Romney going back after Santorum on earmarks

posted at 9:50 am on February 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Don’t think that Mitt Romney didn’t notice the Rick Santorum hat trick on Tuesday, despite his protestations that those races didn’t amount to much anyway. His team seems to have executed a ballet like pivot in only 24 hours, abandoning his attacks on Newt Gingrich and training his sights on the former Pennsylvania Senator. For those of use lashed to the presidential press train, this quickly became apparent in our e-mail in boxes. I awoke this morning to find a love note from Mitt, once again proclaiming his bona fides as a “Washington outsider” and leading with the following graphic.

Rick Santorum Went To Washington

The text which followed was a link rich list of media bites, hammering Santorum relentlessly on his alleged history as a big government spender, going so far as to borrow a quote from Will Rogers, saying that Rick “never met an earmark he didn’t like.”

Santorum Voted To Add Trillions To The National Debt As Spending Soared During His Time In Washington:

“Santorum Acknowledged Voting To Raise The Federal Debt Ceiling At Least Five Times While In Congress.” (Charles Babington, “Gingrich Defends His Attacks,” The Associated Press, 1/15/12)

Federal Spending Increased By Roughly 80% During Santorum’s Tenure In The Senate. In 1995, Santorum’s first year in the Senate, federal spending was approximately $1.516 trillion. By 2007, when Santorum left the Senate, spending had increased to approximately $2.729 trillion. (“Fiscal Year 2012 Historical Tables Of The U.S. Government,” Office of Management and Budget, 2/14/11)

Santorum Brought Over $1 Billion In Pork-Barrel Spending Back To Pennsylvania. “In all, Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated, Mr. Santorum helped secure more than $1 billion in earmarks during his Senate career, which stretched from 1995 through 2006.” (Michael Luo and Mike McIntire, “Donors Gave As Santorum Won Earmarks,” The New York Times, 1/15/12)

Club For Growth: “Santorum Was A Prolific Supporter Of Earmarks, Having Requested Billions Of Dollars For Pork Projects In Pennsylvania While He Was In Congress.” (“2012 Presidential White Paper #4: Former Senator Rick Santorum,” Club For Growth, 6/6/11)

That’s just a taste of the laundry list contained in the note, with plenty more following. But the message from the Romney camp seems to be clear in two regards. First, they are absolutely taking Santorum seriously now, and the contest in Missouri ran up a big red flag as to what could happen if Newt changed his mind and bowed out, leaving Mitt in what would effectively be a two man race against the long dreaded, but never fully defined, single “Not Mitt” candidate. It wasn’t pretty.

Second, Romney knows that attacking Santorum from the left for being “too conservative” on any social issues would be an absolute disaster and very likely sink his chances. Rick also lacks the depth of “baggage” that Newt has, so it’s hard to claim he’s an easy target for Team Obama on that front. So his best – and possibly only – avenue of attack is to try to paint Santorum as a big spending, big government, earmark loving Republican who can’t be trusted to keep a tight hold on the national purse. Expect to see a lot of Romney cash dumped into precisely that message from now until Super Tuesday, as well as a highlight of the Feb. 22nd debate.

EDIT: (Jazz) Yes,that should have been Will Rogers. I guess I was just hungry when writing 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

So Santorum’s current promises that fly in the face of his past behavior are accepted?

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 10:23 AM

And Romney is asking us to believe that he will actually work to repeal Obamacare, which flies in the face of his past behavior.

BardMan on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

BardMan on February 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM

If you’re going to make that equation, at least factor in the fact that when faces with an 85% Dem legislature that was going to pass some version of Healthcare, no matter what he said or did, that he at least put in as many vetoes as he could and did his best, and probably succeeded, in steering away the conversation from a full-on Government Run-Healthcare, Single Payer system in Massachusetts.

In comparison, Santorum had a Republican President, House and Senate to work with, yet he never made so much as a peep when the Compassionate Conservatives deepened the government trough, and was actually one of the first in line for it.

When comparing putting up a struggle against an overwhelmingly liberal branch of government to jumping right on into the spending train, I’ll go with the guy who put up a fight.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

You’re backing a hardcore tax and spend liberal and you seem to hate social conservatives, so really, why don’t you go join the Democrat Party? Your views sound indistinguishable from theirs. You can feel so much more enlightened and moderate there!

Doomberg

Because “Social Conservatives” are a bunch of hypocrite liars. When you want government to be in people’s bedrooms and homes, you’re not conservative, you’re totalitarian. Thats why I stopped supporting the Tea Party. They went from “We want smaller government” to “We need government to make sure you live correctly”. I mean, WTF? No true republican should care who someone sleeps with, and no true Republican should care who someone marries. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you nor does it affect the populace. If you are worried about your families morals, then teach them what ever the hell you want. Thats not the governments job. If you think it is, then go ahead and be honest and support Obama forcing religious groups to sover contraceptives!

