Oh my: Santorum now tied with Gingrich nationally for second place

posted at 5:30 pm on February 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

On January 23, two days after South Carolina, it was Mitt 29, Newt 28, with Santorum dead last behind Ron Paul at 11 percent. Seventeen days later: Mitt 36, Santorum 20, Gingrich 20, with Senator Sweater Vest having gained another three points overnight. Two Not Romneys enter, one Not Romney leaves.

Or maybe two Not Romneys enter and two Not Romneys remain. For the first time in the campaign, the two sweetest words in the English language can be whispered with the slightest trace of plausibility: Brokered convention. Over to you, Sean Trende:

If this split continues — Romney in the West and Northeast, Gingrich in the South, and Santorum in the Midwest — we could easily find ourselves in a scenario where no candidate crosses the 1,144-delegate threshold by the time voting ends. Consider this: Right now, Romney barely has a majority of the delegates. If Gingrich successfully contests the winner-takes-all allocation in the Florida primary (based on the RNC’s rule against such a format before April), no one would have a majority of the delegates as of today…

In April, Gingrich would have a great chance in Texas, Maryland and Delaware (increasingly de facto Southern states in the GOP primary electorate), while Romney would receive large delegate hauls in Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. Santorum would have primaries in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In the end, we could end up in California in early June with no clear nominee. While that state is nominally winner-take-all for a whopping 172 delegates, in fact it allocates the overwhelming majority of those delegates by Congressional District. Who is voting in a Republican primary in Nancy Pelosi’s or Maxine Waters’ district? I honestly have no idea, but if they’re different from the voters in the Latino central valley districts, and if they’re different than the voters in Orange County, and if they’re different from the voters in the Sierra districts, we really could have a situation where the state doesn’t produce a winner for the GOP.

If this occurs, and Ron Paul wins around 100 delegates along the way, we have a situation where no candidate has more than 900 delegates, and three have more than 400. In that situation, no one would be able to lay claim to the mantle of presumptive nominee. The convention would eventually deadlock, and an outside candidate could emerge.

Philip Klein made the same point last night about a persistent northeast/midwest/south regional split among the candidates, and tried to game out how many delegates Romney would win if that split held through June. Answer: Slightly more than 1,000, which is 140 fewer than he needs to clinch the nomination. Looking waaaaay down the road, the obvious problem for convention brokers would be to come up with a ticket that somehow heals that regional divide. Presumably GOP leaders would be willing to overlook the northeast on the theory that they probably won’t beat Obama there anyway. Daniels/Barbour, then? Ryan/Rubio? The only limit is your imagination, my friends — plus, I guess, the extreme unlikelihood that both Santorum and Gingrich will slog on to Tampa even after it becomes clear that Romney will finish with many more delegates than they will, if not an outright majority.

Here’s DeMint this morning on CNN with a very mild case of brokered convention fever. Can you feel it?


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

this is your personal opinion and you’re entitled to it. now do excuse me and millions of others who don’t find him trustworthy, but rather someone whose views borders on bigotry…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM

…as opposed to Newt and Mitt who not only aren’t bigots, but are certified experts on telling you and those millions of other voters exactly what you all want to hear. Like it or not, Rick Santorum is a legit player. That could change. I don’t know that he has the nomination wrapped up. But I do know that if his name is on my state’s primary ballot, he gets my vote.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM

It will be interesting to see if Newt follows the advice he gave to Rick a few weeks ago…

Lawdawg86 on February 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Doubtful.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Have you guys seen this video of Santorum dismantling David Gregory on Meet the Press when Gregory questioned Santorum on Iran?

http://nation.foxnews.com/rick-santorum/2012/01/02/santorum-wipes-floor-nbc-s-gregory

I consider myself a fiscal and national security conservative. I don’t really care about social issues, so I’ve never really considered Santorum seriously. But he has impressed me with his ability to articulate conservative principles, he has earned my respect for sticking to his guns on the issues, and he strikes me as someone of genuine integrity. I initially supported Rick Perry because of his vocal support for the 10th Amendment and limited government; needless to say, it is a long and sad road from there to Santorum.

But the race is what it is, and none of these candidates are small-government conservatives. But Santorum is a man of integrity; Newt and Mitt are not. As long as Santorum doesn’t focus his general election campaign on the culture wars, he would probably be more electable than Newt or Mitt. Unlike Mitt, he can prosecute the case against Obamacare and link entitlements and regulations to economic decline. Unlike Newt, he doesn’t propose colonies on the moon during critical junctures of the campaign. And unlike Mitt and Newt, Santorum didn’t support the bailouts.

And he will be more reliably conservative in office than Newt or Mitt.

Lawdawg86 on February 9, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Santorum is a smart cookie. He would demolish and humiliate Obama in a debate. The thing that worries me about Santorum, is whther he is up to the job. I also would like soe sense that he would keep his eye on the ball (entitlement reform, tax reform, repeal of Obamacare, regulatory reform, national defense, and conservative judges) and not spend his time or political fighting over the social issues.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Reality check on aisle 1! Pipe dream, Romney’s done.

