Santorum sweeps back into the race

posted at 8:40 am on February 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Last night when discussing the trends in the three non-binding Republican contests, I tweeted that Rick Santorum’s win in Missouri was only surprising in gaining a majority, but that a win in Minnesota would be surprising — and a win in Colorado would be shocking.  As it happens, National Journal agrees with that assessment. Santorum shocked the Republican race with a clean sweep of Tuesday’s caucuses and primary, and may have pushed himself into serious consideration as the long-sought conservative consolidation alternative to Mitt Romney:

Rick Santorum on Tuesday completed his sweep of states with a stunning upset of Mitt Romney in Colorado’s caucus, according to state Republican officials, shaking up a GOP presidential race that has seen more drama than Romney’s campaign envisioned even a week ago.

Santorum earlier won Minnesota’s caucus and a non-binding Missouri primary. Romney – who won Colorado handily in 2008 — had long remained the odds-on favorite to prevail in that state’s caucus, as polls had shown him with a double-digit lead.

A jubilant Santorum told supporters that he isn’t the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney:

“I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” he told supporters earlier in the evening. “I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”

Missouri had looked for some time to be Santorum’s best shot.  Newt Gingrich chose not to get on the ballot, which made the state Santorum’s opportunity to fight Romney head-to-head.  What little polling existed showed Romney to be about ten to twelve points back, but Romney ended up losing by thirty points as Santorum claimed a 55% majority.  Santorum swept every county, including the presumed Romney stronghold of St. Louis, putting an exclamation point on Santorum’s ability to beat Romney.  He also beat Ron Paul in Minnesota by eighteen and Romney by 28, a state Romney carried easily in 2008, but with a low turnout in 2012 despite appearances from both candidates in the final few days.

However, while Santorum was expected to be competitive in Minnesota, Romney was widely expected to win Colorado.  Romney stayed in Denver for the caucus results, which differed sharply from his massive 42-point 2008 victory.  Instead, Romney ended up the night down five points in a race that also had a 10% dropoff in turnout from four years earlier.  Suddenly, Romney’s organization and his ability to simultaneously compete in multiple states looks a lot less formidable than it did a week ago, and this three-state loss — especially in Minnesota, where Romney finished third behind Ron Paul — makes Romney look a lot less inevitable.

It wasn’t all that good of a night for Paul, either, though.  He managed to get into second place in Minnesota thanks to Romney’s stumble, but Paul was supposed to own the caucus states through his superior organization and fundraising.  His strategy was to win smaller-state caucuses and build a delegate count that would force Republicans to bow to his movement at the convention in Tampa.  He’s getting higher percentages of the votes but not doing much better in a four-man race in position finishes than in 2008.  As in the previous contest, his support and influence is beginning to look overrated, and Paul has to hope for something better out of Maine’s caucus this Saturday.

The man who suffered the worst night was Newt Gingrich.  Gingrich’s absence from the Missouri ballot, which was a deliberate tactical move, looks like a big mistake in retrospect.  He allowed Santorum the opportunity to probe that it would be Santorum and not Gingrich who could rally conservatives against Romney.  Gingrich’s third-place finish in Colorado barely beat Paul to stay out of the cellar, and Gingrich did finish dead last in Minnesota.  There isn’t even a fig leaf of spin from these results to which Gingrich can cling; Gingrich was entirely irrelevant in all three contests, except to the extent that he got beat.

After Maine’s caucuses on Saturday, which I presume all four candidates will now hotly contest, the next big test will be to see if and how Santorum can build on his sweep in Arizona and Michigan.  Romney had big leads in both, with Santorum in third place behind Gingrich.  We’ll see whether these non-binding contests matter to voters on February 28th — and Super Tuesday on March 6th.  If nothing else, this is a very good time for a shoestring campaign to catch fire.

Update: Byron York reports that this sweep may have been ordained in Florida, thanks to the nasty, personal battle between Romney and Gingrich:

“I think this started in Florida, when Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich went at each other with such personal attacks,” says Chuck Laudner, a longtime ally of Rick Santorum, calling late on election night from Minneapolis.  “They weren’t really on the issues.  It was investments and name calling, and I think it turned people off.  People here looked at that and said there’s got to be an alternative.”

