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 2 3 4 5

HTL on February 9, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Oh, I’ve seen it all. I haven’t seen anything that would make me think he has less of a chance against BHO than Romney. His record is stellar, compared to Romney.

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Anybody think Gingrich will pull a Perry just before Super Tuesday and endorse Santorum? Or is his ego (Gingrich) to big for that?

ArthurMachado on February 9, 2012 at 9:40 PM

I hope Newt will not drop out. He is by far the best candidate available. Santorum is a social conservative “nice guy” when we need a bulldog who will actually do something.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Criminy Christmas. We’ve been providing quotes, citing articles and statistics, referring you to past interviews, and pointing out his electoral record for at least three days now, and you claim “they won’t say why”? Are you just being intentionally obtuse for the laughs, or do you just not read the comments at all before chiming in?
READ THE THREADS. READ THE QUOTES. READ THE ARTICLES. READ THE INTERVIEWS.
HTL on February 9, 2012 at 9:53 PM


(here I go again)

I believe ALL of the Republican Primary candidates are electable against Obama in the General next November, including the ‘drop-outs’.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Any bet that Barry is deliberately whipping up the HHS controversy now to goad religious and social cons into Santorum’s corner, and either prolonging the bloody primary fight or, worse to nominate the modern day William Jennings Bryan “

galtani on February 9, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Sure looks that way. And it’s working like a charm.

Syzygy on February 9, 2012 at 10:02 PM

“There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.”

“There you go again.”

“Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

“I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

“No, I don’t, Bernard. And I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We’ve done so in my own state.”

“Man’s practicing fuzzy math again.”

But keep telling everyone Mitt’s the guy. Keep telling everyone how much money he has. Because if Romneys $20M over 6 months hasn’t influenced conservatives yet – you and your ilk certainly won’t.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:03 PM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 9:36 PM

The excuses you make for romneycare are amazing to me. Let’s take your rebuttal one by one;

1) I say if Santorium wins Pa. his home state he is the next pres of the US. Your response is Santorium hasn’t been vetted and romneycare has. Further, you say he leads Obama in Pa.. Do you honestly believe Romneycare would do better than santorium in his home state of Pa.. really! are you that in the tank for willard. Convient how you field Romneycare losing his home state of ma. by 30 is not an issue.

2) I say Santorium can better contrast his record against Obama than romneycare. You take issue w/some of santorium big spending votes. He did vote the wrong way on some issues prior to his losing re-election in 2006. But if you can’t see the problems Romney has w/romneycare visavie obamacare, your lost.

3) I say conservatives will sit out if romneycare gets the nomination you say they won’t. Don’t take my word for just look at what they did when Mccain was the nominee and I think romneycare is 100 times worse because at least Mccain was smart enough to put Palin on the ticket.

4) We differ on the signficants of santoriums sweep tuesday. You explain low turnout. True it was low turnout, but your arguement could also be that romneycare effected low turnout. By the way, Romneycare outspent santorium 1000 to 1 in colorado.

5) I explain santorium runs well in industrial states, you feel polling says otherwise. polling at this stage is meaningless. if polling is to be believed, a few months ago michelle bachmann was going to be the nominee.

Finally you say general election debates don’t move the needle. Your wrong on that. Ronald reagan became president in 1980 because of his debate w/jimmy carter.

Danielvito on February 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

How are JFK’s golf clubs?

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 9:40 PM
They look like they did the last time you saw them. Kramer has been trying to fix them for over a decade now! And the goofnut never did get his bottle deposits.

JPeterman on February 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM

There is hope in this world…

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

HTL on February 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Where are these supposed quotes from? Links?

Gay activists have been smearing Santorum for years because he does not support gay marriage or adoption. And, OMG, he is pro life and a Catholic to boot.

Santorum has never said he would outlaw contraception. Idiot!

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Romney’s henchmen are out in force tonight. What’s the going rate for internet strafers?

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Because if Romneys $20M over 6 months hasn’t influenced conservatives yet – you and your ilk certainly won’t.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:03 PM

I am totally influenced. If by influenced I changed my position on Romney from .000000000000010982 chance of me ever voting for him to 0.000000~ chance.

astonerii on February 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Right, because it has nothing to do with the fact that we have a wide field with strong candidates dividing the vote. No, the imaginary ‘conservatives in the primaries will never vote for Romney’ condition of this primary must be preserved by the Tru Cons at all cost, even if it means going up against the realities of polling data.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 9:56 PM

You were born in ’59-right?
So was the Husband.
He has more in common with X than he does w/ Boooomers.
My parents were born during WWII-and Spawn is Generation Whiiiine!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

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

lol….last thing I thought sweetie…you truly flatter yourself.

Not that it matters to True Conservative, but hey, they’ll end up pissing and moaning about Santorum’s Compassionate Conservatism when it comes back up anyway.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

uh huh.

What are you supposed to be, exactly?

You’re not conservative. You’re left of moderate.

You’re posting on conservative board…..and you’re calling a “true conservative” (your words) “Fringe”.

If you’re pro-romney, beleive me – you’re sure not helping your cause.

Seriously, my confused unintelligible friend…..help me understand what you are and what you’re trying to do?

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Finally you say general election debates don’t move the needle. Your wrong on that. Ronald reagan became president in 1980 because of his debate w/jimmy carter.

Danielvito on February 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

Those words won Reagan the presidency.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

galtani on February 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM

lol.

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

you better pace yourself! I hear Ann Romney is a terror when she gets jealous

rik on February 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Seriously, my confused unintelligible friend…..help me understand what you are and what you’re trying to do?

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

It is another progressive astroturfer that will say anything to help get Mitt, the most defeatable Republican candidate, nominated.

tom daschle concerned on February 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Yaaayyy!!! Finally some guideline (although it was a poll on the other side of PA). I still want a poll here in the NW part of the state which leans Dem.

He HAS to come to Erie; he MUST.

ProudPalinFan on February 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM

…Independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.

galtani on February 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Favoring a benefit in the abstract is not the same as favoring it when it is a forced mandate.

