Bellwether: Santorum blows past Gingrich in Pennsylvania, now leads Romney by one

posted at 8:37 pm on February 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

I know what you’re thinking. “Who cares, AP? It’s his home state and their primary isn’t until the last week of April.” True. Pennsylvania might not matter much. But these numbers are important right now because they might — might — give us a window into how the race is going next door in Ohio, one of the key states voting on March 6, a.k.a. Super Tuesday.

Ohio could matter a lot.

The statewide poll of 500 Republicans showed Santorum’s support more than doubled from 14 percent six weeks ago to 30 percent, putting him in a statistical dead heat with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who increased his support to 29 percent from 18 percent. Santorum’s gain was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s loss, as his numbers here plunged from 35 percent to 13 percent…

James Lee, president of Susquehanna Polling and Research, which conducted the poll, said Santorum’s growing strength among Republicans suggests conservatives are tuning in to the race.

“Rick speaks their language. They believe he’s the real deal, but they seem to draw the line when it comes to moving on to the fall,” Lee said. “They don’t seem to think he’s electable. That’s the real conundrum he’s in: How does he persuade mainstream voters he’s the guy who can win in November?”

One way he could solve his electability problem is by beating Romney in Arizona and/or Michigan on February 28. If that happens, then suddenly Ohio might be in play. And if Ohio’s in play, then the odds of a brokered convention may increase rapidly. Here’s what Sean Trende had to say about it in making his point about the regional split among the candidates that I wrote about earlier:

Super Tuesday will likely be tougher for [Romney]. Four of the five largest states — Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Georgia — are Southern (or in Oklahoma’s case, culturally Southern). Romney will likely win Virginia by default, but he will probably fare poorly in the remaining three. If Gingrich can maintain his strength in the South, he will likely win them.

On the other hand, Romney will probably do well in Massachusetts, Idaho and Vermont. Santorum seems well-positioned to win North Dakota.

So the viability of a three-way split probably comes down to Ohio, which has a fair number of evangelicals, though not to the degree that Tennessee, Oklahoma and Georgia do. Santorum has some strengths he can draw on in the Buckeye State, as his blue-collar message could play well even among Republicans there. If he wins, it means that we probably do have a deeply divided GOP, with Gingrich taking the anti-Romney vote in the South, and Santorum taking the anti-Romney vote in the Midwest.

The last poll of Ohio, conducted by PPP, had Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum within four points of each other, but it was taken back on January 28-29, before Santorum’s clean sweep in the midwest on Tuesday. Needless to say, things have changed since then — enough so that PPP is tweeting tonight about its new national poll due out tomorrow that will show Santorum leading. Quote: “What’s really scary for Romney is the numbers if Newt dropped out…Newt, by staying in, is all the sudden Mitt’s BFF”. The wrinkle in Trende’s analysis, then, is that Gingrich might be fading so rapidly — witness his collapse in Pennsylvania cited above — that he can’t hold those southern states which we currently expect him to win. If that happens and Santorum starts winning in the south too, Romney’s in deep, deep trouble.

But let’s say Newt bounces back (there are two more debates before Super Tuesday) and holds the south, preserving the regional split and the dream of a brokered convention. Would that convention actually be a nightmare in practice? Jay Cost, the Weekly Standard’s election guru, e-mailed me in response to this post with a warning to be careful what I wish for:

A brokered convo would be an unmitigated disaster!

(a) Romney will go in with the most delegates, so he’d be the odds-on favorite to win. So, in that case we’ll still wind up with an Obama-clone, only he’ll be bloodied up all to hell. Terrific.

(b) What happens if we get some dark horse? They start running from scratch in late August? No advisors, no infrastructure, no fundraising? This kind of approach worked back in the 1870s when there was a permanent party org that basically ran the whole show, but there isn’t anymore, and worse the campaign finance laws really keep the party from pulling the weight for the candidate on the ground. And we don’t have something like organized labor on our side to pick up the slack, either.

What about no debate prep? Remember how bad Fred Thompson and Rick Perry did when they decided to jump in on a lark?

(c) It would be a mess to watch on television. How many ballots are we talking about? What happens if it goes past the lease on the convo center? How does that chaos look compared to the Donks orderly convo? Doesn’t it play right into O’s hands…”I’m the only grown-up in the room!” Remember: it’s been literally two generations since we’ve had a messy convo. The public won’t put it into context because the collective memory only has these carefully managed coronations. Our brokered convo plus Obama coronation = massive bounce for the One.

Good points all, but let me counter. One: A dark horse would have grave weaknesses, but depending upon who he/she is, I’m not sure the dark horse would be weaker than Romney. Like Cost says, even if Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich survives a brokered convention to emerge as nominee, they’ll be brutalized by the process. It may be that you need a clean slate with a new candidate at that point. Two: The absence of any organization for the dark horse is a concern, but it’s a concern that party leaders will begin to deal with long before the convention begins. If Super Tuesday comes and goes and the race is still deeply divided three ways, you’ll start seeing stories in the press about some sort of organization quietly being assembled to get to work for a dark-horse nominee just in case it comes to that. The RNC and conservative Super PACs will also start gearing up to go to war for the nominee in case he has no organization of his own. Don’t get me wrong: The organizational question mark is a serious concern, but we’re going to end up playing a weak hand no matter what in November. Serious concerns will abound until the polls open on election day.

But back to Ohio. Cost replied to my points about the convention with this:

I think for that to happen, Daniels or somebody would have to toss in during the primary period. He could still do it late. Imagine a scenario where he gets in before the CA filing deadline, wins the CA primary, starts building an organization, leads in the Gallup poll among GOPers, performs best against Obama, etc. That would be a scenario like what Bobby Kennedy planned to do in 1968.

Otherwise, you’d have a legitimacy problem as well. Romney could credibly argue that the “people” had “voted” for him.

I think the big test for all of this is the Ohio primary. If Romney can’t win that, Daniels could still get on the ballot in CA, NJ, NM, MT, UT and a few other places. I think the establishment GOPers are probably equally scared of Santorum as they are of Gingrich, in that they fear both of them would lose (correctly, IMO). So Ohio is for Romney v. Santorum what Florida was for Romney v. Gingrich — Romney has to close it out there or else the bigwigs are going to intervene.

Right. If he can’t seal the deal in one of the perennial key swing states on Super Tuesday, you’re likely to see chaos the day after. That’s why the new Pennsylvania poll maybe matters. And why Ohio definitely matters.

Update: Corrected a careless error above: Jay Cost used to be at RealClearPolitics, now he’s at the Weekly Standard. Sorry for the mix-up.