Laudner, the Iowa conservative political operative who became nearly a household name as the owner and driver of the “Chuck truck” that carried Santorum across Iowa before that state’s caucuses, spent the last ten days in Minnesota, trying to persuade influential Republicans to support Santorum. “Ten days ago, I couldn’t get a single statehouse or senate member to go public with an endorsement,” he says.  Then, after the fighting in Florida and its continuation in Nevada, things changed.  “By the end of the week, we got a couple of endorsements, and they helped us get a couple more, and then we had a lot of names.”

The shift to Santorum was fast and overwhelming.  In the end, Santorum beat Romney by 27 points in a state Romney had won by 19 points back in 2008.  Santorum scored an even bigger victory in Missouri’s beauty-contest, nonbinding primary, beating Romney by 30 points.  And even in Colorado, where the race was closer, Santorum came out ahead.  For a candidate who hadn’t won since his narrow and belated victory in Iowa, it was three victories in one night. Santorum has now won four contests to Romney’s three and Gingrich’s one.

Speaking for myself, the Florida contest prompted my final assessment.

Update II: Santorum beat Paul in MN by 18, not Romney, whom he beat by 28.  I’ve corrected it above.

Update III: My friend Shaun Mullen wanted a little more insight into what may be going on in Minnesota  It’s important to remember that the activist conservative base drives the caucuses in Minnesota, which is why Romney won in 2008; he was seen at that time as the conservative alternative to the inevitable John McCain nomination.  Santorum has done a good job in articulating the conservative agenda while Romney and Gingrich spend their time attacking each other on Bain and Freddie Mac.  This is the consequence.


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 8 9 10

John the Libertarian on February 8, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Don’t bother, each of his posts gets him deeper,and he doesn’t know how to extract himself from his comments.
I took his example of $15 and showed where it would be actually a $17.25 increase, using his numbers, and he still didn’t get it.
He is in an embarrassing situation, and the only way out is to attack, and not analyze.
He will eventually pretend he is right and not respond…since each response has caused him more trouble.
Meanwhile…Rick needs to keep the heat on Obama, and not worry about Mitt…Mitt will do whatever he thinks he has to do to eliminate Rick.
If Rick keeps his eye on the real target, Mitt will have to do the same, he can’t just attack his rivals, people get tired of that.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM

So, who said this in 2003:

“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone … [that] government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. … Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”

I really like Rush and most of his analyses, but he was dead wrong today.

riddick on February 8, 2012 at 8:29 PM

All you Santorum cheerleaders know that if your guy is the nominee, BO is gonna’ get that second term he thinks he deserves…Right? Moral victories are for losers. Remember the last moral victory you moronic socons celebrated…When we failed to take the Senate…Remember? You people make this election about social issues and you can count on another one of those awesome moral victories. Should you really be allowed to vote if you still believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

Bandit13 on February 8, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Mankai, how refreshing to be agreeing with you. lol Proof Santorum can bring people together. lol
God bless and have a good day, everyone.

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Why so surprised? I’m really a teddy bear.
;)

mankai on February 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM

lol I believe that.

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 10:42 AM

All true, and very much on point.

Calling a conservative an extremist is an old tactic, but usually a failed one. It fails because the person then speaks for himself, and people see that the “extremist” label is just hyperbole from an opponent. We kind of expect hyperbole from opponents in politics.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Exactly. Most people don’t know Santorum. When they hear him for themselves they will think he is a decent, humble, sincere, smart and REASONABLE man of conviction and integrity who cares about blue collar economics in a year when the economy is the number one issue.

They will see the people with agendas who are attacking Santorum just for what they are. One issue extremists out to get him who take Santorum out of context and twist his words to scare people.

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:19 PM

The firms profit margin stays the same, because neither the revenue nor the ocsts change.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

What are you smoking? How do revenues remain the same? Unless the good or service is perfectly inelastic in terms of price/consumption ratio?

John the Libertarian on February 8, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I am, for the sake of this argument, assuming no change in demand as a result of the tax. The point I am trying to make is that the tax is borne in some measure by the firm, out of potential profits, and in some measure by the consumer, in the form of higher prices.

And the economically illiterate are denying this.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:20 PM

It’s true that taxes are passed onto the consumer, and if the tax is uniform (which it often is not because large business with more clout arrange special deals), it won’t affect a business’s direct competition.