See: Obamacare as a whole.

Because a lot of people don’t understand universal health care is morally indefensible, but they know Obamacare sucks. They do support *insert thing billed as free they don’t currently have,* but not when *thing* takes a direct shot at their freedom when mandated.

BKennedy on February 9, 2012 at 10:10 PM

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

Those words won Reagan the presidency.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

I think that it had more to do with the four years to which Reagan was referring, and a good campaign on his part. Those words wouldn’t have been decisive if the answer to that question hadn’t been, “No.”

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Danielvito on February 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

1) Considering Santorum lost in his ‘home state’ by 16 points in the last tough election he was in there, I’d say Mitt Romney has just as good a chance of winning PA as Santorum has (and, actually, I have polling data that says he’d actually do better, so statistical proof is backing me up).

2) Unlike you, I have no illusions about the fact that Romney is more center right. However, whereas Romney has some issues where a contrast is difficult, Santorum has issues where a contrast is easy and, for the general election public, they aren’t positive contrasts to be made for Santorum. In addition, the guy is pretty much as weak on fiscal conservative issues as Romney is considered to be by you ‘True Cons’ so his advantage on such things as compared to Romney is negligible.

3) The myth that McCain didn’t bring in the conservative vote is just that, a myth. Exit polls and data from the 2008 election shows that there was still a turnout of right-wing or Republican voters roughly equal to that of the 2004 election. Where McCain lost was the independent voters. Get your facts straight and don’t rely on a myth cooked up by True Cons when coming into an argument pal.

4) Caucuses are famously low turn-out, high energy affairs. Secondly, the Tuesday caucuses are partially remarkable because, in the lead up, there was very little spending or campaigning done on Romney’s part. No where have I seen in any article that Romney outspent Santorum by such a margin, but plenty where I saw that Romney had spent and campaigned little. Pulling numbers out of your a$$ doesn’t help your argument.

5) Michelle Bachmann never was in the lead in any polls, so right off the bat your argument is pretty much flat on it’s face in this point. Secondly, you’re right, polling at this point is still somewhat unreliable: Romney’s been vetted, while Santorum’s vetting hasn’t even yet begun. So, really, there’s a lot of room for Santy’s negatives to rise and for his polling numbers to fall, but not so much room for the other way around.

And if you had paid attention to my comment, I did say that Santorum is no Ronald Reagan. If you believe he is, than you are far more delusional than I thought.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Right, because it has nothing to do with the fact that we have a wide field with strong candidates dividing the vote. No, the imaginary ‘conservatives in the primaries will never vote for Romney’ condition of this primary must be preserved by the Tru Cons at all cost, even if it means going up against the realities of polling data.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

So the well funded guy (20 times the amount) winking and smiling, with full Establishment support is being divided???

Its the failure of Romney that has caused the divide.

And I am glad I educated you on Presidential Debate 101 moments, clearly you aren’t too familiar with politics. I hope the Mittens change pays nice.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM

I am from PA and I am having a really hard time working up any enthusiasm for Rick. If Paul Ryan is open to VP as rumored I would get behind Mitt/Ryan. Santorum is a jerk and he hated the tea party.

msmveritas on February 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Ok I am gonna try dual language, since people can’t get Paul Ryan out of their minds for a run for P, VP: As early as 4:30 PM today on Cavuto, he said NO.

Now in Spanish:

Ok, voy a tratar en otro idioma, porque la gente no pueden sacarse de la cabeza que Paul Ryan no quiere correr para P, VP: Hoy a las 4:30 de la tarde de hoy con Cavuto, él dijo que NO.

ProudPalinFan on February 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

You get this gig by answering a craigslist ad?

tom daschle concerned on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

You would think with all of that Romney cash they would have learned a lesson and stopped distributing “How to Succeed in 2008″ to the trolls.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Really my only worry about Santorum is the lack of executive experience. Actually, I think he can handle the job but historically it doesn’t look likely that he would be able to win running against an incumbent president. It would BE historical if he DID win!

I know his record is not perfect but I think he has a sincere desire to use conservative principles to help our country. He is smart, has a clean personal life, and I believe he would do well debating Obama- better than Romney.

If he can whip up enthusiasm among the conservative base then maybe he can do it. In my caucus in March, I am leaning toward going for whichever is doing better at that point, Newt or Santorum.

cheetah2 on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM

It is another progressive astroturfer that will say anything to help get Mitt, the most defeatable Republican candidate, nominated.

tom daschle concerned on February 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM

That certainly fits the paradigm. Notice how it keeps copying and pasting the same tired left talking points over and over?

That’s a sign of early onset lib-tard troll.

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM

BKennedy on February 9, 2012 at 10:10 PM

I don’t disagree with you, but I was just pointing out that there are many out there who never met a perceived freebie or benefit that they did not like or pant for. And Barry can usually count on their support.

The contraceptive “blunder” may not be as much a misstep as we think. Why unveil that and bring up a fight at this point? There may be some Dr. Evil’s (not the who posting here)machination behind that move.

galtani on February 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

1punchWill on February 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

KeninCT on February 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Here let me introduce you, You two are perfect for each other.

Bmore on February 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Looks like my match making took. I hope they are happy together. Nice couple.

Bmore on February 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Right, ignore the rest of my post where I comment on the conservative things Romney has done. That surely goes to your credit (or just shows that you’re unwilling to address points that are counter to your own arguments).

As for what I am, I am center-right. I am conservative on fiscal issues and I don’t really give a damn about social issues. Far as I’m concerned, the government really only has a few places where they should be involved in how we behave, and that’s narcotics, crime and extreme cases of miscreant behavior when it comes to personal behavior. I do not align myself socially with the likes of the Tru Cons or even ‘strongly conservative’ parts of the base socially, but I can get along well enough fiscally.

Also, any group of people who can enthusiastically support Newt Gingrich or Christine O’Donnell are, in my mind, fringe. In addition the general ‘if we don’t get our way, we’ll risk a government shut down’ attitude is also off putting, which is why, despite my own conservative fiscal views, I don’t align myself at all with the True Cons.