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Newt who?

Seriously, has anybody seen or heard from Speaker Happy Pants since Tuesday? It seems as if Santorum’s win has completely obliterated any mention of Gingrich.

Happy Nomad on February 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Hmm.

New poll shows Gingrich leads Romney in Oklahoma – Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Mr. Gingrich finished the poll with 34 percent of the votes, trailed by Mr. Romney at 31 percent.

After winning two caucuses and a primary election Tuesday, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum finished the poll in a distant third place with 16 percent of the votes. Mr. Santorum is trailed in the poll by Texas congressman Ron Paul who finished with 10 percent of the votes.

An interesting aspect of the poll is that the majority of Oklahoma Republican voters who said they will “definitely” vote in the Oklahoma Republican primary election chose Mr. Gingrich. Those voters who stated that they will “probably” vote in the election chose Mr. Romney.

Gingrich hopes high road, new funds can save him -Associated Press – 7 hrs ago

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

KickandSwimMom on February 9, 2012 at 10:19 AM

What’s up with the positive post for this candidate. Are you out of your mind? You can’t do this at Hot Air—it’s not normal. /

Rovin on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM

No, but seriously, if you don’t think that even with the resistance Romney did put up against the Democratic Legislature in Mass (800+ vetoes), his expert handling of the Utah Winter Olympics or his rather dynamite business record, that he wouldn’t be at least somewhat preferable to the Compassionate Conservative incarnate in this race that is Rick Santorum, then you do fail.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I’m supposed to be impressed by Romney’s resistance followed by capitulation? I’m supposed to be impressed by Romney’s equivalent of voting “present” tp preserve his credentials? I’m not. Romney implemented and signed into law center left policy in MA. He nominated center-left judges. He is a center-left statist and nothing that you can say will change that record.

I know you’re just a pimply faced kid, but come on, you need to grow up and get some perspective.

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM

So Santorum’s current promises that fly in the face of his past behavior are accepted?

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I think you need to do a little more research on Santorum’s record while in office. According to Quinn Hillyer’s piece in NRO the other day:

As almost any conservative will readily acknowledge, Santorum’s record of actually legislating on principle is stellar. Almost every conservative interest group rated him highly, with the American Conservative Union’s lifetime 88.1 rating for Santorum being typical. Yet those who buy into the media image of him as a saber-rattler without real effect haven’t looked at the real record. One doesn’t get chosen as Senate Republican Conference Chairman, the party’s third-ranking Senate position, if you can’t get things done and work well with others. He was a lead Senate author and floor manager of the 1996 welfare reform act, and the author of other successful legislation ranging from various anti-abortion bills to the Iran Freedom and Support Act. Those with longer memories will remember his leadership of the Gang of Seven in the early 1990s that did so much to publicize various ethics breaches in the House, helping set the stage for the historic 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.
Finally, conservatives heavily engaged in the wars over judicial nominations know that even though Santorum wasn’t on the Judiciary Committee, he ranked was one of the Senate’s two or three most stalwart, and effective, supporters of conservative selections, even when much of the rest of the Republican caucus didn’t want to be bothered.

KickandSwimMom on February 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Yeah. The whole Judeo-Christian system of ethics and values that our Founding Fathers drew upon to fashion our founding documents was all a bunch of baloney, wasn’t it? /

kingsjester on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Romney is in trouble. He’s like a ferrel cat trapped in a small room–attacking everything he can find and desperate to get out.

He needs to start talking about what he is for, and what he will do. He needs to defend capitalism, defend his record, and articulate conservative optimism. If he stays negative, he will lose.

p40tiger on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

When comparing putting up a struggle against an overwhelmingly liberal branch of government to jumping right on into the spending train, I’ll go with the guy who put up a fight.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Is that they guy who proudly worked with Ted Kennedy to implement a top-down government solution to minor health care solutions and mandate that everyone in his state enter commerce under the threat of government force?

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Santorum’s biggest weakness should be his absolute lack of executive experience – should be an immediate disqualifier especially given the current white house occupant.

Unfortunately the Romney hatred among “true conservatives” may just be great enough that they will be willing to repeat the mistake of electing someone without the necessary qualifications for the job.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I agree. I don’t know what sets Santorum apart as far as leadership goes, as he has no executive or private sector experience to lean on.

changer1701 on February 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM

You’re absolutely right about executive experience, however, Mitt is who Obama is waiting for, he’s the one Obama can beat the easiest. And if Mittens were to beat Obama, he has the experience to manage the massive government until the next progressive socialist takes office.

cartooner on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

feral

DHChron on February 9, 2012 at 10:34 AM

For now……This line of attack is just easy and expedient. They just haven’t quite figured out how to go about hitting Santorum on the social issues yet. These things must be done del- ic-ate-ly, or you hurt the spell.

lynncgb on February 9, 2012 at 10:28 AM

This is probably the truth, and they should be very careful about what attacks they use against Santorum. Going nuclear on Newt worked because everything used was basically true and just served to remind people what they really thought about him.