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 3 4 5

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Yes, political theory that dictates that a governor’s or elected offical’s ability to effect the agenda of the government he was elected to depends on his popularity and standing amidst the public, which can be damaged by highly publicized, utterly pointless battles, is rambling nonsense.

You know what highly publicized battle that he might’ve been saving that veto for later? His veto on a bill from the legislature that would force Catholic doctors to hand out contraception. Unfortunately the veto was still shot down by the Mass Legislature, but this was at least a more worthy battle than ‘this influential institution in our state that is important to women’s health shouldn’t be on our health board, so na na na boo boo’.

And again, I said it was a change from ‘humans cause it’ to ‘humans might not cause it’ which gradually solidified to ‘humans don’t cause it’, that was likely brought about by the flow of new data and facts that culminated over a period of time. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself before you either bother to read it or it gets through your head, but apparently it is a lot.

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Only ignorant religious crazies believe Bush ran as a conservative dear. The man couldn’t shut up about how “compassionate” his government would be.

Mitt so perfect? Who the heck believes Mitt is perfect? You have some serious problems considering the type of stuff you write.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:29 AM

So what about Bush’s platform attracted “religious crazies?”
Did he say he was going to reinstate the death penalty for homosexuals? What?

Or are “religious crazies” what you call social cons?
Newsflash: Social cons are an important and big part of the GOP base.

And if you were too “principled” to vote for Bush, how could you vote for Mittens? Who is significantly to the LEFT of Bush even on economic policy? Mr. let’s raise minimum wage to index for inflation. Mr. I support TARP and auto bailouts. Mr. Romneycare.

When are you going to admit your a shill?

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM

rik on February 10, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Then you’re pretty easily impressed… which was pretty obvious.

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM

When are you going to admit your you’re a shill?

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM

FIFM

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Santorum lost by 17 points the last time he ran against a Dem in PA, but I’m sure he’ll pull it out against Obama!
EddieC on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Yep and Willard lost by 18.
In 1994.

Sanity lost in 2006 after winning in ’94 and ’00.

Try to figure out the importance of 1994 and 2000.

I know you can.

Hint: Gore won PA in 2000. 1994 was a big GOP year.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Now, who here is lacking in facts again?

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Pretty obvious that that would be you.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Santorum lost by 17 points the last time he ran against a Dem in PA, but I’m sure he’ll pull it out against Obama!
EddieC on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Yep and Willard lost by 18.
In 1994.
angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Not in Pennsylvannia. Nobody is claiming that Romney can win in Massachusetts. And Romney lost as a challenger to titan like Ted Kennedy. Santorum lost as an incumbent to a neophyte.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:41 AM

And you have now entered Tim territory. I congratulate you for doing your best and, I’ll admit, you were certainly a more worthy debate partner than Tim. At least it took you longer to start repeating yourself and not listening to my points at all, and then go straight for the ‘yeah, well, you know nothing!’ argument.

Now, if you’ll excuse me I do have plans for tomorrow morning, and it’s well past time that I’ve gone to sleep. Goodnight there pal, nice debate.

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 AM

So what about Bush’s platform attracted “religious crazies?”
Did he say he was going to reinstate the death penalty for homosexuals? What?

Or are “religious crazies” what you call social cons?
Newsflash: Social cons are an important and big part of the GOP base.

And if you were too “principled” to vote for Bush, how could you vote for Mittens? Who is significantly to the LEFT of Bush even on economic policy? Mr. let’s raise minimum wage to index for inflation. Mr. I support TARP and auto bailouts. Mr. Romneycare.

When are you going to admit your a shill?

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM

I have little patience for your incoherent, over-emotional and borderline psychotic rants. Drop the name-calling when replying to me in future occasions.

Bush was too much to my left. If you were okay with him, that’s fine by me: I know not everybody is as conservative as me. You’re more of a moderate.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:47 AM

Oh, I dunno… they were bad candidates who ran terrible campaigns and managed to get out debated by the likes of Harry Reid and Coons?

You know, that could have something to do with it.

But, we’re not talking about how the poor performance of candidates in a campaign can affect the outcome of an election. This was about Mitt Romney… hey, wasn’t someone here getting up in arms about someone supposedly moving goal posts? Someone should really get his/her attention, they’d be outraged by your display.

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 1:28 AM

This proves you’re just making stuff up as you go along.
Reid and Angle had 1 debate, and EVEN the LEFTIES at Kos/TPM admitted she cleaned Reid’s clock. But I digress.

My point was the Angle lost because 17% of Republicans voted for Reid. She won independents 48%-40%.
But I guess that went right over your head.

As for O’Donnell yes she was a horrible candidate, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that 24% of Republicans voted for a Marxist.

And you’re the one moving the goal posts consistently.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Ahhhh ! Republicide!

kurtd on February 10, 2012 at 1:51 AM

Like lots of Republicans will vote for Obama if a lunatic like Santorum is the GOP nominee. The closer you are to the middle, the most probably you are to be a swing voter. How hard is this to understand?

I, on the other hand, won’t vote for Obama – I can’t vote for guys who are against right-to-work, for example. Same reason why I can’t vote for another proto-socialist like Santorum.

I can only imagine what Scott Walker, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie are thinking when they see unions shill Rick Santorum being transformed into a conservative hero.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 AM

I have little patience for your incoherent, over-emotional and borderline psychotic rants. Drop the name-calling when replying to me in future occasions.

Bush was too much to my left. If you were okay with him, that’s fine by me: I know not everybody is as conservative as me. You’re more of a moderate.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:47 AM

You’re the one who called social conservatives “religious crazies.”

You’re the one that needs psychiatric help if you think you’re a conservative and I’m a moderate.

Just admit it in 2000, 2004, and 2008 you voted for the democrat for president.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 AM

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 AM

LOL…..DB word coming troll (schad….shut yer eyes).

Oh, I’m sorry, you must’ve had me mistaken for someone who cares about what the fringe ‘True Conservatives’, think.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

LOL

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Like lots of Republicans will vote for Obama if a lunatic like Santorum is the GOP nominee. The closer you are to the middle, the most probably you are to be a swing voter. How hard is this to understand?

I, on the other hand, won’t vote for Obama – I can’t vote for guys who are against right-to-work, for example. Same reason why I can’t vote for another proto-socialist like Santorum.

I can only imagine what Scott Walker, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie are thinking when they see unions shill Rick Santorum being transformed into a conservative hero.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 AM

The brain damage is strong in this one.

If santorum is a socialist, what does that make Mittens a communist?

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 AM

You’re the one who called social conservatives “religious crazies.”