As for the rest, well, if you’re relying on calling me unintelligible, despite ignoring a very large section of my post, I think it’s fairly clear that my posts aren’t aimed for you.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 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

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

We are just not that into you Mitt.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:22 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

My goodness, indeed, LMFAO!

tom daschle concerned on February 9, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Romneycare will be implemented in all 50 states-Pam Bondi said so on Greta. I got the link on my nick but some find it offensive if I put a link to my blog, so I am not gonna be Cinderella.

Find out for yourselves; the Florida AG will work in the Romney admin if he wins–SHE SAID SO.

ProudPalinFan on February 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM

LOL, the Mittbot astroturfers are out in force, sounding more desperate than usual.

Proof positive that Santorum is surging, and as poll will indicate very soon, leading nationally.

Norwegian on February 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Odie1941

tom daschle concerned

Tim_CA

My goodness, the idiot brigade is out in force tonight it seems.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I like it how Allah describes the whole election being engineered by GOP elites with nary a regard to electorate’s wishes. the bigwigs are going intervene, my foot. The bigwigs are the problem. There should be no bigwigs.

promachus on February 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM

My goodness, the idiot brigade is out in force tonight it seems.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Romney’s down 3 more points since you started yapping.

I say full steam ahead man!!!

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Well aren’t you special?

The dumb people here have never been fortunate enough to have such a free-thinking “special” guy like you around.

We eagerly await your wisdom (do honor us, oh wise one, by not posting the same tired talking points over and over).

When you come to a conservative board….and you’re trying to pitch a moderate, flawed, squish…maybe throwing tantrums and calling people “idiots” isn’t the way to go.

I Know I’m not as hip and smart as you you’re greatness….but give it some thought.

RomneyCare
Global Warming
“I’m Progressive”

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:28 PM

My goodness, the idiot brigade is out in force tonight it seems.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

The only idiots around here are the Mitt supporters. Do you get paid by the word or the post? Any relation to “bluegill” or “Jailbreak”?

JPeterman on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM

iPersuasion is not your long suit. Typing maybe?
But not persuasion.

rik on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

There sure have been a log of cranky Mittbots around here today. Upset by the changing of the tide, perhaps?

Here. Have a Kleenex.

kingsjester on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

A few quotes from Rick Santorum, AKA the Bedroom Snooper:

“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 have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual.”

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK, contraception is OK. It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

God help us if Santorum is the nominee because creepy stuff like this ain’t gonna fly with most voters. Four more years of Obama, for certain.

JA on February 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

JA on February 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

I’m not doubting their veracity, but could you please provide the source(s) for those quotes?

I’d like to read the full context in which they were said.

Thanks.

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 9:25 PM

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 9:24 PM

So JA calls Santorum the Bedroom Snooper and backs it up with a ton of quotes that show Santorum has an obsession with monitoring other people’s private behavior (and trust me, there are more) and your response is to call him a “lying nut” with absolutely no evidence whatsoever? In that exchange, I know who I believe…and it isn’t you.

HTL on February 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

So JA calls Santorum the Bedroom Snooper and backs it up with a ton of quotes that show Santorum has an obsession with monitoring other people’s private behavior (and trust me, there are more) and your response is to call him a “lying nut” with absolutely no evidence whatsoever? In that exchange, I know who I believe…and it isn’t you.

HTL on February 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I asked JA to provide the source(s) for those quotes and he hasn’t. I’d like to read the context they were said in. Could you please provide the source(s) for the quotes JA used, and the “more” you mention above?

Thank you.

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

tick tock, tick tock

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Odie1941

tom daschle concerned

Tim_CA

My goodness, the idiot brigade is out in force tonight it seems.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

lol….Brilliant!

Thanks Mittbots………this is what you attract!!

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM

My goodness, the idiot brigade is out in force tonight it seems.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Do you believe that Romney’s belief that he will be the god of his own planet will hamper him in the general if he does get the nomination?

tom daschle concerned on February 9, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I can vote for Newt. He’s a rude, brilliant, fighting loose cannon. Pretty much Churchill with a blond wife. Can he win? Yes, in spite of the Tut Tuts from the self-appointed arbiters of decency.

I might be able to vote for Romney. More of a “Well, he’ll probably lose but be somewhat better than Obama.” sort of thing.

I can’t imagine voting for Santorum. I simply can’t. I like Christians, truly do, however I do not believe it is a conservative stance to put your nose in other people’s bedrooms nor is it ok to state it is within the power of government to regulate such behavior. It is a religious stance, and using the power of government to compel personal behavior is wrong. Your motivations being “good” does not make it less wrong and history teaches it will not stop there. Fear the well-meaning busybody and all that jazz. We already have a left wing statist, I don’t want to replace him with a right wing statist.

Fire away, I don’t care. This is how I feel and get this, I am a conservative “never voted for a democrat in my life” type of fellow. Check out the blog I write for. Waaaaaaay right wing writing going back years. But if I feel this way, how will the left take it? The only possible thing more energizing to the democrat base than Santorum would be Rush Limbaugh with Sarah Palin as his running mate. They would turn out in droves.

Irritable Pundit on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:28 PM

My goodness, aren’t you so full of wit and sass. My, if it weren’t for the fact that I’m as hip and smart as you say, I might not have been able to catch that dull as a butter knife sarcasm or that stiff delivery you were going for.

And you’re so considerate. I mean, right after calling me a liberal plant, you then go on to say I’m so ‘special’ for explaining my system of beliefs, how wonderful of you.

As for calling people idiots, what can I say, I calls them as I sees them.

You still haven’t addressed that rather large chunk of my original post responding to what conservative beliefs and behavior Romney has exhibited, by the way. Plan on ignoring that for the rest of the night, or are you just going to issue a blanket ‘lol, Romney’s a liberal, he sucks u suck’ statement that you seem to be oh so chocked full of.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM

tom daschle concerned on February 9, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Romney?

Silly Tru Con, that’s not how you spell Newt Gingrich.