Are you kidding? After, what? 8 primaries, and Mitt still ahead in the total vote and the delegate count? There may come a time when Romney is done, but you are popping the cork on your champagne way early.

Priscilla on February 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I don’t like our chance at all if there is a brokered convention. I think that would be like reelecting Obama. If it comes down to a potential broked convention, the top two vote getters should be put on the ticket to unify the party behind them.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I don’t like our chances either…I think it could get ugly. I hear Daniels name floated a lot in that scenario, but since when did he appeal to the base? You’re not going to unify the party around a guy that didn’t even go through the process.

changer1701 on February 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Santorum is just a road marker once Southern states start voting. I am not even sure he can beat Newt in OH. And once numbers start changing in Newt’s favor, as they should, all those Santorum fans will quickly change sides.

riddick on February 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Yes. Thank you.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Santorum is just a road marker once Southern states start voting. I am not even sure he can beat Newt in OH. And once numbers start changing in Newt’s favor, as they should, all those Santorum fans will quickly change sides.

riddick on February 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Yes. Thank you.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Can you resolve to vote for someone without being a “fan?” I think I left the ranks of Fandom last October.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM

More anti-Romney idiocy. Yuppies are materialistic and ostentatious. They don’t have 5 kids, tithe 10% to their church and live modestly, considering their wealth.
Romney is the antithesis.
Basilsbest on February 9, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Lol. Yeah a modest life in an 11,000 sq ft house. Why he’s just an average Joe.

Look, I celebrate that he made money. Good for him. But stop trying to portray him as an aww shucks type of humble Joe Shmoe type of guy. He’s not. He’s worth 300m and lives like it.

angryed on February 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

The problem is that he WAS owned by the big unions. I consider that a big problem. And, he did not have to endorse Specter- I understand that it was “just politics”….but that is exactly what all of his supporters say he is not. (I seem to recall “consistent conservative”, “values conservative” being terms thrown around). His record is far from conservative, in fact, probably farther from Romney’s if you look at how he voted when he was in the Senate. He says now that he had to do it because he was representing the people of PA…I have to call BS on that. And even if he’s telling the truth, that just means that he’s more than willing to put principles aside for politics.

Priscilla on February 9, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I take Santorum at his word on that, just like I take Romney at his word with respect to his record in MA. A politician can’t completely blow off his constituents. Of the three, the only one that I find unacceptable is Newt. I worry about Santorum’s electability, but I would be able to vote for him and feel good about it. (I also would vote Gingrich, but I would have to take a shower and say a prayer afterwards….

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:49 PM

No Romney guns?

Wha?

Key West Reader on February 9, 2012 at 8:50 PM

I don’t like our chances either…I think it could get ugly. I hear Daniels name floated a lot in that scenario, but since when did he appeal to the base? You’re not going to unify the party around a guy that didn’t even go through the process.

changer1701 on February 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I like Daniels a lot, and I was quite disappointed when he didn’t run, because he was my provisional first choice. But I don’t want him to get the nomination like this. There will Democrats complainng about corrupt bargains.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

The fact that he could win two statewide elections in a swing state like PA in the first place speaks to his ability to get votes across a pretty wide cross-section of the public.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:21 PM

That was before he became unhinged. Santorum started out as a standard-issue Northern republican, for fiscal responsibility, strong defense, etc. None of this unctuous religious smarm. I voted for him twice.

The stillbirth of his son apparently drove him over the edge. He should have gone into the ministry, I suppose. Instead, he wants to shove his new-found religion down the throats of the rest of us.

Bartrams Garden on February 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I like Daniels a lot, and I was quite disappointed when he didn’t run, because he was my provisional first choice. But I don’t want him to get the nomination like this. There will Democrats complainng about corrupt bargains.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Dems have nothing to say about our nomination process, just as Republicans have nothing to say about theirs. Let ‘em complain. I’m for what’s good for America, not what will keep the Dems from grousing.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

If the government has the power to impose Judeo-Christian social values on all its people, then the government also has the power to impose enviromentalist-redistributionist values on all the people.
aero on February 9, 2012 at 8:22 PM

All of us have agreed that Rick Santorum as POTUS, won’t abolish sodomy, homosexuality, pornography, adultery, or fornication, because the President can’t issue any such “Executive Order”.
And Congress will NEVER go along with it.

Morality can’t be “legislated”.

But morality (or rather, “the absence of morality”) can be STIGMATIZED. Publicly HUMILIATED, and DEGRADED.

I believe THAT’s what those of you who have been Rick’s strongest critics and detractors on this blogsite, are really afraid of.
And perhaps you should be. Be AFRAID . . . be VERY afraid . . . . .

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM

The stillbirth of his son apparently drove him over the edge. He should have gone into the ministry, I suppose. Instead, he wants to shove his new-found religion down the throats of the rest of us.