No I didn’t. I dare you to link where the comment where I did that. You won’t, I never did that. As usual, when people call you out you just start lying and insulting.

Just admit it in 2000, 2004, and 2008 you voted for the democrat for president.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 AM

You need help. I never voted for a democrat in my life – as I said, unlike moderates like you I didn’t even vote for Bush because he was too moderate. You really need help.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 AM

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Thanks for conceding that you are a Mittens shill.

And that the facts overwhelmed you.

Have a good night now. Be sure to take a shower before you lay on your Mittens sheets.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 AM

They call it “Election Day”. Not “Prove A Point Day”. Not “Ideologically Purity Day”. See folks, many of you who hilariously wanted Sarah Palin to be the nominee based on past polls on here, “Election Day” is a day where somebody actually gets elected. Last time Rick Santorum ran for this thing we call an “election” he lost by 700,000 votes setting a record for futility by a U.S. Senator. Imagine the fun Obama will have with this record breaking loser come November. Grow up kids.

kurtd on February 10, 2012 at 2:00 AM

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 AM

You are full of sheet. Thanks for revealing to everyone that you’re a Moby.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Oh, I’m sorry, you must’ve had me mistaken for someone who cares about what the fringe ‘True Conservatives’, think.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

My goodness, if I had any doubts that you or your friend there were idiots, calling me some kind of progressive plant or liberal troll just about seals the deal for me.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM

lol.

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 AM

My point was the Angle lost because 17% of Republicans voted for Reid. She won independents 48%-40%.
But I guess that went right over your head.

As for O’Donnell yes she was a horrible candidate, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that 24% of Republicans voted for a Marxist.

Yea and let’s nominate Santorum and make those numbers national!!!! REBUBLICIDE.

kurtd on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Not in Pennsylvannia. Nobody is claiming that Romney can win in Massachusetts. And Romney lost as a challenger to titan like Ted Kennedy. Santorum lost as an incumbent to a neophyte.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Point of fact: Santorum didn’t lose to a neophyte. Little Bobby Casey had been state treasurer — a statewide elected position. And the name Casey was still golden in Pa. politics, thanks to his father, the real Bob Casey. And don’t forget that 2006 was a national nightmare for the GOP.

either orr on February 10, 2012 at 2:04 AM

They call it “Election Day”. Not “Prove A Point Day”. Not “Ideologically Purity Day”. See folks, many of you who hilariously wanted Sarah Palin to be the nominee based on past polls on here, “Election Day” is a day where somebody actually gets elected. Last time Rick Santorum ran for this thing we call an “election” he lost by 700,000 votes setting a record for futility by a U.S. Senator. Imagine the fun Obama will have with this record breaking loser come November. Grow up kids.

kurtd on February 10, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Why even have principles? I mean why don’t we just recruit Hillary Clinton to run on the GOP banner if electability is all that’s important.

And yes Santorum did lose by 17% points on election day. So what?

Mittens didn’t even dare run for re-election or he would have lost by 30%+. He left office as the 2nd LEAST popular governor in the country at 31% approval 67% disapproval.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Yea and let’s nominate Santorum and make those numbers national!!!! REBUBLICIDE.

kurtd on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Go gurgle on some razor blades troll.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 AM

WealthofNations and Joana are Mobys.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 AM

If santorum is a socialist, what does that make Mittens a communist?

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 AM

She’s right on Santorum, wrong on Romney.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Go Santorum 2012!!!!

U bet… All that is left are 3 RINO’s & a democrat in the race… Got to go with the least RINO of them all… Santorum 2012!!!

Santorum – Social Conservative about 25% RINO but constant with his views… And would give Obama a great fight on ORomneyCare & Religious freedoms…

Gingrich – 50% RINO with to much baggage & ready to mimic liberal dogma if it helps him win…

Paul – Talks a great monetary game but has a blind spot the size of a 777 when it comes to keeping us safe at home…

Romney – I don’t want to offend RINO’s by calling Romney one… Romney core values shift by location & by goal… He is build on the same mold as Kerry… He will wait for the dust to settle before he will give u his opinion on something… Just ask the House in 2011′s debt ceiling debate… The only thing he will support & protect to the death is MANDATES…. He can run as a liberal republican or as fiscal blue dog democrat… He is not even a RINO…

I am glad all this Santorum is this and Santorum is that posts… We know he is a 25% RINO… But he is not a quitter… ala 1996 Romney… That tells u who has balls and who is a McCain clone…

And if the same Aholes in the GOP leadership want to tell me to support some other ORomney if their current ORomney can’t close the deal… Which I know he can’t…. Like father like son…. Then Sweet Asteroid of Death it is…

Y314K on February 10, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Go gurgle on some razor blades troll.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Whoa, violent and offensive.

DoubleClutchin on February 10, 2012 at 2:18 AM

Go Santorum 2012!!!!

U bet… All that is left are 3 RINO’s & a democrat in the race… Got to go with the least RINO of them all… Santorum 2012!!!

Santorum – Social Conservative about 25% RINO but constant with his views… And would give Obama a great fight on ORomneyCare & Religious freedoms…

Gingrich – 50% RINO with to much baggage & ready to mimic liberal dogma if it helps him win…

Paul – Talks a great monetary game but has a blind spot the size of a 777 when it comes to keeping us safe at home…

Romney – I don’t want to offend RINO’s by calling Romney one… Romney core values shift by location & by goal… He is build on the same mold as Kerry… He will wait for the dust to settle before he will give u his opinion on something… Just ask the House in 2011′s debt ceiling debate… The only thing he will support & protect to the death is MANDATES…. He can run as a liberal republican or as fiscal blue dog democrat… He is not even a RINO…

I am glad all this Santorum is this and Santorum is that posts… We know he is a 25% RINO… But he is not a quitter… ala 1996 2006 Romney… That tells u who has balls and who is a McCain clone…

And if the same Aholes in the GOP leadership want to tell me to support some other ORomney if their current ORomney can’t close the deal… Which I know he can’t…. Like father like son…. Then Sweet Asteroid of Death it is…

Y314K on February 10, 2012 at 2:21 AM

I have to admit that I’m one of the new posters here; but frankly aero, you are spot on.

In the past the HA that I read and enjoyed had wit, great satire and none of the acidic bile so prevalent around here lately.