Seriously, resorting to just making sh!t up now? My how the… *snort* ‘mighty’ have fallen.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:34 PM

A few quotes from Rick Santorum, AKA the Bedroom Snooper:

“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.”

Is he wrong? If you have the right to consensual sex as broadly defined, you have the right to all of the things he mentioned. I fail to see how this quote makes Santorum look bad. It seems to show common sense to me.

“I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual.”

Again, I see no problem. Did he promise to make homosexuality illegal? No.

His stance is actually quite normal. Whatt would be strange is if he professed to be a Christian and didn’t have a problem with acts of sin (like homosexuality). I’m sure you posted this to try and paint him as some radical gay-basher. I’m willing to bet that the quote comes in response to a question asked of him about his views on homosexuality.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK, contraception is OK. It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

So…you are terrified by a president that would “talk about” possible drawbacks/dangers to the use of contraception. Look out everyone, Santorum might share his ideas!

God help us if Santorum is the nominee because creepy stuff like this ain’t gonna fly with most voters. Four more years of Obama, for certain.

JA on February 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

In other words, “most voters are totally against having a president with a set of principles.” I really hope you are wrong, cause if you are right, then the republic is already lost, just as Adams predicted.

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 10:34 PM

JPeterman on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Oh yes, going for the ever so clever and fresh ‘are you paid by the Romney campaign’ charge eh? Showing that bright wit and ability to think that you Tru Cons are ever so famous for, am I right?

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

My goodness, the idiot brigade is out in force tonight it seems.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Your alone, I do not see that brigade you are with. The people you listed are people who are informed, provide reason for their positions, and are not in general solely here to use grade school communications skills like name calling.

astonerii on February 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Irritable Pundit on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Are you supposed to be the “Closer?”

At best, a set of steak knives.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Or it could mean that ‘voters are opposed to a candidate who has a set of principals-that they are opposed to‘.

Just because people might not like Santorum’s social conservative values doesn’t mean they’re valueless, it just means that they don’t share his values… and, considering the stuff he’s on the record as having said and supported, that’s pretty well understandable.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:37 PM

astonerii on February 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Ah, right, because an informed discussion is ignoring a good portion of a person’s post that responds to their question of ‘what is conservative about Romney’, and then resorting to calling that person a liberal plant.

If that’s what you call intellectual and informed, then that certainly says a lot about your intelligence.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Or it could mean that ‘voters are opposed to a candidate who has a set of principals-that they are opposed to‘.

Just because people might not like Santorum’s social conservative values doesn’t mean they’re valueless, it just means that they don’t share his values… and, considering the stuff he’s on the record as having said and supported, that’s pretty well understandable.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Touche. Perhaps I should have said Judeo-Christian morals.

I take it you have no rebuttal to the rest of my post?

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Romney?

Silly Tru Con, that’s not how you spell Newt Gingrich.

Seriously, resorting to just making sh!t up now? My how the… *snort* ‘mighty’ have fallen.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:34 PM

And this is how I, and the good readers of the comments section, know you are stupid. And by stupid, I mean stupid and disingenuous.

You automatically think I am for Newt.

That is how stupid you are. Newt is a walking disaster area. Guess what reprobate? So is Romney…not that you care because you are a reprobate leftist. A racist, bigot, statist, who doesn’t respect the individual, but chooses to secure power and wealth for the few over the many.

You are truly sick. Probably an uncontrollable perversion or mental disorder has rendered you this way.

Anyway, it is incredibly transparent that you and the other mitten spambotts are unstable at best, if not democrats. (LOL!)

Mitt believes he will be a god of a planet someday.

Here is proof for your blackened heart and mind, you contemptible leftist.

tom daschle concerned on February 9, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Well.. looks like we will have a second half.

;(

amend2 on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

LMFAO the craiglist progressive astroturfer is getting straight-up-monged.

The truth will ultimately trump all your deceitfulness.

tom daschle concerned on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

As for calling people idiots, what can I say, I calls them as I sees them.

lol….me too.

Idiot.

You still haven’t addressed that rather large chunk of my original post responding to what conservative beliefs and behavior Romney has exhibited, by the way.

(sigh) I’ll happily go down line by line through the talking points you posted…..but frankly “Levin” did a great job with it today, and I’d refer you to todays broadcast. (we “true conservative fringe types have been posting all day).

Plan on ignoring that for the rest of the night, or are you just going to issue a blanket ‘lol, Romney’s a liberal, he sucks u suck’ statement that you seem to be oh so chocked full of.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Honestly I AM trying to ignore you but you won’t STFU. Tell ya what though…..Defend:

RomneyCare
Global Warming
“I’m Progressive”

And explain how these issues jibe with you’re supposed sweet, sweet “Fiscal Conservativeness”

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

I can’t imagine voting for Santorum. I simply can’t. I like Christians, truly do, however I do not believe it is a conservative stance to put your nose in other people’s bedrooms nor is it ok to state it is within the power of government to regulate such behavior. It is a religious stance, and using the power of government to compel personal behavior is wrong.

Irritable Pundit on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Agreed. And a super majority of the independent voters will agree with you along with all dems. Santorum has no chance outside the extreme conservative element of the republican party. This is why we lose so many elections: the country is going broke, our defense is being cut to the bone, and we want to talk about bedrooms?!

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Can someone point me to a source on Santorum’s legislative activity while he was in the Senate? I’d like to determine for myself whether or not he implemented (or attempted to implement) social conservative agenda items as law.

The reason I ask is the experience I frequently have when I speak to people about moral issues, in which they assume that because I think something is immoral, it necessarily follows that I want it to be illegal. Of course, that’s a non sequiter, and I’m wondering if some of the criticism directed at Santorum isn’t based on the same kind of logically invalid assumption.

Nom de Boom on February 9, 2012 at 10:43 PM


fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

With the quotes themselves, you can source the material. I am not here to spoon feed you information. And honestly, I didn’t even post the quotes, so why are you even asking me? Look them up for yourself.

