62390212 of why America deserves another four years of Barack Obama.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Yeah. About that whole “principled” conservative thing. And ability to get elected.

Let’s go to the tape:

Guess how Santorum Scores Against Newt in Christian Character Traits | PolitiJim’s Rants for Reasonable People | http://bit.ly/Axsv2R

PolitiJim on February 7, 2012 at 2:35 AM

Says it all:

hy Santorum? In my estimation, Santorum is the last consistent conservative standing, and the only one both promoting the conservative agenda and campaigning as a conservative in the race.

Even more than that, though, Santorum has demonstrated a level of personal integrity in this race that outshines the rest of the field.

In contrast, Romney keeps demonstrating a lack of fluency in conservative politics and philosophy, while Gingrich has conducted a personal, angry campaign …

There are a whole lot of Tea Party types who find Santorum’s preoccupation with social issues demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what the nation needs today as well as a hostility to economic, political and religious liberty that is deeply troublesome and as scary as that of the religious and secular left.
CatoRenasci on February 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I’m tea party. I don’t find Santorum to have a preoccupation. Santorum works the pro lifers because they share values. So did Reagan. Reagan’s wife had contrary opinions. Was she pre occupied?

Santorum is not hostile to economic or political liberty.

If Santorum can defeat Obama’s arguments with his own ideas, he need not share Obama’s morals. Reagan was closer to Santorum than Obama and he did not do badly in the end.

Is is up to the GOP candidate to make the election a choice for or against the status quo. On his religion, can he convince people he will not act against the public will? Sure he can, if he emphasizes his job is to enforce the laws passed by Congress and not vice versa

Rush Limbaugh, while discussing the issue of abortion, said on his program, you cannot legislate this issue. You first have to change the hearts and minds of the public.

I think you cannot win the votes of libertines by threatening to shut down the saloon. Saloons are local issues. Santorum has to stay national and emphasize the number one issue is saving the nation from financial chaos.

entagor on February 7, 2012 at 1:01 PM

As an Ohio voter, I plan on writing in Sarah.
When do we get our primary again?

greataunty on February 7, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Point made about the one documented incident of bonobo cannibalism and other reports.

Well, what can I say? It is what it is. Life sucks, anyway.

Random on February 8, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8