I hope things improve. I wanted to be a part of this great blog for years and felt privileged to join.

litebeam1 on February 10, 2012 at 12:42 AM

I hope it’s just the overblown emotions of primary season and that it will die down. We had our share of ugliness during the 2007-2008 cycle here at Hot Air — I specifically remember csdeven insulting Fred Thompson’s wife in a particularly nasty way. It did die down and most commenters returned to relatively amicable debate. I don’t recall quite this volume of toxic, scorched-earth, red-on-red vitriol last time around, though. Very unfortunate.

aero on February 10, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Go gurgle on some razor blades troll.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Case in point. Sigh.

aero on February 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Y314K on February 10, 2012 at 2:15 AM

I like the cut of your jib.

For me:

Gingrich – ready to mimic liberal dogma if it helps him win

Isn’t a big concern. His only hope is to full-blown-con……it’s what’s holding Romney back.

And if the same Aholes in the GOP leadership want to tell me to support some other ORomney if their current ORomney can’t close the deal… Which I know he can’t…. Like father like son…. Then Sweet Asteroid of Death it is…

see that’s my quandry. I’d still have to vote for him.

I’ve got an eight-year-old.

I can’t have 4 more years of obumbles. It’s not fair to her.

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 2:28 AM

Go gurgle on some razor blades troll.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 2:06 AM

lmao….. a tad too Tim Burtonesque.

lol.

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 2:43 AM

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 2:28 AM

I can understand that… Out of the four… Santorum & Newt can both earn my family’s vote… Paul & Romney can’t… I do see Santorum as being a lot more discipline of the two… If u see his debate video from 1994 u can see the same man back then is still here… And that is a big plus…

It seems the Romney Cabal & GOP DC set are playing a game of chicken with the rest of the country… They don’t think it matters who gets nominated as long as they can be approved by “moderates” aka abortion approving / gay marriage loving democrats that call themselves conservatives… So it doesn’t matter if Romney or some other RINO or less then RINO gets the nod… That is why so many of the GOP want’s a Obama clone to be the nominee… They don’t think some of use are ready to crash the car… McCain’s 2008 thought me to not be scare of the Democrats, they are a known quantity… But to be scare of the GOP kingmakers…

Y314K on February 10, 2012 at 2:44 AM

George H. W. Bush.

WealthofNations

So in other words, we don’t need Pennsylvania.

xblade on February 10, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Stop the pessimism.

Hillary and Obama fought it out and bloodied one another up.

Obama still beat the Republican!

scotash on February 10, 2012 at 3:46 AM

Go gurgle on some razor blades troll.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 2:06 AM

You are my knd of girl!

katy the mean old lady on February 10, 2012 at 3:49 AM

Santorum lost in PA the same time most GOPers lost in the Obama wave. In 2010 my rep, Chabot, regained his seat, and Santorum CAN win in 2013. I’m sick to death of the establishment Romneyites shoving their liberal candidate down our throats. Go Rick.

davecatbone on February 10, 2012 at 5:13 AM

Ok, I’m just going to come right out and say it: Rick Santorum is a sick bigot who apparently thinks it’s the government’s business to regulate the kind of sex people engage in behind closed doors.

Bigot Rick Santorum compares being gay to “man on child” and “man on dog” behavior… and he even used that phrasing.

Here is Santorum on why government should be able to ban private non-procreative sexual activity between consenting adults (no matter what their gender/sex):

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

Rick Santorum lost his last election by nearly 20 points. I’m surprised he didn’t lose by more, to be honest! Santorum is nothing but an undistinguished, homophobic, big government, anti-Tea Party theocrat who is less electable than even Newt Freakin’ Gingrich. Santorum is only polling decently at the moment because most people don’t know what a freak Rick Santorum really is.

Um, in the year when Republicans are wanting to run on a smaller government, pro-jobs message, some people are considering nominating a “holier than thou” bigot like Rick Santorum who has openly badmouthed the Tea Party and has pledged to fight against it? Are people out of their minds? (Here is the Big Government Santorum in his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc )

Rick Santorum is best known for being a theocratic, big government scold who wants to impose his religion on others.

What better gift could Obama be given in a general election campaign. Much of the attention will be on how Rick Santorum is opposed to birth control, instead of the focus being where it belongs: on Obama’s failed economic record. It’s kind of a problem when the first thing that comes to mind when you hear a candidate’s name is that the want to regulate your private sexual activity!

Mitt Romney is obviously a million times better than Santorum, and even Newt with all his many problems (and they ARE numerous) is better than this anti-Tea Party idiot Rick Santorum.

bluegill on February 10, 2012 at 6:06 AM

bluegill on February 10, 2012 at 6:06 AM

LOL

Key West Reader on February 10, 2012 at 6:40 AM

Good points all, but let me counter. One: A dark horse would have grave weaknesses, but depending upon who he/she is, I’m not sure the dark horse would be weaker than Romney. Like Cost says, even if Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich survives a brokered convention to emerge as nominee, they’ll be brutalized by the process. It may be that you need a clean slate with a new candidate at that point.

If so, don’t be surprised if Mike Huckabee becomes the nominee.

ITguy on February 10, 2012 at 7:33 AM

Santorum as the nominee? Seriously?
I am so disgusted with the primary process, the GOP electorate, and the power brokers in DC that I can’t even express it without screaming four letter words and pulling my hair out.

These are the four worst presidential candidates of my adult lifetime, so we go to war with one of these losers or nominate someone else at the convention who will emerge with huge organizational handicaps.

After what happened in 2010, there is no excuse for not having better choices than this – except for conservatives eating their own til this doofus in a sweater vest is all that’s left, and the establishment smearing the Tea Party that gave it a House majority, going all in for RINO Romney, and actively discouraging others from running.

When Obama wins re-election this year, we have no one to blame but ourselves. What a clusterfark.

DRayRaven on February 10, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Mitt Romney is obviously a million times better than Santorum, and even Newt with all his many problems (and they ARE numerous) is better than this anti-Tea Party idiot Rick Santorum.

bluegill on February 10, 2012 at 6:06 AM

And a trillion times more stronger than anyone on earth maybe two billion trillion gadzillion, good grief, hadn’t heard that since about the 5th grade.

First, losing an election, is no different than consulting for a company and having them “go under”. The fact is not everyone is successful every time. Mitt was so disliked in Mass, that he didn’t even run for a second term, against a nobody.
He never compared the foolish statements you make, you can’t come up with a quote, a link, anything except that he used these words in the same sentence.
The quote you gave is accurate, if the supreme courts say that “anything goes”, than I guess “anything goes”. If the supreme court says “consensual sex”, than surprise when six people and a couple of the children (by parental permission) are doing it in “privacy”.

Your argument, btw, is exactly the argument that NAMBLA uses…not saying you are NAMBLA (I don’t know), just that it is the same argument. Consensual sex between individuals is their right, even 14 year olds with their loving “dads”….get it? Probable not, you are probably running to the bathroom, and typing your response with one hand.