As for your parting shot, kindly calling me an “idiot”, let me just observe that Rick Santorum has stated that he wants to (1) criminalize all abortion (but only for abortionists, so there’s that), (2) denies the right to privacy, which would allow him to snoop on people pretty much at will (3) has stated that Social Security would be much more solvent, if only so many babies hadn’t been aborted and (4) that he has the right to judge people, if it ‘costs him money’.

No, I am not going to provide all of the citations for the above. But if you know how to work a search engine (and I know you do), you will be able to find them easily. I did, and I was just doing some original research to inform myself. Search terms like “rick santorum abortion”, “rick santorum abortion social security” and “rick santorum right to privacy” will take you right to the original interviews.

Just for laughs, also search “rick santorum abortion incest” and you’ll get another good one.

HTL on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM

D’oh. s/b sequitur

Nom de Boom on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

When the drawbacks of contraception to him seem to be that people will be more free to choose what they do in the bedroom, that does come off as ‘none of your business’ if people are screwing animals, their cousin or the dead, then that’s none of the government’s problem, and we already have laws in place for that.

Contraception really isn’t going to help them/bring more people into their fold anyway, so he’s relying on a ‘slippery slope’ argument that really doesn’t exist as it concerns contraception anyway.

As it concerns homosexuality, that comes down to a matter of personal belief I’ll admit. But still, as a Christian myself, even I’m not entirely comfortable with that sort of language as it concerns homosexuality. Then again, maybe that has more to do with my ‘as long as it’s not consanguineous sex or worse, then I don’t give a flying f*ck’, an attitude a majority of Americans probably now share. In addition, his ‘I don’t oppose the homosexual, just their lifestyle’ is pretty much an argument that could be seen as him just covering his ass, in just about the most shallow way one rhetorically could.

As it concerns the first one, he’s taking what should be a rather simple statement ‘consanguineous sex and worse is wrong’ and turning it into a ‘IF WE DECLARE CONSENSUAl SEX CONSTITUTIONAL, THEN THE FLOOD GATES WILL OPENING TO ANIMAL F*CKING’ hyperbole that really doesn’t do much to make your own case. These things are already illegal, and having the Court say that the government doesn’t have the right to intrude on two people’s personal life that isn’t already defined as illegal by law won’t mean that people will all of a sudden go out and dig up a dead person or screw their pet. It just makes the person making that argument seem silly and reactionary.

As for the Judea-Christian Values, well, lot’s of people can have those values when it concerns law and how to behave when it concerns most behavior, but once again not take them to the extremes that Rick Santorum does. Rick Santorum does not define Judea-Christian values, and nor can they be easily defined, as people can be either fairly liberal with them as it concerns certain things (and we call people who’re fairly liberal with ‘Thou Shall Not Murder’ criminals) and people who are extremely conservative (we call those people ‘out of touch with the general public’ or, Rick Santorum).

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:48 PM

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 9:56 PM

You were born in ’59-right?
So was the Husband.
He has more in common with X than he does w/ Boooomers.
My parents were born during WWII-and Spawn is Generation Whiiiine!
annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Yep, ’59 it was.

I’d have to compare my attitude towards my “fellow boomers”, as being like Rush Limbaugh’s.
His birth-date makes him clearly a boomer, but he expresses so much contempt for them, in general. He clearly doesn’t want to be associated with them.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 10:48 PM

tuesday night must have put WoN into quite a tailspin. Kinda like
watching his boyfriend getting voted off chopped or something

rik on February 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Romneycare- those vetoes I mentioned? A good portion of them were against the measures Democrats were adding in. And almost all of them were vetoed, so the guy obviously wanted something different than what came out. However, PR-wise, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in a lot of you ‘I’d rather shut down the government than engage with the Democrats’ conservatives, so it’s rather downplayed. In addition a lot of problems with Masscare have been coming about after Romney left office, with the new Dem governor working quite heavily with the legislature to really pump up the original system.

Global Warming- You mean how he didn’t let Massachusetts get signed up for the Cap in Trade summit thing that was going on in the North East? How he’s been saying that while he’s pretty sure there’s climate change, that he isn’t at all certain that it’s man made and that there shouldn’t be laws made effecting our economy until the science is completely settled? Or do you mean the fantasies you and other Tru Cons have cooked up in place of facts?

I’m a Progressive- Hey, you tailor the tone of your campaign for the state that you’re campaigning in. That’s just plain old politics. And I’ve pointed out enough things in his record to have shown that he didn’t govern as a progressive.

As for Mark Levin, once again, it’s cute that you I think I care.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:54 PM

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

ROTFLMAO.

c’mon, amigo…..we both know what you are.

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Can someone point me to a source on Santorum’s legislative activity while he was in the Senate? I’d like to determine for myself whether or not he implemented (or attempted to implement) social conservative agenda items as law.

The reason I ask is the experience I frequently have when I speak to people about moral issues, in which they assume that because I think something is immoral, it necessarily follows that I want it to be illegal. Of course, that’s a non sequiter, and I’m wondering if some of the criticism directed at Santorum isn’t based on the same kind of logically invalid assumption.

Nom de Boom on February 9, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Presidential White Papers from Club for Growth

PDF pamphlet from his 2006 Campaign

“50 Things You May Not Know About Rick Santorum”

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 10:55 PM


Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM

OK look…This is not my full-time job; I just posted in support of someone else who made a good point.

I have a dog that came out of major surgery a couple of days ago and most of my time is taken up with making and feeding special food, walking her on a leash at frequent intervals, and making sure she doesn’t jump up on anything to rip out her internal or external stitches. Spoon-feeding people information they can easily find themselves just isn’t at the top of my “to-do” list. Sorry I made the mistake of commenting at all. I am clearly just not committed enough to be allowed to express an opinion.

As a final note, however, I can refer you to the response I just made to someone else here, who trumped you by insulting me in his/her response. Just put in the search terms I listed and you will find all of the quotes.

And now I’m done.

HTL on February 9, 2012 at 10:59 PM

tom daschle concerned on February 9, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Wow, not only are you an idiot, you’re a bigot too. That’s pretty impressive.