But when Frothy decides he is going to give a special tax break to “manufacturers”, it will necessarily distort the market.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM

And the economically illiterate are denying this.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Its you who are denying reality.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Customers will learn to ‘live life’ with a reduced amount of the goods/services, or without it all together.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2012 at 8:07 PM

True. But they have to spend their money on something, or save it.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM

To JohnGalt23:

Please stop calling Santorum “frothy.”

You do it repeatedly and I know what it means and it is disgusting and should not be allowed on this website with decent people.

It tells me alot about you that you would use that term here.

If you stop using it, that will tell me alot about you also and I will thank you for it.

Hope you stop, because I am starting to just skip over your posts so I don’t have to read, “frothy” since it puts such a disgusting image in my mind.

PS for those of you who don’t know what “frothy” and “Santorum” together mean, you will have to google it, because I will not post it here. Sorry, my friends.

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Haters will hate, and show their hatred in any way they can.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:25 PM

let me try to make it real easy for the mmorons like right2bwrong here.

Does a tax increase affect corporate profits?

Does a tax increase affect consumer prices?

Yes to both? No to both? What?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Please stop calling Santorum “frothy.”

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM

No. I don;t think I will.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:26 PM

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Yes, you’re right, but it’s disgusting and shouldn’t be allowed here.

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Its you who are denying reality.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM

What reality am I denying? That you understand how taxes are come out of both increased prices and corporate profits?

You don’t. Because you don’t know what you are talking about.

It’s sad that there are “conservatives” who are so illiterate when it comes to economics.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:28 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Everybody else is wrong, and you are right.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Everybody else can get stuffed, you are the ultimate decider.

Hatin’ screwball Paulnut.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:32 PM

You couldn’t even argue economic theory effectively, Galt. You’re out of your depth. As usual.

Someone get Galt an easy button.

DevilsPrinciple on February 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM

You people are idiots.

Effect of Taxes on Price

A marginal tax on the sellers of a good will shift the supply curve to the left until the vertical distance between the two supply curves is equal to the per unit tax; when other things remain equal, this will increase the price paid by the consumers (which is equal to the new market price), and decrease the price received by the sellers.

Effect of elasticity

Depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply, who bears more of the tax or who receives more of the subsidy may differ. Where the supply curve is more inelastic than the demand curve, producers bear more of the tax and receive more of the subsidy than consumers as the difference between the price producers receive and the initial market price is greater than the difference borne by consumers. Where the demand curve is more inelastic than the supply curve, the consumers bear more of the tax and receive more of the subsidy as the difference between the price consumers pay and the initial market price is greater than the difference borne by producers.

I had to go to Wikipedia to prove to you people how illiterate you are.

Congratulations. You are officially dumber than undergraduates.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:36 PM

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:32 PM

See the post abcve, and brush up on your econ.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:37 PM

DevilsPrinciple on February 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/08/santorum-sweeps-back-into-the-race/comment-page-10/#comment-5445777

Tell me, do I need to explain supp;y and demand elasticities to you also?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:39 PM

On a lighter note,

I’ve been thinking today who Santorum would pick as VP.

Yes, I know it’s premature and Romney will probably still get it.

But just for the fun of it, I was wondering what some of you here thought about it.

I think Santorum would be acceptable to most in the establishment, so Santorum can pick a good conservative, like himself. Santorum at one time was the 3rd ranking Republican, so I think the establishment is comfortable with him and trust him not to turn over their apple carts. Plus, he might already know where all the bodies are buried.

Someone mentioned John Kasick months ago when it looked like Romney. Love him, but he wouldn’t really bring anything new to a Santorum ticket.

I think VP would at this point be a demotion for Sarah. She belongs in any nominee’s cabinet.

I think it should be a Southerner and preferably a woman, to counter the bogus claims he is a chauvinist.

Would it be an insult to ask Perry? Would he take it? His persona is larger than life and might overshadow Santorum.

I think Haley Barbour would be good. Plus he or Perry could raise a lot of money for Santorum.

My favorite of all time, of course, is Jindal, but I don’t see him taking the VP spot. Rubio said he isn’t interested. West might be good. But do the Southern states see those 2 as real southerners, coming from Florida?

Nikki Haley would fit the bill perfectly, but does she have enough experience for some people? I wonder.

Jan Brewer would be great, but she’s not a southerner. Plus, she is needed where she is, I think.