And one other thing, not for you because you don’t care about facts, but for others.
The link you gave stating that he dissed the Tea Party, you have got to be kidding…it was cut and spliced, he clearly said “he is concerned about “this” movement within the Tea Party”, he was talking about a movement within the Tea Party, not the Tea Party. I suspect (hard to tell with the cuts) he was talking about the libertarian movement….sheesh, the dishonesty you guys go to, right out of Mitt playbook.
Rick has continually focused on Obama, in fact, that is why Mitt is changing his campaign, Rick has forced him to move from personal attacks to a more focused issue oriented campaign. Rick is the real leader in this process, he has been the one that has stayed away from personal attacks, stayed with the issues, and tried to keep the debates focused on the real problem…Obama.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 8:08 AM

LOL

Key West Reader on February 10, 2012 at 6:40 AM

Exactly, just to be laughed at….

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I don’t understand how the GOP “bigwigs” are scarred that Santorum or Gingrich can’t win but don’t have the same fears about Romney. What about Romney has demonstrated that he can win? He can’t even win his own party. He’s a lousy campaigner, has no personality, has no campaign theme – no big vision of why he is running, nobody believes he has any particular strong set of political principals, he cedes Obamacare to Obama.

I’ve long thought Romney will be a very weak general election candidate. The people who claim he is our “best chance” base that on the fact that he has money and organization and that he has never done anything to make independents nervous. That’s a ridiculous argument. His money and organization – plus at least 3 years of running for the office – have not seemed to do anything for him in the primary. What’s to make us believe it will in the general?

The fact that he hasn’t done anything to make independents nervous also points to the fact that he has never stood for anything. It’s easy to be seen as non-threatening when you have never taken a stand on anything. When you have no core values. The problem is, that also backfires b/c people then wonder “why am I supposed to vote for this guy?”

I just don’t see Romney beating Obama. That doesn’t necessarily mean Santorum or Gingrish would either, but I don’t see where Romney has any advantage over either of them in the general. I actually think Romney would fare worse. His own party doesn’t like him and thinks he is a fake. What are independents going to think of him when they start finally paying attention?

Monkeytoe on February 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Here is Santorum on why government should be able to ban private non-procreative sexual activity between consenting adults (no matter what their gender/sex):

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

I’ve already debunked the argument you are making regarding the above once in this thread.

Santorum is right. The Constitution does NOT give you are right to consensual sex. If it did, then laws against bigamy, polygamy and incest would be ruled unconstitutional. Just because you cannot understand what he said does not mean he is wrong.

It is unfortunate that paranoid people like yourself read things that aren’t there. He never said “let’s ban homosexuality” or “I’m going to stop all private consensual sex.” He merely pointed out the truth. The constitution does not limit the federal government from passing laws regarding sexual behavior, much less so the states.

Does that mean I would support the banning of homosexuality? No. Rather, it is simply a statement of fact. Homosexual behavior actually was illegal for a long time in this country. The Founding Fathers actually supported sodomy laws. It would be silly to make a Constitutional argument for the right to have sex with any adult you please. Unless you want to use the slavery defense and say that sexual preference is equal to race and that gays should be a protected minority…if that is the case, why ever vote for a conservative. You’ll find you have more in common with the liberals.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Monkeytoe on February 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM

You make a good point, but fail to make it all the way. Romney is the only GOP candidate (at least the only one we have left) who can win the independent vote. All of the Santorum and Gingrich people can be as sure as they want that their guy can win in the general, but it just ain’t gonna happen. Gingrich may have had a chance before he revealed his true character in the primaries, but it was only a small chance to begin with. Santorum will never, ever get the vote of independents, because he is seen, rightfully so, I believe, as an extreme social con, a la Buchanan.

I know you’re probably just waiting to type “JUST LIKE McCAIN!!” BUt Romney is not just like McCain. He never was, and no one, even the haughty conservative media elite thought so in ’08. He is a conservative, but one that is not conservative enough for the new GOP base. And there is the problem. Everyone knows that, in order to win, we have to have the base AND the independents. No candidate can win without both. So, if the GOP base is going to spurn Romney, I assume that we will lose, no matter who gets the nomination. THat doesn’t mean that I think Santorum supporters shouldn’t keep working for their guy, but those who say that they won’t vote for anyone if it’s NOT their guy are basically Obama supporters.

Priscilla on February 10, 2012 at 8:28 AM

The fact that we’re even discussing private sexual behavior because of Santorum shows he’s the wrong candidate. And we’re conservatives (or at least Republicans). Imagine what independents will think of him.

Santorum is a B lister who should have been out of the race a long time ago. The only reason he’s still here is because no one took him seriously enough to turn their fire on him.

The idea that anyone takes him seriously even now is simply mind-boggling.

God, I hope a halfway decent candidate gets in the race.

DRayRaven on February 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

The fact that we’re even discussing private sexual behavior because of Santorum shows he’s the wrong candidate. And we’re conservatives (or at least Republicans). Imagine what independents will think of him.

DRayRaven on February 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

On the contrary, the fact that the left has only this to attack, shows how strong he is…this is it, they have to use a minor issue to try and take down Rick.
The irony is, he has said nothing controversial, it is his haters that take the words out of context…as if every candidate won’t suffer the same.
You may say he is a “B” lister, but with little money, he has taken down the Romney machine…pegged to win Colorado by double digits, and Rick takes that with little money or effort…that makes Mitt a “C” lister.
This points to one obvious fact…”Anyone but Mitt” is a real fact, and we have to deal with it, and the only way is to remove him, and get behind the candidate that best represents conservative values…and so far it is Rick…economics, Thomas Sowell has made his choice.
Who do you trust with conservative economics…Trump or Sowell?

Coulter chooses Mitt…because now she thinks mandates are really cool…you think that sells to conservatives or independents?

Mitt will lose to Obama, with Rick we have a much better chance…I think conservative values are what will win it for the Republican, not liberal plans.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Ahhhhhh….another member of the tinfoil hat brigade.

csdeven on February 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM

to use a minor issue

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM

“minor issue”?! Comparing gays to child molesters is not a minor issue. And Santorum is a union shill and got decimated in his reelection bid.

Gingrich is nuts, but Santorum is no better. The middle will not support him and if he is the nominee, Obama will get another 4 years.

csdeven on February 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

this is what rick bring’s to the table . he could possibly turn PA
red.
rik on February 9, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Hahaha dream on!

There are two reasons why PA is not red. . . Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and there’s no way in hell a majority of voters in those cities would vote for Santorum over Obama. It will be hard enough to get them to vote for Romney over Obama.