Apparently, you didn’t get the joke first off. The joke was that Newt, ala his space program for moon colonization, was the one who wanted to be the ruler of his own planet, in this case the moon. The fact that this went completely over your head and that you thought I was making a statement about you supporting Newt Gingrich no longer surprises me, as your intelligence has been shown to be pretty damn abysmal.

As it concerns the rest of your post, I’m glad that you’ve outed yourself as an idiot, a bigot (who relies on a video that is so bigoted and so wrong in it’s research that I can’t even begin to lay down the details of it here) and now a tiny, angry little man, who’ll resort to all sorts of name calling when someone calls him out on the incorrect nature of his arguments.

You sir are, in short, a hack, and while you can bring up as many lies as you want, you can misinterpret or ignore my arguments and jokes as much as you want and you bring up as much bigoted sh!t as you want from now on. Because I no longer care about your opinions or what you have to say. You are officially nothing to me, and I’m sure to many others on this site. Those that do respect you or your arguments do as much damage to their own cause or credit as you have to your own.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 10:55 PM

If by ‘we’ you mean you then yes, you’re right.

But then, on the claim that I’m a progressive troll itself, you’re wrong. But, as you have been wrong quite regularly throughout this entire thread, that’s not a surprise.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM

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).

They wouldn’t just lose. They would get absolutely stomped.

Whoever the socons are all excited about any given day, is the worst possible candidate for President. They have that talent.

Anyone that actually believes Santorum or Gingrich can beat Obama is high off their azz on something, and shouldn’t even be near a computer. You should be laying down somewhere.

Moesart on February 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Palin, Rubio, Ryan, Jindal…are ALL Gen X’ers. So am I
Move over Boomers-you’ve been dethroned.
OUR time has come!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Sorry ALT, Palin is a boomer, born 1964 – boomer years 1946 thru 1964. So see, proof that not ALL boomers are bad news :-)

DoubleClutchin on February 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I have a dog that came out of major surgery a couple of days ago and most of my time is taken up with making and feeding special food, walking her on a leash at frequent intervals, and making sure she doesn’t jump up on anything to rip out her internal or external stitches. Spoon-feeding people information they can easily find themselves just isn’t at the top of my “to-do” list. Sorry I made the mistake of commenting at all. I am clearly just not committed enough to be allowed to express an opinion.

HTL on February 9, 2012 at 10:59 PM

I do hope your dog recovers quickly.

I never implied you were not allowed to express an opinion, but FTR, when engaging in political discourse or debate, it is the responsibility of the person attributing statements or comments to another person to provide the source/proof of said attributions.

I do hope the remainder of your evening is an enjoyable one and that the patient rests comfortably.

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Romneycare- those vetoes I mentioned?

HE CRAFTED ROMNEYCARE you friggin’ dolt….the ADMITTED MODEL FOR OBAMACARE. Are you really this dim?

Global Warming- You mean how he didn’t let Massachusetts get signed up for the Cap in Trade summit thing that was going on in the North East? How he’s been saying that while he’s pretty sure there’s climate change, that he isn’t at all certain that it’s man made and that there shouldn’t be laws made effecting our economy until the science is completely settled? Or do you mean the fantasies you and other Tru Cons have cooked up in place of facts?

Oh yeah…..this Romney:

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/romney-makes-new-shift-global-warming-position/aBMsQrPwV3bxnFZHLRNPwO/index.html

Pick a year, day, time and minute @sshat, he’s held a different position on it.

I don’t need to “cook up” anything….romney’s “cookied” his position at least 3-times I can think of.

I’m a Progressive- Hey, you tailor the tone of your campaign for the state that you’re campaigning in. That’s just plain old politics.

Really?

A principled conservative wouldn’t….why does he claim to be one?

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

But, as you have been wrong quite regularly throughout this entire thread, that’s not a surprise.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM

That’s why I have you sweetie.

(bats eyes)

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM

DoubleClutchin on February 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I was told ‘Boomers’ stopped at 1960-61, so that’s news to me.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:08 PM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM

You, sir, are not a gentleman. If your logic cannot stand without name calling, then you have no argument. IMHO.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

He ‘crafted’ Romneycare. Right, because as we all know, bills come from the Executive branch, and the Legislative branch signs them.

I’ll ask you your own question: are you really this dim?

As for Global Warming, once again, are you dim? There was a majority of people during the post Katrina period, and still a number of people number into the 40% of the general population, who felt that Global Warming was man caused. That’s because the scientific evidence at the time, as it was presented to the public at large, did seem to support that consensus.

Eventually, evidence to the contrary not only became more abundant, but also more public. As the disasters that the public was told to come in a few years didn’t arrive, eventually the majority opinion towards Global Warming began to change. When faced with evidence that a pre-conceived notion is incorrect, it’s only natural for a person to shift their mind (just as it is natural for a person to believe what the general consensus/majority of the public evidence seems to show).

Romney might not have gotten it right the first time around, but he isn’t wrong for having shifted his opinion when faced with new facts. This is actually a trait to be, I dunno, celebrated? You don’t seem to think so but, again, you’re wrong pretty often.

As for the final point, yes, really. It’s a fact of life. Get used to it. Even your ‘principled conservatives’ have adjusted their tone and message in purple or red-leaning states in order to win elections. Ronald Reagan was far more liberal in California than he was in the White House. It’s just a fact about politicians all over the world.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Link to the dangers of contraception quote – hope it works, never done a link before :-)

DoubleClutchin on February 9, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Well, I’ve never pretended to be a gentleman for one. As for the insults one, well, that’s just, like, your opinion man.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:13 PM

When the drawbacks of contraception to him seem to be that people will be more free to choose what they do in the bedroom, that does come off as ‘none of your business’ if people are screwing animals, their cousin or the dead, then that’s none of the government’s problem, and we already have laws in place for that.

Ummm….OK

Contraception really isn’t going to help them/bring more people into their fold anyway, so he’s relying on a ‘slippery slope’ argument that really doesn’t exist as it concerns contraception anyway.