Bartrams Garden on February 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

More evidence that we deserve another four years of Obama.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Dems have nothing to say about our nomination process, just as Republicans have nothing to say about theirs. Let ‘em complain. I’m for what’s good for America, not what will keep the Dems from grousing.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

That won’t stop ‘em from talking, and trying to split us. I wouldn’t be surprised if they set up a shadow campaign for the express purpose of sowing dissent on the right.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

If Gingrich drops, which the only thing keeping this from happening is his ego, then it will only help Santorum. Sadly, this makes me believe that President Obama will indeed gain a second term as I can’t help but think that Santorum doesn’t have independent appeal. Then again, I’m not crazy about the other two candidates or Ron Paul, but I will still support the nominee.

Sammo21 on February 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

That won’t stop ‘em from talking, and trying to split us. I wouldn’t be surprised if they set up a shadow campaign for the express purpose of sowing dissent on the right.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

They’ll do that regardless. A brokered convention would be just another excuse.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Priscilla on February 9, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Who are you for?

Both Romney and Newt have supported liberals over conservatives as recently as 2010.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Santorum is just a road marker once Southern states start voting. I am not even sure he can beat Newt in OH. And once numbers start changing in Newt’s favor, as they should, all those Santorum fans will quickly change sides.

riddick on February 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM

well, it makes sense…they do not call themselves ABR for nothing…they go with the winner of the day (other than Romney, of course), ironically enough you bet they call this ‘consistency’ :-)…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

That was before he became unhinged. Santorum started out as a standard-issue Northern republican, for fiscal responsibility, strong defense, etc. None of this unctuous religious smarm. I voted for him twice.

The stillbirth of his son apparently drove him over the edge. He should have gone into the ministry, I suppose. Instead, he wants to shove his new-found religion down the throats of the rest of us.

Bartrams Garden on February 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Unhinged?? And you base that on what precisely?

How exactly has he tried to shove his religion down anbody’s throat?

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Both Romney and Newt have supported liberals over conservatives as recently as 2010.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

DeDe Scozzafava, anyone? HMMM? And did we so quickly forget Newt’s turn on the couch with Nancy Pe-Louse-i? Seriously, this carping and moaning about Santorum’s “big government tendancies” and “disrespect for women” would be a bad comedy routine if we weren’t in the middle of a presidential election.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:4

I remember Santorum dismantling Kennedy and Moynihan, among others, when he pushed his Welfare Reform Act through the senate. That is when I first noticed him.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

well, it makes sense…they do not call themselves ABR for nothing…they go with the winner of the day (other than Romney, of course), ironically enough you bet they call this ‘consistency’ :-)…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

GFY, douchebag. Every other candidate I’ve backed has dropped out.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Santorum is just a road marker once Southern states start voting. I am not even sure he can beat Newt in OH. And once numbers start changing in Newt’s favor, as they should, all those Santorum fans will quickly change sides.

riddick on February 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Ohio is Santorum’s backyard. He’ll do just fine there. Newt probably won’t even have the money to compete there.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:43 PM

As Newt was moving Welfare Reform through the House, Santorum was shepherding it through the Senate.

INC on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 PM

They’ll do that regardless. A brokered convention would be just another excuse.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

The point is that if there is a brokered convention, the Republicans will not be a united party, and we will have a candidate that has not been vetted.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Yeah, Santorum who has been faithful to one wife, has 7 children and calls his wife his “hero”, is sexist but Newt who committed adultery for years and left two wives when they had serious illnesses is seen as being respectful to women?

And pork increased considerably under old Newtie boy. He is the Godfather of pork.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Show me a civilization that has flourished under the Liberals’ idea of morality. I’ll hold my breath….
cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 8:19 PM

None, but plenty of them have collapsed under that same morality.
sharrukin on February 9, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Why that’s NONSENSE . . . . . . just take a look at that port city of Tortooga, in the ‘Pirates Of The Caribbean’ movies.

Tortooga is a perfect example of Ron Paul libertarianism, am I right?

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Santorum is just a road marker once Southern states start voting. I am not even sure he can beat Newt in OH. And once numbers start changing in Newt’s favor, as they should, all those Santorum fans will quickly change sides.

riddick on February 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Santorum will win Ohio. And there is no way I will ever vote for Newt.

And Newt is in debt and money is not coming in.

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

Santorum will win Ohio. And there is no way I will ever vote for Newt.

And Newt is in debt and money is not coming in.

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

I think that it’s pretty clear that Newt is finished. The only thing that he can accomplish at this point is wrecking it for the others. With luck, whatever support he has remaining will collapse, and the party can coalesce around one of the other two.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Tortooga is a perfect example of Ron Paul libertarianism, am I right?