If it doesn’t have a “D” after its name in Pittsburgh or Philly, it doesn’t get a vote.

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

csdeven on February 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Ummm…the “Middle” just supported him in three states.

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM

On the contrary, the fact that the left has only this to attack, shows how strong he is…this is it, they have to use a minor issue to try and take down Rick.

The irony is, he has said nothing controversial, it is his haters that take the words out of context…as if every candidate won’t suffer the same.

You may say he is a “B” lister, but with little money, he has taken down the Romney machine…pegged to win Colorado by double digits, and Rick takes that with little money or effort…that makes Mitt a “C” lister.

This points to one obvious fact…”Anyone but Mitt” is a real fact, and we have to deal with it, and the only way is to remove him, and get behind the candidate that best represents conservative values…and so far it is Rick…economics, Thomas Sowell has made his choice.
Who do you trust with conservative economics…Trump or Sowell?

Coulter chooses Mitt…because now she thinks mandates are really cool…you think that sells to conservatives or independents?

Mitt will lose to Obama, with Rick we have a much better chance…I think conservative values are what will win it for the Republican, not liberal plans.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Excellent. I especially agree with your first line. Santorum is clean politically and privately. Any criticisms are grasping as straws. So this is all they have.

Someone said Rick is doing well right now because people don’t know him. On the contrary. I agree people don’t really know him, but what they do know is all the false social attacks on him. They think he is a religious nut and extremist and chauvinist. That is the ONLY thing some people have heard about Santorum. (job well done by those with an agenda against him for many years now.)

The point is that when people do get to know him for themselves and hear him and really look at his record, they see him to be the REASONABLE and mainstream person of intelligence, humility, sincerity and integrity that he is. And that he is a lot more than just social issues.

Even Independents who believe in gay marriage (who don’t have an agenda) aren’t bothered by mainstream beliefs against gay marriage, which is what Rick believes. He isn’t going to legislate intrusion into people’s bedrooms and when they hear him and not quotes taken out of context, they see that.

Elisa on February 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM

As I’ve said before, the vast majority of conservatives agree with Santorum.

The vast majority of liberals are not going to vote for the Republican anyway, no matter who he is. They will vote Obama or stay home or vote 3rd party.

The majority (not vast majority) of Independents and Reagan Dems probably agree with gay marriage because they don’t want to offend anyone and think it’s “fair” and “nice” to let everyone do whatever they want. Some are against gay marriage, but let’s just talk about the ones that are for it.

Yet these people don’t really care that much about the gay issue. Yes, they poll a certain way, but the issue is not that high on their list.

The vast majority of these people (and they are my friends and family and neighbors here in NJ) care about the economy over social issues. And they will vote that way in 2012 and they will vote against Obama, as long as the Republican is “likable” and “smart” and they agree with him on economic issues.

THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE GAY AGENDA. They care about taxes and jobs and the stock market and interest rates and the housing market and the deficit and social security, etc.

And they like someone who has the courage of his convictions and is sincere, even if they disagree with him on some issues.

Newt is not likable to these people and they find Romney cold and boring.

Romney will be painted as part of the problem because of the Wall Street bailouts and Romneycare. And Romney is not a good campaigner with the people, he just has the most money. Obama will have as much money or more and the media in his pocket.

Newt can be a loose cannon and even some conservatives find his past troubling.

Santorum is the most electable in 2012.

It’s pocketbook over social issues in 2012. Santorum is talking blue collar economic issues which is a win. It’s his detractors who are talking social issues.

Elisa on February 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Santorum has name recognition in PA with conservatives.

Conservatives who watch Fox are being told that Romney hates the poor, and his campaign is flailing, when it is not true.

Santorums list of issues on his website are things he can do in the first two days in office, nothing about governing and how to cut a complex organization. You can make fun of Romney for going into too much detail, in 57 points, but it is because he is a CEO. Santorum is making fun of that, and harnessing feelings of jealousy and class warfare.

I don’t want Santorum for president until his children have fledged. Not Sarah either. The Obama girls are in a little prison there, it’s not what it once was to have kids living in the White House. In the meantime, maybe he could get some executive experience running something big.

Fleuries on February 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Santorum not a fiscal conservative–his record, such as it is, is lacking on this issue.

jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM

On the contrary, the fact that the left has only this to attack, shows how strong he is…this is it, they have to use a minor issue to try and take down Rick.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Riiight. The left is running scared from Rick Santorum. Suuure.

As I noted, we are hardly members of the left, and many of us disagree with Santorum’s extreme socio-con stances. As for the left, don’t you think they would might attack him with it not because they are “scared” of him (which is laughable), but because it’s such an easy target? And because it would work?

You may say he is a “B” lister, but with little money, he has taken down the Romney machine…pegged to win Colorado by double digits, and Rick takes that with little money or effort…that makes Mitt a “C” lister.

As I said, he isn’t still in the race because he’s a good candidate. He’s here because he has been such an aftertought, such a joke of a candidate, that no one has bother to attack him until now.

This points to one obvious fact…”Anyone but Mitt” is a real fact, and we have to deal with it, and the only way is to remove him, and get behind the candidate that best represents conservative values…and so far it is Rick…economics, Thomas Sowell has made his choice.
Who do you trust with conservative economics…Trump or Sowell?

Do you honestly think Sowell would choose Santorum if another credible candidate were still in the race? It’s too bad Perry didn’t stay in, because he’d probably be surging right about now.

Mitt will lose to Obama, with Rick we have a much better chance…I think conservative values are what will win it for the Republican, not liberal plans.

Mitt probably will lose to Obama, but Santorum will get creamed in a landslide.

Face it: you’re putting lipstick on a pig, and Santorum is the pig. This is an even worse field of candidates than 2008, and look how that turned out.

DRayRaven on February 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM

It’s time to start the real campaign, it is time to end the infighting and degrading of the candidates, especially the myth making against Romney, and start the conservative mythmaking in the media, that we are heading for the shining city on the hill.

When we speak, we should be planning how we are going to keep the house and take the senate. We can have it all, if people harness their energy and choose the good, even if they cannot find the Perfect.

Make your plans now to pass bills in the House, have them brought up in the Senate and signed by a Republican president. He will sign your bills, even if he is a Mormon.

Make your plans now, what effect do you think a socially conservative president can have? How will your Congressman achieve it?

He can act as a role model, but what can Santorum effect that Romney cannot effect? does anyone have concrete answers?

I am sticking with Romney because I know that he has the skills to do what he says with the federal government, the budget, future deficits, and he will sign anything family friendly that passes constitutional muster.