What does the above have to do with Santorum saying he would be willing have a talk about the possible dangers of contraception as president? Are you suggesting that such a talk would be solely for the purpose of evangelizing? That doesn’t make sense.

his ‘I don’t oppose the homosexual, just their lifestyle’ is pretty much an argument that could be seen as him just covering his ass, in just about the most shallow way one rhetorically could.

“An argument that could be seen…” Yeah, a lot of things can be taken out of context, and are regularly by the left. Are you saying that Santorum should censor his beliefs because people will accuse him of “covering his ass.” From what? What would he be hiding? Are you accusing him of bigotry? On what grounds? Where is the quote where Santorum says “I hate homosexuals.” This is all conjecture, projection, and maybe a little wish-casting. It isn’t a solid argument.

As it concerns the first one, he’s taking what should be a rather simple statement ‘consanguineous sex and worse is wrong’ and turning it into a ‘IF WE DECLARE CONSENSUAl SEX CONSTITUTIONAL, THEN THE FLOOD GATES WILL OPENING TO ANIMAL F*CKING’ hyperbole that really doesn’t do much to make your own case. These things are already illegal, and having the Court say that the government doesn’t have the right to intrude on two people’s personal life that isn’t already defined as illegal by law won’t mean that people will all of a sudden go out and dig up a dead person or screw their pet. It just makes the person making that argument seem silly and reactionary.

I think the hyperbole is on the other foot. Furthermore, you changed the the quotation to fit the argument you wish he’d made instead of the one he actually made (this is called a strawman). I challenge you to find the bolded part of your statement in the words Santorum used. Good luck with that.

Santorum said, and I quote (again):

“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.”

Notice he doesn’t qualify add “except for sex which is already illegal” after saying “the right to consensual sex.” It appears that you are having trouble understanding what “the right to consensual sex” means. That means the government has no say in consensual sex between consenting adults. Such a ruling would inherently make all laws against polygamy, incest, and bigamy unconstitutional (being a violation of a right for two consenting adults to have sex). Santorum didn’t say “only two consenting adults of the same gender, who aren’t related. ” If he had, you might have an argument.

Lastly, your comments about digging up dead people and screwing their pets do not fall under bigamy, polygamy, or incest (or adultery) either. Perhaps you need to A) read more carefully or B) learn the meanings of those three (four) words.

Rick Santorum does not define Judea-Christian values, and nor can they be easily defined, as people can be either fairly liberal with them as it concerns certain things (and we call people who’re fairly liberal with ‘Thou Shall Not Murder’ criminals) and people who are extremely conservative (we call those people ‘out of touch with the general public’ or, Rick Santorum).

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Judeo-Christian values are very easily defined and very easily found. There is a book in which they are all written down. The book includes the context and everything, making the meanings very specific when read as a whole. For example, your “Thou shalt not murder” commandment uses the word “murder.” The death penalty has never been considered murder. In fact, the Laws of Moses (all given at the same time as the 10 Commandments) included capital punishment.

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Look, we can argue this back and forth, but to summarize my two main points:

Santorum’s tone is really what gets him in most of these. In the modern era where contraception is seen as a good thing that frees up people from life altering choices when they aren’t ready for them, where consensual sex is generally defined as meaning two adults that aren’t related and where homosexuality doesn’t have the stigma that it has had in the past, Santorum’s complaints and worries come off as artifacts of an older era, one that looks like it’d rather have a theocracy that can impose laws on behavior than a democracy where adults are free to make their own decisions within the law. It might not be what he believes, but he doesn’t help the arguments against such an interpretation with his wording and tone.

As for the Judea-Christian values, yes, they’re defined in one book… that has been re-written upwards of hundreds of times, each time with a new outlook or take on what the old words mean. Even the Bible, which I assume is what you meant, is a reinterpretation of the Jewish books, with a new set of stories added in at the end. It’s all about interpretation and, while there’s certainly a majority interpretation about what the values aren’t, the details aren’t necessarily either clear or generally agreed upon.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:20 PM

I was told ‘Boomers’ stopped at 1960-61, so that’s news to me.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Quote from US History.com, and there are a lot more resources for the dates. I totally pissed off two of my sisters with the info…ahhh..:-) Although I suppose nothing is set in stone per se, but those are the years I have consistently found when reading about the time frames. What ev, just tweakin her about Palin:-)

“Baby boomers are those people born worldwide between 1946 and 1964, the time frame most commonly used to define them. “www.u-s-history.com

DoubleClutchin on February 9, 2012 at 11:20 PM

As I stated in Allah’s other thread that dealt with the brokered convention topic, I don’t believe a brokered convention will deliver us a conservtive candidate, unless by some remote chance it would be Jindal. I don’t see Daniels (who is somewhat conservative, but not overly so) jumping into a bloody-as-hell general election fight with Obama when he couldn’t even get himself to take the plunge in a rough-and-tumble-but-not-as-rough-as-the-general-election-will-be primary. The party leaders DO NOT want a conservative candidate. Christie (who is Romney redux) would probably be the establishment choice after they fail to convince Daniels to get in. Granted, Christie CAN better speak the language of conservatism than Romney, so there is that.

With that said, I will be voting in the Ohio primary to do my part to keep Romney from being the nominee. I will vote for Santorum (and I disagree with Jay Cost and Allah about his “unelectability” in the general).

Bitter Clinger on February 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

As for Global Warming, once again, are you dim? There was a majority of people during the post Katrina period, and still a number of people number into the 40% of the general population, who felt that Global Warming was man caused. That’s because the scientific evidence at the time, as it was presented to the public at large, did seem to support that consensus.
WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:12 PM

AGW has NEVER been believed by a majority.
And there’s no valid reason for ANYONE to have jumped on that bandwagon.

The whole thing has always been about disabling the industrial might and economy of the U.S., thereby weakening us to the point of being more easily ‘taken over’ by the ‘Maurice Strong’ crowd. Which includes George Soros.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Good Lord please….someone make it stop vomiting nonsense

There was a majority of people during the post Katrina period, and still a number of people number into the 40% of the general population, who felt that Global Warming was man caused. That’s because the scientific evidence at the time, as it was presented to the public at large, did seem to support that consensus.