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Well Somalia comes to mind. No laws there and no parents telling you to quick smokin’ dope and move out of the basement either. Must be a paradise! /

sharrukin on February 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

The stillbirth of his son apparently drove him over the edge. He should have gone into the ministry, I suppose. Instead, he wants to shove his new-found religion down the throats of the rest of us.
Bartrams Garden on February 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I’m pretty sure Rick’s Catholicism/Christianity is NOT “new found”.
And what exactly constitutes “shoving his religion down our throats”?

Reposting:

All of us have agreed that Rick Santorum as POTUS, won’t abolish sodomy, homosexuality, pornography, adultery, or fornication, because the President can’t issue any such “Executive Order”.
And Congress will NEVER go along with it.

Morality can’t be “legislated”.

But morality (or rather, “the absence of morality”) can be STIGMATIZED. Publicly HUMILIATED, and DEGRADED.

I believe THAT’s what those of you who have been Rick’s strongest critics and detractors on this blogsite, are really afraid of.
And perhaps you should be. Be AFRAID . . . be VERY afraid . . . . .

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

And Newt is in debt and money is not coming in.

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

I’m sending him money. As much as I can.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Morality can’t be “legislated”.

Sure it can. It just helps to have broad agreement among the people about what moral principles are being codified in the law, and a legitimate process for creating the legislation. (That’s why Roe v. Wade was such a terrible decision.)

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Otherwise I agree with just about everything that you said.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Who are you for?

Both Romney and Newt have supported liberals over conservatives as recently as 2010.

fight like a girl on February 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I’m for Romney. And you are right- every accomplished politician has also done things that are not brag worthy, and may have been motivated more by political compromise than by principle. But, Romney has not presented himself as a purist. He says that he is a conservative who governed in a blue state, necessitating compromises. That is the truth. Gingrich and Santorum pander to the True Conservatives™ and purport to be purists when they are not. Plus, I think governors make better president.

People here rant about not trusting Romney because, after he left MA, he became more conservative. Well, that makes sense to me. After Santorum left the Senate, he became more conservative too, because he no longer had to compromise. I take them at their word. Newt, not so much.

Priscilla on February 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Priscilla on February 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Nice post!

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Why is it when someone lives their Faith by having integrity, being faithful to his wife, and standing up for his beliefs people accuse them of “shoving their religion down people’s throats” ?

I live in NC and I’m voting for Rick Santorum.

mcplumbercuda on February 9, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Why is it when someone lives their Faith by having integrity, being faithful to his wife, and standing up for his beliefs people accuse them of “shoving their religion down people’s throats” ?

It’s been my experience that when somebody complains about some opponent shoving their religion down people’s throats, the person complaining usually is plotting to shove their (often secular) religion down yours.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:38 PM

For the first time in the campaign, the two sweetest words in the English language can be whispered with the slightest trace of plausibility: Brokered convention.

Allah, you slay me. And not in an infidel way.

DavidW on February 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Thanks :)

Priscilla on February 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

It’s been my experience that when somebody complains about some opponent shoving their religion down people’s throats, the person complaining usually is plotting to shove their (often secular) religion down yours.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:38

I don’t care what your religion is, but I do care when you want to make it a law and put the police, the courts, and the full weight of the government behind your beliefs i.e. why can I not buy beer on Sunday? Christian BS. How is that different from muslim BS?

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

GFY, douchebag. Every other candidate I’ve backed has dropped out.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

well, I suppose then that it pays off to choose so well :-)…and btw, keep your insults for people with an intellect similar to yours…they might make more sense of this sort of talk…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

It all depends on whether you want four more years of obama. You really have to live in a fishbowl not to notice there is not a moderate electorate for either newt or santorum.

Santorum does want to shove his religion down your throat. In fact, he’s already stated policies that will do precisely that. Triple the child tax credit etc. So are we now going to have families paid for by the gov’t??? Really???

aniptofar on February 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

I don’t care what your religion is, but I do care when you want to make it a law and put the police, the courts, and the full weight of the government behind your beliefs i.e. why can I not buy beer on Sunday? Christian BS. How is that different from muslim BS?

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Right. Blue laws are the key issue of this campaign. Was there a point to your post?

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

I don’t care what your religion is, but I do care when you want to make it a law and put the police, the courts, and the full weight of the government behind your beliefs i.e. why can I not buy beer on Sunday? Christian BS. How is that different from muslim BS?

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Sharia law states that a woman is worth half that of a man. Should we impose your moral code on them and put the police, the courts, and the full weight of the government behind your beliefs?

sharrukin on February 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

A little different this time. The latest flavor of the month is actually winning real votes. Not polls. Real votes.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 7:59 PM

haha, real votes that are not quantifiable :-)…how many delegate votes did he get these past three contests? yes, I thought so…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Santorum does want to shove his religion down your throat. In fact, he’s already stated policies that will do precisely that. Triple the child tax credit etc. So are we now going to have families paid for by the gov’t??? Really???

aniptofar on February 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

So, supporting family friendly policies is shoving his religion down your throat?

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Right. Blue laws are the key issue of this campaign. Was there a point to your post?