Anyone from California who could put that state in play and at least make Obama spend more money in that state?

I have no opinion and am just asking here. I appreciate the opinions of many of you here.

Any suggestions?

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I had to go to Wikipedia to prove to you people how illiterate you are.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Heh, there’s your problem.

That and you don’t know whether you’re coming, or going.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:42 PM

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply, who bears more of the tax or who receives more of the subsidy may differ.

that, sir, pretty much nails you as a dumbass.

Perhaps you’d care to post a link to someone saying that who bears more of the tax doesn’t differ, and that it is always paid by the consumer.

You dumb POS.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I’ve been thinking today who Santorum would pick as VP.

Yes, I know it’s premature and Romney will probably still get it.

But just for the fun of it, I was wondering what some of you here thought about it.

Any suggestions?

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:41 PM

How ’bout we wait a bit.

Not even the Romney nuballs are that far along.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Heh, there’s your problem.

That and you don’t know whether you’re coming, or going.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:42 PM

I’ll repost it, since you apprently didn’t get it any of the first 30 times.

Depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply, who bears more of the tax or who receives more of the subsidy may differ.

If you would like a more detailed explanation, the original source…

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/taximpact.htm

But just so you get it, I’ll repeat….

Depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply, who bears more of the tax or who receives more of the subsidy may differ.

So, economics professors seem to think the tax is borne in part by the producer, and in part by the consumer.

Perhaps you’d care to introduce us to an economics professor who disagrees.

This should be good.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:50 PM

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply, who bears more of the tax or who receives more of the subsidy may differ.

that, sir, pretty much nails you as a dumbass.

Perhaps you’d care to post a link to someone saying that who bears more of the tax doesn’t differ, and that it is always paid by the consumer.

You dumb POS.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Excuse me… I can’t hear you?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:55 PM

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 9:42 PM

So, economics professors seem to think the tax is borne in part by the producer, and in part by the consumer.

Perhaps you’d care to introduce us to an economics professor who disagrees.

This should be good.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Come again?…didn’t quite catch that…

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 10:06 PM

’ve been thinking today who Santorum would pick as VP.

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:41 PM

A pipe dream, by any measure. Now that he is being vetted and more of his liberal, big government “we want to control every aspect of your life” views will be exposed, he is just a side marker on the road as is Herr Paul. Romney’s guys are already running negative ads against NEWT in OH, Santorum is not even on their radar, as it should be.

riddick on February 8, 2012 at 10:10 PM

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply, who bears more of the tax or who receives more of the subsidy may differ.

that, sir, pretty much nails you as a dumbass.

Perhaps you’d care to post a link to someone saying that who bears more of the tax doesn’t differ, and that it is always paid by the consumer.

You dumb POS.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Still can’t hear you over the raging sound of your illiteracy. Could you speak up?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 10:16 PM

DevilsPrinciple on February 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply, who bears more of the tax or who receives more of the subsidy may differ.

Did I miss something? Did you ever find someone to disagree with this?

Yeah, I didn’t think so. becasue you can’t. Because you;re an economic illiterate.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

When Romney wins some more states, depression is going to set in with us Conservatives.

Decoski on February 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

PS for those of you who don’t know what “frothy” and “Santorum” together mean, you will have to google it, because I will not post it here. Sorry, my friends.

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Come on Elisa…Santorum believes homosexuality is a sin because a book that claims the earth is only 6000 years old says it is. The Bible is nothing more than fiction and fables cobbled together by a ruling elite to control, exploit and oppress the masses. Promise people everlasting life and they will fall for ANYTHING, and criticize all those who don’t fall dutifully in line. I think frothy Santorum is quite appropriate in this case. I suggest you spend less time posting on Hot Air and more time cracking a science book.

Bandit13 on February 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

He will eventually pretend he is right and not respond…since each response has caused him more trouble.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply, who bears more of the tax or who receives more of the subsidy may differ.

I’m sorry, you dumb POS?

You were sying?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

The Bible is nothing more than fiction and fables cobbled together by a ruling elite to control, exploit and oppress the masses. Promise people everlasting life and they will fall for ANYTHING, and criticize all those who don’t fall dutifully in line.