What people? and cite your source. Most of the people who post here were never fooled….they don’t depend on MSNBC for their data.

As for the final point, yes, really. It’s a fact of life. Get used to it. Even your ‘principled conservatives’ have adjusted their tone and message in purple or red-leaning states in order to win elections. Ronald Reagan was far more liberal in California than he was in the White House. It’s just a fact about politicians all over the world.

Yep…..just reviewing all my tapes of Ronald Reagan standing up on the podium….proudly proclaiming himself a “Progressive”.

Honestly….I’m here in CA and we don’t get near as good “kind” as whatever you’re smokin’ there partner.

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:12 PM

buddy I think you’re in for one hell of a disappointment. Even if MItt figures out a way to trash his way to the nomination he will never come close to obama. Mitt is a terrible fit in this climate. You even stated that in prevailing climate it’s natural for people to believe something even if it’s not true. consensus does not constitute truth. and the prevailing winds now are from inequality. Mitt loses in spades on this point. nothing says inequality like venture capitalist. and if the economy improves where does that leave Mitt. You don’t let the plumber in if the toilet flushes.

rik on February 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

In fact, the Laws of Moses (all given at the same time as the 10 Commandments) included capital punishment.

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

OMG we are now down to the laws of Moses. How about the laws of mohammed? How about the laws of some other religion? We have the LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. These are the only laws that concren me. I hate these thoecrats more than I hate the socialist.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

stellar analysis, allah. as usual.

ted c on February 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Polls, news and, well, facts in general disagree with you on the majority part. Otherwise, you’re golden.

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

You’re right, you aren’t fooled by MSNBC. But you do seem to be pretty easily fooled by anyone who’s willing to talk the talk when it comes to conservatism, so it balances out.

As for evidence… TADA!

This entire entry shows feelings on Global Warming in the past ten year period. As the graphs generally go, Global Warming hysteria hit a peak in the mid 2000s, with majorities believing in Global Warming and the various scientific arguments (or, humorously enough, that a majority of scientists believed global warming was a threat).

The key data point, however, comes right here that proves my point that during the peak of hysteria, a large majority believed in AGW

Oh, and the source, the obviously evil and biased mainstream media source that did all this polling… Gallup.

Take that ‘nonsense’ and smoke it.

As for Reagan, the guy did sign one of the most comprehensive bills for the expansion of abortion rights in California history. Even though he later said that he regretted the move, it came after he was governor of California.

Now, go ahead, do your best to respond. Come on champ, you can do it! And by that I mean you cannot do it in a reasonable fahsion!

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Santorum’s tone is really what gets him in most of these.

Oh, so now it’s not what he said. It’s not the meaning of the words uttered. It’s the TONE. I’m assuming you watched the video of him saying these things.

As for the Judea-Christian values, yes, they’re defined in one book… that has been re-written upwards of hundreds of times, each time with a new outlook or take on what the old words mean. Even the Bible, which I assume is what you meant, is a reinterpretation of the Jewish books, with a new set of stories added in at the end. It’s all about interpretation and, while there’s certainly a majority interpretation about what the values aren’t, the details aren’t necessarily either clear or generally agreed upon.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:20 PM

The Bible has never been “re-written.” It has been copied and translated, but not re-written. Also, nearly all modern translations come direct from the original Hebrew and Greek. The old words are no more open to interpretation than the words I am writing now. Furthermore, the Bible is not a “reinterpretation” of the Torah (“Jewish books”) but rather an addition to them. Lastly, the Bible is not all about interpretation. Not unless you are trying to make an argument that all written language is up for interpretation. If that is the case, then why bother commenting on here. After all, your words don’t have defined meanings…they are all up for interpretation.

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

rik on February 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Ah, nothing like conservatives harping on venture capitalism.

Also, once again, the vast majority of the data backs up my point that Mitt Romney is best suited to win this election. I’ve provided my own feelings and assorted facts as to why I think he’d be good at the job, but on that point it’ll have to constitute a difference of opinion (for the most part).

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Must have been desperate for a post. Candidates have soared to the top of the polls in less than a week at least several times in this cycle, only to fall down as quickly later.

You haven’t been particularly accurate in picking the results two weeks ahead in this cycle – nothing wrong with that, neither has anyone else – but we are asked to accept a poll in a state that doesn’t vote for another ten weeks as significant of . . . something, even if it shows a guy drawing less than a third of the Republican vote in his own home state.

Lame.

Adjoran on February 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM

I think I have evangelical fatigue.

EddieC on February 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM

It has been copied and translated, but not re-written.

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Actually, it’s been found that some of the re-translations actually took words to mean different things in their own language than could’ve been meant in the root language. Also, I’m sure the Protestants and Calvinists would love to take you up on that claim.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM

OMG we are now down to the laws of Moses. How about the laws of mohammed? How about the laws of some other religion? We have the LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. These are the only laws that concren me. I hate these thoecrats more than I hate the socialist.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

It is quite obvious you didn’t read the post, or the posts in relation to it. What you wrote has as much to do with the point I illustrated and the context I used the laws of Moses in as your name does with a Kappa. Go back and read again if you would like to join the conversation.

Pattosensei on February 9, 2012 at 11:42 PM

I don’t disagree with you, but I was just pointing out that there are many out there who never met a perceived freebie or benefit that they did not like or pant for. And Barry can usually count on their support.

The contraceptive “blunder” may not be as much a misstep as we think. Why unveil that and bring up a fight at this point? There may be some Dr. Evil’s (not the who posting here)machination behind that move.

galtani on February 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

If you are saying that Catholics are ok with Catholic organizations being forced have this stuff available in their healthcare plans, then you haven’t been to church recently or you aren’t a Catholic.

A letter was included with the Sunday bulletins explaining how their employees won’t be having a healthcare plan at all if the govt. requires this as a benefit in the healthcare plans.

If you had a choice of no contraceptive etc… benefits but still have a healthcare plan on no plan at all, which would you choose.

Vince on February 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM

I think I have evangelical fatigue.

EddieC on February 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Amen.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5