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

That you don’t get the point is the problem.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

That you don’t get the point is the problem.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

It’s not my problem that you can’t express yourself coherently.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

So are we now going to have families paid for by the gov’t??? Really???

aniptofar on February 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

yep, this is the French model (which he totally favors)…France offers all women workers a paid, job-protected maternity leave six weeks before and 10 weeks after the births of the first two children, eight weeks before and 18 weeks after the birth of the third child, 34 weeks (12 prenatally) for twins and 42 weeks (24 prenatally) for triplets or more. Maternity leave, pre and postnatally, is mandatory (oh and it equals the woman’s net salary). At the end of maternity leave, the mother or father can take parental leave until the child reaches the age of three, with entitlement to re-integration into the previous or a similar job. Parents receive a parental leave allowance if they interrupt their employment, totally. A means-tested, young child allowance is available from the fourth month of pregnancy until a child is three. Maternity benefit, the benefit paid during the maternity leave, equals the net salary up to a certain threshold. Maternity benefits for insured mothers amount to 80 percent of earnings for up to 16 weeks for the first and second child, 26 weeks for subsequent children, and 46 weeks for multiple births (a number of collective agreements allow for an additional 20 percent payment during the same period).

all sounds nice, only ask yourself how much the French govt pays for all this?…Don’t know why I thought conservatives are for small govt and all…but that’s usually just the rhetoric…same like the ‘morality’ rhetoric that they are bombarding us with now that Santorum seems to be the flavour of the week, but when Gingrich was their candidate of choice we were told that the personal morality of candidates did not matter as long as they could debate Obama successfully…now they are back at beating that dead horse, helas, again…I suppose now it counts…consistency and conservative principles, right :-)…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM

So, supporting family friendly policies is shoving his religion down your throat?

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

and who is supposed to pay for this ‘family friendly policies’? thought you were all for small govt, at least that’s the rhetoric employed on this site, no?

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

yep, this is the French model (which he totally favors)
jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Where can I find his platform on this, because this is the first I’ve heard of it?

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM

and who is supposed to pay for this ‘family friendly policies’? thought you were all for small govt, at least that’s the rhetoric employed on this site, no?

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I am for small government. I’m just trying to understand why he was conflating pro-family policies with imposing religious views; I wasn’t arguing for (or against) the child tax credit policy.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM

and who is supposed to pay for this ‘family friendly policies’? thought you were all for small govt, at least that’s the rhetoric employed on this site, no?

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Exactly. One can’t be a fiscal conservative and a nanny-state social con at the same time. Right now, our fiscal concerns are vastly greater, and the federal government absolutely must be reigned in.

aero on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Where can I find his platform on this, because this is the first I’ve heard of it?

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM

I suppose you’ve never heard of his proposal to reduce taxes by tripling the child tax credit, which currently stands at $1,000 per child. For someone who supports him, you don’t know much about his projected policies, do you….

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I suppose you’ve never heard of his proposal to reduce taxes by tripling the child tax credit, which currently stands at $1,000 per child. For someone who supports him, you don’t know much about his projected policies, do you….

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I never said that I supported him. You made a claim that sounds outlandish, and I wanted to see some proof. Tripling the child–whatever you may think of it–is not the same thing as imposing (or “favoring”) the French social model.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Where can I find his platform on this, because this is the first I’ve heard of it?

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM

oh, and to help that along even further, Santorum would helpfully allow states to ban birth control, making it harder to avoid having lots of kids, and therefore increasing eligibility for multiple rounds of the child tax credit. What can I say, wunderbar, he just wants women to be forced into childbirth so they can keep more of the tax payer money :-)

Here’s from an interview with ABC News: “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”

He has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president. As he told CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart in October, “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,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Still nothing on this “French social model” business? Is that why you keep trying to change the subject?

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM

haha, real votes that are not quantifiable :-)…how many delegate votes did he get these past three contests? yes, I thought so…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I said he’s winning real votes. And he is. What that means for him in the future at this point is anybody’s best guess, but Rick Santorum is a legit player in the 2012 election cycle. Wishing him away won’t make it so.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

not the same thing as imposing “favoring”) the French social model.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

‘favours’ and ‘imposes’ are two completely different things, am sure you can get the nuances right there…I said ‘favours’, am surprised that you acknowledge it (yeah, in brackets, but still)…he stated many times that he is in favour of policies that would encourage women to stay home and raise children…now, do you think this can be done without material support in place from the state/govt? this is the French model par excellence, I only detailed it there in terms of benefits and all, since I am familiar with it, being born and raised there…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:41 PM

well, I suppose then that it pays off to choose so well :-)…and btw, keep your insults for people with an intellect similar to yours…they might make more sense of this sort of talk…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

My principles don’t change, even as the field does. If that makes you squirm, then squirm away, worm.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Wishing him away won’t make it so.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

I am not wishing him away in any way that makes sense. He is every bit as legit as the other 3 candidates and he belongs in the current GOP field same like all the others. My point about the ‘real votes’ was that it’s more important that they translate in delegate votes.