Do you think Santorum with act outside of the limitations of president to acheive something? what can he do then? how will he do that.

I would love to see discussions that show what Santorum knows how to do. I have heard him say he authored welfare reform. The democrats have done to that what the democrats have done to Romney Care. The Same thing.

I don’t want platitudes, I want to know what Santorum knows how to do, his experience or methods are not apparent.

Fleuries on February 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Try to figure out the importance of 1994 and 2000.

I know you can.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM

He didn’t just lose PA by a couple points in a tough year. He suffered the most humiliating defeat by a sitting Republican senator in history.

EddieC on February 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

And a trillion times more stronger than anyone on earth maybe two billion trillion gadzillion, good grief, hadn’t heard that since about the 5th grade.

First, losing an election, is no different than consulting for a company and having them “go under”. The fact is not everyone is successful every time. Mitt was so disliked in Mass, that he didn’t even run for a second term, against a nobody.
He never compared the foolish statements you make, you can’t come up with a quote, a link, anything except that he used these words in the same sentence.
The quote you gave is accurate, if the supreme courts say that “anything goes”, than I guess “anything goes”. If the supreme court says “consensual sex”, than surprise when six people and a couple of the children (by parental permission) are doing it in “privacy”.

Your argument, btw, is exactly the argument that NAMBLA uses…not saying you are NAMBLA (I don’t know), just that it is the same argument. Consensual sex between individuals is their right, even 14 year olds with their loving “dads”….get it? Probable not, you are probably running to the bathroom, and typing your response with one hand.

And one other thing, not for you because you don’t care about facts, but for others.
The link you gave stating that he dissed the Tea Party, you have got to be kidding…it was cut and spliced, he clearly said “he is concerned about “this” movement within the Tea Party”, he was talking about a movement within the Tea Party, not the Tea Party. I suspect (hard to tell with the cuts) he was talking about the libertarian movement….sheesh, the dishonesty you guys go to, right out of Mitt playbook.
Rick has continually focused on Obama, in fact, that is why Mitt is changing his campaign, Rick has forced him to move from personal attacks to a more focused issue oriented campaign. Rick is the real leader in this process, he has been the one that has stayed away from personal attacks, stayed with the issues, and tried to keep the debates focused on the real problem…Obama.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 8:08 AM

I’ve copied and pasted this excellent summary of just how Mean Mittens runs things. I’ve saved it and request permission to use it whenever I run across the distortions and lies Romney mistakes for political debate.

I was sincerely hoping he would start discussing solutions and that his team would see the futility and counterproductivity of the slash and burn tactic. I see they haven’t. They’re up on the top spot ad on Drudge. This is a little tiny man. No honor. No conscience. Obama told us quite plainly what he wanted to do as President. We didn’t listen. Obama lied regularly to suit his purpose and ambition. We (the American people) didn’t bother to put two and two together. Character matters, and the willingness of a candidate to destroy another human being and to lie and distort are what matters in terms of public honor. A man or woman’s personal vows to each other is between a them and God. A man’s willingness to bend truth and contort reality and logic to score a gottcha is my business and the best indicator of what to expect when he takes the oath of office.

One of the absolute silliest of all Romney’s charges against Santorum is saying that the budget/debt increased such and such while Santorum was in Washington (????!!!!!). If one can’t see the illogic in that one, one shouldn’t be allowed to drive.

And the other “charge” about voting to increase the debt limit is also bogus. One of the reason Newt’s colleagues turned on him was because he was accused of closing down the government over the debt limit. In the last go-around, I’d be interested in knowing what Romney thought of the Tea Party members threatening the same thing? I remember the establishment were in a pure panic that Republicans would take the heat for that.

And while I’m at it, unless Romney has a Ron Paul plan to reduce spending by a trillion dollars, what is Mitt going to do when the debt limit comes up during his reign? He really does need to answer that question.

Anyone hear Levin last night on Hannity? Brilliant analysis of who has the conservative creds–particularly his response to the “earmarks” charge. Are you kidding? Romney supported TARP and the car company bailouts. Earmarks are at least aimed at PUBLIC works; Romney supported earmarks for private companies.

Can that man think about anything but his next move? I’m fairly certain he wasn’t on the Chess Team at college.

Portia46 on February 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Anyone hear Levin last night on Hannity?

Levin has gone off the rails. On his radio program a few days ago, he was hinting at a “secret conspiracy” between Romney and Paul. He despises Paul as an anti-semite, so I assume he now considers Mitt one too.

Priscilla on February 10, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Portia46 on February 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

You’ve just shown that neither Santorum nor Romney has demonstrated the slightest interest in reducing the size of government. Why get all excited about one over the other?

(Btw, earmarks aren’t public; many (most?) go to private entities.)

EddieC on February 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Try to figure out the importance of 1994 and 2000.

I know you can.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM

He didn’t just lose PA by a couple points in a tough year. He suffered the most humiliating defeat by a sitting Republican senator in history.

EddieC on February 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

From the Free Dictionary:

grasping at straws also clutching at straws
1. trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work Jerry, grasping at straws, searched the backup tapes from last week, looking for the missing files.
2. trying to find reasons to feel hopeful about a bad situation She thinks he might still be interested because he calls her now and then but I think she’s clutching at straws.

Do you have ANY idea how many great men and women LOST an election and came back? Losing an election is in no way a predictive of winning or losing a future election. Absurd logical and factual fallacy. Check out Lincoln’s history of losses.

BTW, just to put a bit of perspective on Rick Santorum’s loss in PA….there have been only 7 Senators since PA started electing them by popular vote. 3 incumbents lost reelection. These are, indeed, staggering numbers—(is there one of those universally–except by me–known tags that tell you the writer is rolling his/her eyes?)

Portia46 on February 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM

You’ve just shown that neither Santorum nor Romney has demonstrated the slightest interest in reducing the size of government. Why get all excited about one over the other?

(Btw, earmarks aren’t public; many (most?) go to private entities.)

EddieC on February 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Well, yes. Like the companies who receive the contract for building the bridge or designing the plane or paving the road or studying which bug or constructing that senior citizen’s center? But the projects are ostensibly for the public good and NONE of them even come close to the billions in TARP and for the car companies or are out and out corrupt picking of winners and losers in the market place.

Back in the day, these were called “line items” and were used for direction to the agencies that the intent of Congress was that unders such and such a program, money was to be allocated to save buzzards in California or complete Route 66 in Oklahoma. (Actually, I don’t have a clue whether 66 goes through Oklahoma, but I do know about the buzzards in CA—most of which survived to become Members of the Legislature).