I suggest you spend less time posting on Hot Air and more time cracking a science book.
Bandit13 on February 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Do you have a documented history of the “ruling elite” who “cobbled together” the various “fiction and fables” into this book, The Bible?
Or, looking backwards on the timeline, when/where (approx) this would have occurred?

Otherwise, I maintain that Genesis 1:1 is THE most scientific
quote in ANY book, on the face of the earth.

And us “over-bearing, Bible thumping, Christians” aren’t going to stop using it as a basis for decision making and conversation throughout our dailey walk of life. Period.

But, America still has free-speech (for now), so you can feel free to continue sneering, casting dispersions upon, and poking fun at us. It’s your right . . . no, your DUTY.
That’s all, carry-on . . . . . .

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 1:13 AM

I’m sorry, you dumb POS?

You were sying?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

It was hilarious to wake up and see what torturous desperate posts you had made, good grief you are obsessed when you are wrong.
You had been talking to yourself, I left after I had said I was tired of schooling you…enjoy your conversation with yourself.
I still stand by the original statement, and the original challenge, I have no idea where you are now heading…but I keep myself focused on the original comment, and stand by it.
All expenses and overhead are paid by the consumer/customer…no matter what the tax burden, health costs, workman’s comp, etc. Companies do not create their own money, it is revenue from customers.
If not, show me the company who creates their own magical revenue without customers, and who pay their “bills” with this magic money.
So you have a Wiki quote that has nothing to do with the original comment…now try to focus, focus, focus, focus…
Or show me the company, you must have thousands, that do not need customers to pay for their expenses…caveat are the bailouts, we already discussed that.

right2bright on February 9, 2012 at 7:58 AM

Otherwise, I maintain that Genesis 1:1 is THE most scientific quote in ANY book, on the face of the earth.
listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Thanks for proving my point. Religion is nothing more than primitive thought that projects human characteristics onto mythical beings, which people then turn around and worship for their own selfish needs. You are an evolved mammal…Regardless of whatever superstitious beliefs you claim to cling to.

Bandit13 on February 9, 2012 at 9:18 AM

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Thanks for proving my point. Religion is nothing more than primitive thought that projects human characteristics onto mythical beings, which people then turn around and worship for their own selfish needs.
Bandit13 on February 9, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Okay, but can you STILL answer my question?

The Bible is nothing more than fiction and fables cobbled together by a ruling elite to control, exploit and oppress the masses. Promise people everlasting life and they will fall for ANYTHING, and criticize all those who don’t fall dutifully in line.
Bandit13 on February 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Do you have a documented history of the “ruling elite” who “cobbled together” the various “fiction and fables” into this book, The Bible?
Or, looking backwards on the timeline, when/where (approx) this would have occurred?
listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 1:13 AM

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I’m sorry, you dumb POS?

You were sying?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

It was hilarious to wake up and see what torturous desperate posts you had made, good grief you are obsessed when you are wrong.
You had been talking to yourself, I left after I had said I was tired of schooling you…enjoy your conversation with yourself.
I still stand by the original statement, and the original challenge, I have no idea where you are now heading…but I keep myself focused on the original comment, and stand by it.
All expenses and overhead are paid by the consumer/customer…no matter what the tax burden, health costs, workman’s comp, etc. Companies do not create their own money, it is revenue from customers.
If not, show me the company who creates their own magical revenue without customers, and who pay their “bills” with this magic money.
So you have a Wiki quote that has nothing to do with the original comment…now try to focus, focus, focus, focus…
Or show me the company, you must have thousands, that do not need customers to pay for their expenses…caveat are the bailouts, we already discussed that.

right2bright on February 9, 2012 at 7:58 AM

I had actually looked at this thread late last night, but saw no point in continuing the topic. Besides, his argument was doing so much better once he had no one to argue the other side.

tom on February 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM

PS for those of you who don’t know what “frothy” and “Santorum” together mean, you will have to google it, because I will not post it here. Sorry, my friends.

Elisa on February 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Come on Elisa…Santorum believes homosexuality is a sin because a book that claims the earth is only 6000 years old says it is. The Bible is nothing more than fiction and fables cobbled together by a ruling elite to control, exploit and oppress the masses. Promise people everlasting life and they will fall for ANYTHING, and criticize all those who don’t fall dutifully in line. I think frothy Santorum is quite appropriate in this case. I suggest you spend less time posting on Hot Air and more time cracking a science book.