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM

‘favours’ and ‘imposes’ are two completely different things, am sure you can get the nuances right there…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:41 PM

I see. So, you were just BS-ing when you recounted all of those specifics about the French social model in relation to Santorum’s views. Got it. I thought as much.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

My principles don’t change, even as the field does. If that makes you squirm, then squirm away, worm.

gryphon202 on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

there’s nothing that you or anyone else can say on this forum that would have such an effect on me… other than prompting me to verbalize my opinions vis a vis of what has been stated there, I can assure that nothing else of an emotional nature goes on…so, the ‘squirming’ thing is probably a projection of yours…

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

I suppose you’ve never heard of his proposal to reduce taxes by tripling the child tax credit, which currently stands at $1,000 per child. For someone who supports him, you don’t know much about his projected policies, do you….

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

BTW, it appears that this assertion is incorrect. Santorum has not propsed tripling the child tax credit; he proposed tripling the child tax exemption. These are quite different things, even if they sound alike.

This distinction is significant, as the maximum Child Tax Credit would increase from $1,000 to $3,000 per child if the credit is tripled from its expanded level, or increase from only $500 to $1,500 if the credit is tripled without extending the expansions. And only high-income families would receive any benefit from the larger credit that Santorum is allegedly proposing if the expansions are allowed to expire at the end of the year, as the Child Tax Credit would actually be reduced or completely eliminated for low- and moderate-income working parents in 2013, despite the proposed increase to the credit.
http://www.taxcreditsforworkingfamilies.org/2012/01/setting-record-straight-santorum-child-tax-credit/

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/01/03/rick-santorum%E2%80%99s-tax-plan/

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:59 PM

I see. So, you were just BS-ing when you recounted all of those specifics about the French social model in relation to Santorum’s views. Got it. I thought as much.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

the French social model as you call it, it’s the only logical path when you say that your stated goal is to encourage women to stay home and have babies. if he puts his money (well, our money that is) where his mouth is, that’s the only way to do it, have policies in place that help them financially, that’s the basic stimulus for women/families who decide to have more children and raise them by themselves. Unless you’re saying that he just talks a good talk but he does not walk the walk, that’s precisely what it amount to, more financial support for the families from the state. The thing is my feeling all along has been that his anti-woman policies are really more about sexual control, than about the family values. But hey, the promise of all those thousand-dollar bills babies at the end of the equation could make the policy so much more attractive, no?

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM

the French social model as you call it, it’s the only logical path when you say that your stated goal is to encourage women to stay home and have babies. if he puts his money (well, our money that is) where his mouth is, that’s the only way to do it, have policies in place that help them financially, that’s the basic stimulus for women/families who decide to have more children and raise them by themselves. Unless you’re saying that he just talks a good talk but he does not walk the walk, that’s precisely what it amount to, more financial support for the families from the state. The thing is my feeling all along has been that his anti-woman policies are really more about sexual control, than about the family values. But hey, the promise of all those thousand-dollar bills babies at the end of the equation could make the policy so much more attractive, no?

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Whatever. You drew a bunch of unsubstantiated conclusions, and imputed nefarious motives to his views. So, basically a strawman argument with an ad hominem attack.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Whatever. You drew a bunch of unsubstantiated conclusions, and imputed nefarious motives to his views. So, basically a strawman argument with an ad hominem attack.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

the said conclusions are the only logical ones if you pay attention to his discourse and connect the dots, and based on that I have every reason not to trust him, and I don’t. I see no reason for giving him the benefit of the doubt, based on his own statements and stated preferred policies.

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM

the said conclusions are the only logical ones if you pay attention to his discourse and connect the dots, and based on that I have every reason not to trust him, and I don’t. I see no reason for giving him the benefit of the doubt, based on his own statements and stated preferred policies.

jimver on February 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM

No, your conclusions are not “the only logical conclusions” to be drawn. That’s not even close to being true–tripling the child exemption is not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to (nor is it likely to result in) giving umpteen weeks of job-protected maternity leave.

You have every right to mistrust him and to dislike him as much as please. However, making up stuff about the man and impugning his motives isn’t very persuasive argumentation (to put it mildly).

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Santorum does want to shove his religion down your throat. In fact, he’s already stated policies that will do precisely that. Triple the child tax credit etc. So are we now going to have families paid for by the gov’t??? Really???
aniptofar on February 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Being “taxed LESS” is not the equivalent of “being paid” by the Government.

You really have to be a Liberal/Socialist, to think like that.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Being “taxed LESS” is not the equivalent of “being paid” by the Government.

You really have to be a Liberal/Socialist, to think like that.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Correct. It is our money, not the governments money.