The last time I remember a direct bail out of a large industry was Chrysler. Lee Iaccoca and all that and it was a HUGE deal at the time. That was peanuts compared to AIG and Obama’s favorite Wall Street Firm and the builders of the Obama car.

Portia46 on February 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

right bright says:

Mitt was so disliked in Mass, that he didn’t even run for a second term, against a nobody.

Right Bright you must live in bizarro world or you live in a totally red state. There is 13% Republican registration in MA, and frequently those people move over the border to NH.

You can’t make statements like that implying his supporters don’t like him and get away with it.

Romney accomplished everything he could with the MA government, and could not move any more mountains here.

He cut them to the bone, and awakened their inner sleeping giant, the government workers, unions, etc. Please don’t read The Boston Globe and repeat anything you have seen there, without source checking. The pendulum swung as far as possible with Romney, and Axelrod showed up in our state with the Mini Me campaign, a puppet on his knee that looked a lot like Barach Obama. Out of town tryouts.

Fleuries on February 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Fox’s latest poll, post Tuesday, has Santorum tied with Romney.

Norky on February 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Fox’s latest poll, post Tuesday, has Santorum tied with Romney.

Norky on February 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Buckle your seatbelts….expect a 2nd wave of crazed squish mittbots slinging epithets (you stupid neo-cons) and telling you how smart they are!

They’ll be here when they get up and read the poll (generally around noon).

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Anyone hear Levin last night on Hannity?

Levin has gone off the rails. On his radio program a few days ago, he was hinting at a “secret conspiracy” between Romney and Paul. He despises Paul as an anti-semite, so I assume he now considers Mitt one too.

Priscilla on February 10, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I’m going to need a citation to a direct quote and its context on this one. Can’t find it anywhere via our friend google.

As regards your deductive reasoning, you probably should take a refresher course. You say Levin thinks Ron Paul is an anti-semite and Levin thinks there’s a secret conspiracy between Romney and Paul, therefore Levin thinks Romney is anti-semite? Does Levin also think Romney’s an Obstetrician?

Portia46 on February 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Santorum’s popularity could snowball by April. I hope so. I think he will correct all that obummer set askew.

jake49 on February 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Allahpundit, please for the love of god stop pining for a brokered convention, it will doom us all.

ConservativeLaw on February 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

I think you may be right. Sure, we might end up with someone really great…but we could also end up with Jeb Bush. We need to get someone that enough Americans can agree on to actually make it to the White House, who will then truly clean house in our government. My favorite right now would be Romney/Rand Paul, with Ron Paul set to clean up and then dismantle the FED. Or either Romney or Ron Paul paired with Jim Demint as VP. This is serious business, folks, and we need to not let the Powers That Be divide us as Americans anymore. It’s not working well. May God heal our land.

Peggy Snow Cahill on February 10, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Right Bright you must live in bizarro world or you live in a totally red state. There is 13% Republican registration in MA, and frequently those people move over the border to NH.

You can’t make statements like that implying his supporters don’t like him and get away with it.

Fleuries on February 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Sigh. Please concentrate.

A. Romney supporter claims Santorum can’t win because he lost in PA.

B. Rt Bri responds that by the same criteria Romney can’t either because he didn’t run for second term because he had a 31% approval rating.

(You are seeing the apples to apples argument at this point, right?)

C. You say RB can’t be claiming that Romney’s “supporters” don’t like him.

Where do I begin? Prima facia evidence seems to indicate that Romney’s “supporters”, i.e., the people who voted for him for the first term, stopped supporting him. Or are you saying the Democrats didn’t show up to vote the year Romney was elected? And how about that election against Ted Kennedy?

Portia46 on February 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

WE.DON’T.WANT.ROMNEY
ROMNEY.IS.A.DEMOCRAT

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Not sure I quite agree on point (c). The idea that the messiness of a brokered convention would give Obama a boost seems like unfounded conventional wisdom. It could be true, but we wouldn’t know until it happened.

My view is: (a) the public is used to messy democracy now, and after the two Bush elections they almost expect it (b) the choreographed coronation that is the standard party convention is about as interesting as the Pro Bowl and draws a similar viewership, i.e. diehards (c) reality TV and its cousins more or less define our culture now, and a political convention would be high drama that, as long as it didn’t produce Romney or a Bible-thumper, could crest in a surge of enthusiasm.

HitNRun on February 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM

But can Santorum carry PA in the fall?

EconomicNeocon on February 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM

“minor issue”?! Comparing gays to child molesters is not a minor issue.

csdeven on February 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Now if only he had done that…the quotes a links are laughable of you guys trying to connect those dots…but it’s typical.
At least he has Mitt finally thinking about giving up the personal attack campaign and maybe talking issues…or as Mitt’s campaign states…using more conservative code words.
You gotta love Mitt’s priorities…code words instead of action.

But Rick is leading him in the right direction…and good for Mitt for realizing how wrong his tactics were, he would make a great VP, he is a good listener and follower.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Right Bright you must live in bizarro world or you live in a totally red state. There is 13% Republican registration in MA, and frequently those people move over the border to NH.

You can’t make statements like that implying his supporters don’t like him and get away with it.

Fleuries on February 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

My statement is, he was an incumbent and he did not run because he was only at 30%, what happened to all of his support…followed by his failed attempt at getting the nomination last election, remember? After spending a record amount of money in his campaign, he was soundly defeated, defeated by a man who was soundly defeated by Obama…Mitt also was not a “winner” in all of his investments, the point being, losing is part of life, Rick has lost, Mitt has lost, most everyone loses who goes out and competes…my comment was in response to a poster who stated that Rick lost…get it now?

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Levin has gone off the rails. On his radio program a few days ago, he was hinting at a “secret conspiracy” between Romney and Paul. He despises Paul as an anti-semite, so I assume he now considers Mitt one too.

Priscilla on February 10, 2012 at 10:54 AM

It may be a little deeper, maybe, than that.
The Jews have been at war, at least the religious Jews, with the Mormon Church for their despicable actions…the Mormon’s apologized, than were caught again…gave an official apology again, but I don’t think the Jews really trust their statement, since it was not a “prophecy”, but just a retraction.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 1:39 PM

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Not at all.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Liar, here is proof, about the owners, and that you are not for Mitt.

1.

I’m going to e-mail the site owners about you. Creep.

joana on January 31, 2012 at 11:33 PM

2.

Besides the pathetic sexism, it’s amusing to note your inability to understand that my dislike for the prospect of having Newt as the GOP nominee doesn’t imply I’m a Mitt supporter – I’m not. Sorry for bursting your bubble.

joana on January 30, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5