Bandit13 on February 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Obviously you dislike Santorum because he is religious and you hate Christianity.

But don’t put words in his mouth or my mouth.

Santorum and I are Catholic. Catholics believe the Bible is the true Word of God, but we don’t interpret Genesis as meaning that the earth can only be 6,000 years old. It might be, if God created time into the earth itself when He created the earth. We don’t dismiss that possibility, but we think it is unlikely. If you look at the Hebrew words in Genesis and how it’s been interpreted, it doesn’t preclude that the earth might be millions of years old.

If real science and the Bible ever contradict, it’s because the science is not real or the Bible is being misinterpreted or there is a missing piece we don’t understand yet. Because both will always agree and never contradict, because real science and the Bible are both true.

And that includes what constitutes a sin. Certain acts, not the temptations or inclinations to those acts, are sins. The severity of those sins is only up to God Himself who alone judges hearts and minds. But He has revealed that they are sins and we can use His Word to judge them as such.

Santorum is not going to legislate religion. Just uphold what this country and every healthy and successful society has believed for thousands of years. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Whatever private arrangements people want to have amongst themselves, without governmental and societal sanction, is up to them. Civil unions and wills should be enough.

This whole thing you raised has absolutely nothing to due with what I was talking about and in no way even slightly justifies calling Santorum such a vile word and posting it here amongst decent people. It remains a disgusting image and has no place here.

Elisa on February 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM

tom on February 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM

The funny part is that he lost the argument with himself…
Any way, interesting how this Rick thing is panning out…you have to wonder how far it will go, or if this is just another “diversion” for the RNC…

right2bright on February 9, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I suggest you spend less time posting on Hot Air and more time cracking a science book.

Bandit13 on February 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Meanwhile, you ask for the faithful to “crack a science book”, never realizing the irony of your statement…without the church, you would have no “science book”, there would be no public schools…meanwhile this poster is enjoying the fruits of what the faithful has built, and from birth to death, he and his family will be cared for by the faithful…beggars seldom thank their benefactors, and the faithful understand that.

right2bright on February 9, 2012 at 1:10 PM

It was hilarious to wake up and see what torturous desperate posts you had made, good grief you are obsessed when you are wrong.

Depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply, who bears more of the tax or who receives more of the subsidy may differ.

So, what part of that you not understand?

Oh, that’s right. You don’t understand price elasticities.

Or supply and demand.

Or Price.

Shocker.

You dumb POS.

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

And they pay the taxes from their magical piggy bank…or revenues…which is it?
You say magical piggy bank…I say it’s revenues pays for all expenses, overhead, and costs…duhhhhh!!!!
Glad that you went to Wiki and learned all of your economics…HAHAHAHA! But I gotta hand it to you, you don’t give up.
Magic piggy bank, that cracks me up…money just appears and pays for taxes…amazing…all by itself…
You are why we are in such horrible economic shape, you don’t realize that every expense, every cost, in a profitable company comes from the revenues it receives from selling its products….amazing, you actually think and argue that someone else pays for all of those costs…amazing, but it makes sense how someone like Obama gets elected.

BTW, you know all those taxes for government employees, we pay that also…you are the magical piggy bank my friend.

right2bright on February 9, 2012 at 3:48 PM

And they pay the taxes from their magical piggy bank…or revenues…which is it?

They pay the taxes out of an increase in pries to the consumer and a smaller profit margin.

If you were less of a dumb POS, you’d know that by now.

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Okay, but can you STILL answer my question?

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012

Forgive me, but based upon your first response, it was evident to me that your belief system is steeped in superstition and super-naturalism, and that I would be wasting my time debating with you. You believe in myth, mysticism and magic…I don’t.

Bandit13 on February 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I’m a Romney supporter, but I will not stand for Santorum being called that horrible name.
If Ed or Allahpundit catch that you are using a disgusting sexual euphemism to describe Santorum, you’re going to get hit with the ban hammer.

scotash on February 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM

All you Santorum cheerleaders know that if your guy is the nominee, BO is gonna’ get that second term he thinks he deserves…Right?
Bandit13 on February 8, 2012 at 8:56 P

You know I’ve heard that said about every Republican candidate in the race by the people who are supporting “the other guy”, right?

Sterling Holobyte on February 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10