Kaffa on February 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Exactly. One can’t be a fiscal conservative and a nanny-state social con at the same time. Right now, our fiscal concerns are vastly greater, and the federal government absolutely must be reigned in.
aero on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Once again aero, repeating my 8:54 PM post:

All of us have agreed that Rick Santorum as POTUS, won’t abolish sodomy, homosexuality, pornography, adultery, or fornication, because the President can’t issue any such “Executive Order”.
And Congress will NEVER go along with it.
Morality can’t be “legislated”.
But morality (or rather, “the absence of morality”) can be STIGMATIZED. Publicly HUMILIATED, and DEGRADED.
I believe THAT’s what those of you who have been Rick’s strongest critics and detractors on this blogsite, are really afraid of.
And perhaps you should be. Be AFRAID . . . be VERY afraid . . . . .
listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM

The ‘anti-vice booger-man’ is coming to get you.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

I don’t want to elect a POTUS who has an agenda of

Morality can’t be “legislated”.
But morality (or rather, “the absence of morality”) can be STIGMATIZED. Publicly HUMILIATED, and DEGRADED.
I believe THAT’s what those of you who have been Rick’s strongest critics and detractors on this blogsite, are really afraid of.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Do you have any idea of how creepy this stuff sounds?

Anyway, my biggest problem with Santorum is that he’s consistently sided with far-left economic policies: the Medicare expansion bribe, the pro-unions, anti-right to work positions, being anti-free trade, the out of control spending of the Bush administration that he enthusiastically supported.

The only people who think Santorum is a conservative when there’s very little that separates him and Obama on economic issues are the crazy religious fanatics who don’t really care about fiscal issues.

Santorum is a Christianized Socialist. Very different from a conservative.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 12:33 AM

The ‘anti-vice booger-man’ is coming to get you.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

What’s really funny is that I’m about the most vice-free person you’ll ever meet. Seriously — other than eating too many salty snacks and staying up too late at night, I do nothing that Santorum might object to and never have. I just happen to think that the federal government has no business trying to stigmatize, humiliate, or shame other people into living the way I do, even though I do think I’m doing it right and others are doing it wrong. So, no, I am not worried about the “anti-vice booger man” coming to get me, unless he thinks that my hard-earned wealth is a “vice” that he must relieve me of for my own good. See how that works? Anti-vice boogie men are the same on both sides; they’re just defining “vices” differently.

aero on February 10, 2012 at 2:05 AM

The only people who think Santorum is a conservative when there’s very little that separates him and Obama on economic issues are the crazy religious fanatics who don’t really care about fiscal issues.

joana

And the only people who think there is very little separating Santorum and Obama on economic issues are mental patients who managed to sneak a little keyboard time while the nurse wasn’t looking.

He has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president.
jimver

That’s a good thing, because the federal government shouldn’t be paying for contraception in the first place. I thought you guys were fiscal hawks? I thought you didn’t want to be in the bedroom? Apparently, you DO want to be in the bedroom, and you want taxpayers to pay for it.

xblade on February 10, 2012 at 3:37 AM

Consider this: Right now, Romney barely has a majority of the delegates.

Actually, at townhall.com:

http://townhall.com/election-2012/primaryresults/

Not Romney is at 110 and Romney is at 92.

Brokered Convention it is. :) :) :)

P.S. I hate this primary system. I never, ever get to vote for my first choice (unlike people in “special”, privileged states).

Theophile on February 10, 2012 at 4:09 AM

I can’t believe that people actually want a brokered convention. I can’t believe that there are so many people on our side determined to lose the election. If folks don’t wake up soon, we are going to get beat.

ghostwriter on February 10, 2012 at 7:19 AM

I don’t want to elect a POTUS who has an agenda of

Morality can’t be “legislated”.
But morality (or rather, “the absence of morality”) can be STIGMATIZED. Publicly HUMILIATED, and DEGRADED.
I believe THAT’s what those of you who have been Rick’s strongest critics and detractors on this blogsite, are really afraid of.
listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Do you have any idea of how creepy this stuff sounds?

Anyway, my biggest problem with Santorum is that he’s consistently sided with far-left economic policies: the Medicare expansion bribe, the pro-unions, anti-right to work positions, being anti-free trade, the out of control spending of the Bush administration that he enthusiastically supported.
joana on February 10, 2012 at 12:33 AM

He has NOT consistently sided with “far-left” economic policies.

He did support Bush on the issues you listed above, but I reject the adverb “enthusiastically” as used to describe his attitude about it.

I’m pretty sure I have a little idea what you mean by “how creepy that sounds”, but that’s my point. ‘Stigma’ used to be the real “Chief of Police” when it came to “keeping the discipline” out in the general public. Now we have at least three (four?) generations of Americans who have been living “stigma-free”, and have no sense of “right or wrong.” Anything goes.
And it started with SCOTUS decisions, banning the “recognition of God” on public property.

Christianity needs to be practiced openly, and brazenly in the general public, which means ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, with no apology for how much it offends non-Christians (which really means atheists). The SCOTUS decisions since WW II BE DAMNED !
Those court decisions can be overturned by legislation, and it will be a bloody fight when the attempt begins.
I’m up for it.
Are you?

listens2glenn on February 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM

I don’t like our chances either…I think it could get ugly. I hear Daniels name floated a lot in that scenario, but since when did he appeal to the base? You’re not going to unify the party around a guy that didn’t even go through the process.

changer1701 on February 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Forget Daniels. He’s a Bushie, and if teamed with Romney will destroy the GOP. Likewise, forget about Christie and Babour.

Better to draft Walker, if it comes to brokering, he can draw moderates and everyone sick of unions, even crossover Democrats. Don’t even think about Rubio or Jindal as it will re-ignite the birther controversy. Other possibilities would be Susan Martinez or even SP.

AH_C on February 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Santorum is a smart cookie. He would demolish and humiliate Obama in a debate. The thing that worries me about Santorum, is whther he is up to the job. I also would like soe sense that he would keep his eye on the ball (entitlement reform, tax reform, repeal of Obamacare, regulatory reform, national defense, and conservative judges) and not spend his time or political fighting over the social issues.

ghostwriter on February 9, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Good point. One of the major issues that galavanized the Tea Party revolt was Obamacare, and Romney is very weak on that issue–how can he promise to repeal Obamacare when he signed something similar as Governor? Santorum has a clean record on the health-care issue, and he doesn’t have Gingrich’s baggage on marital issues, and being ousted from the House on ethics charges, or receiving money from Freddie Mac.

I totally support Santorum’s position on social issues, but some of them are political losers in a general election. Regarding social issues, Santorum should restrict himself to saying that (if elected) he would appoint conservative Justices to SCOTUS with judicial philosophies similar to those of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, and that he wants a Senate who would confirm them.

Then Santorum should concentrate his campaign on the economic issues which will probably drive this election, while also discussing energy issues (supporting clean-coal and natural-gas fracking from the Marcellus Shale will probably help him in PA and OH, drilling for oil in the Gulf will help him in the South, and supporting the Keystone XL pipeline should be a gimme for all GOP candidates).

Steve Z on February 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Steve Z on February 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Exactly. And make clear that Bacon-Davis and other pro-union support are no longer supported at the national level.

AH_C on February 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Ryan gets the establishment and Midwestern conservative vote. Jindal gets the south, we have a ticket of Ryan/Jindal

cpaulus on February 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Looks like it is Santorum’s turn to be rising to the top.

Voter from WA State on February 9, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Tha’s because he’s the cream of the crop.

mom29js on February 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them. See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….

My understanding of our founding documents and the purpose of this country is different. I would argue that [Paul’s] understanding of the Constitution was similar to the French Revolution and the French understanding of the Constitution. The French had 21, I think, constitutions, but their constitutions were initially patterned after the American Constitution. Gave radical freedom, like ours does. But their founding document was not the Declaration of Independence. Their founding watchwords were the words, “liberty” and “fraternity.” Fraternity. Brotherhood. But no fatherhood. No God. It was a completely secular revolution. An anti-clerical revolution. And the root of it was, whoever’s in power rules.”

This +1000

I must consider Santorum a direct threat to libertarianism, which is quite clearly the underpinning of the United States’ tremendous success thus far. I do NOT want leaders of either party in my bedroom, in my family, in my church, or in my wallet.

aero on February 9, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Aero, you just want the freedom to do as you wish, when you wish, with whom you wish, but that’s not the basis of a free and just society. That, my friend, is the basis of anarchy. If my neighbor believes it’s ok to steal all of my worldly goods for himself and then ravish my teenage daughter, what’s to stop him, other than a just and moral code written into our country’s founding documents which says it’s wrong to do so and that he will be punished by those in authority over him? A society cannot have true freedom without a moral base, otherwise anything and everything goes.

mom29js on February 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM

listens2glenn on February 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Absolutely not and you are a creep.

That’s a good thing, because the federal government shouldn’t be paying for contraception in the first place. I thought you guys were fiscal hawks? I thought you didn’t want to be in the bedroom? Apparently, you DO want to be in the bedroom, and you want taxpayers to pay for it.

xblade on February 10, 2012 at 3:37 AM

Yo have no clue what you’re talking about. You don’t need to repeal Griswold to stop the financing of contraception. Only to outlaw the sale of contraceptives to the public.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 4:42 PM

listens2glenn on February 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Absolutely not and you are a creep.
joana on February 10, 2012 at 4:42 PM

joana, you have pleasantly surprised me, but I still disagree with you as regards our argument.
With all the PASSIONATE disagreements that fly back and forth here, I’ve must give you credit for your honesty, and using a relatively benign adjective as ‘creep’, when much WORSE has been thrown around here lately, by posters on both sides.
But we’re stuck in disagreement here as I’m sure you haven’t changed your mind since this morning, and I sure haven’t changed mine.
Nothing more to add.

listens2glenn on February 10, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4