Reality is the Santorum’s negatives are probably less than Romney’s, and there is no “scumbag” preconception to reinforce like there was with Newt. He needs to attack him on substance, which is career politician with ZERO executive experience. Otherwise he will end up doing more harm to himself than Santorum.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Enlighten me. What reason did Santorum give for endorsing Arlen? I have heard him give two different reasons.

Paddington on February 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

BuckeyeSam on February 9, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Oh, I dunno, how about ’10th Amendment rights to the states to try out their own experiments, Massachusetts is an individual state with individual needs and, in a program I admit is somewhat flawed, has separate solutions for those needs than the other states because there are differences in demography and population’. Or, his basic defense.

cartooner on February 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Oh, I dunno, it was only 2002. Good election year for Republicans in general, with momentum much like 2010, which could allow center-right candidates to win in even left states. September 11th tended to have that effect on large swaths of the country, especially in the North East.

Other factors are abound of course, not the least of which being that the opposition vote was split between the Dems and a 3rd party but, well, that’s way too much information for your brain to hold. Best to just stick with the ‘ROMNEY’S A LIBERAL!!111!’ line, takes up so much less space.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

enlighten yourself…I’m too lazy

DHChron on February 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You know, I imagine that the half of Romneycare funded by federal tax dollars far exceeds the amount of earmarks Rick Santorum sought and has now regretted.

Oh, and Romney? No regrets – sorry – no apologies, as he puts it, for Romneycare’s money grab from the federal government. He thinks it’s downright conservative.

So spare me the histrionics, Mitt. You’ve cost me more money by far already at the federal level than Rick.

beatcanvas on February 9, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Funny, I and several polls would say the exact same thing about you.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM

“Polls”? You don’t even make any sense. How does a “poll” say anything? Especially about self-awareness? Instead of posting here 24/7, you should go get a job so you can buy a clue. Your lack of common sense and understanding of how the real world works is painful to observe. And, to be honest, I feel embarrassed for you.

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:37 AM

$10 if he said all the right things, thump the bible some, they’d vote for David Duke over Romney.

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:09 AM

How do you say it, “people won’t vote for a mormon because they are bigots, you are very revealing. Projection much.

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 10:37 AM

cartooner on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Right… and the polling bearing out that Obama will easily beat Mitt comes from where now? You can’t mean all the months of pre-Primary polling that’s shown Mitt within the margin of error/beating Obama/essentially tied, right?

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Well, which one is the Rino?

The guy with the 85% Dem legislature who’s biggest failing is not being able to stop them from implementing some form of Health Care Reform, or the guy who supported Arlen Spectre, spent 16 years feeding from the government trough, got union support and wants to invade everyone’s privacy?

Honestly, I can’t tell anymore.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Santorum is far from perfect. No one says he is. Newt’s not perfect either. And neither were Perry, Huckabee, Cain, Thompson, McCain, etc. Each and every one of them is more conservative than your man.

You are backing a liberty stealing and health care killing governor who was pro-abortion and a champion for gun control. Your guy appointed scores of Democrats to government positions and to the bench. He pandered to the homosexual movement and because he failed to take a stand, homosexual marriage became a reality in Massachusetts on his watch. He bought into the warming hoax and shamelessly said coal plants kill people while pushing his radical lefty environmental policies. He has bashed conservative candidates for their honest desire to deal with the entitlement tsunami that is headed our way and he does not understand the impact of minimum wage on the poor. He championed TARP, wanted to spend billions to reform the auto industry, and called for Keynesian stimulus.

He’s simply not a conservative.

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM

@RasmussenPoll #Ohio: #Obama Leads #Romney, Tied with #Santorum… http://t.co/J5RHtOlG

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Enlighten me. What reason did Santorum give for endorsing Arlen? I have heard him give two different reasons.
Paddington on February 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

SCOTUS confirmations. Period.

If not for that, he would have backed Toomey.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Wow, 24/7 huh? That’s funny, because I haven’t even been posting here for the past few days because, funny enough, I have a life. I’ve only been on the site for the past twenty minutes. Projection, perhaps?

As for how polls say something… you know, I’d ask if you were pretending to be an idiot or not, but then I think I already suspect the answer to that question.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Which candidate is this;

*Enacted a mandatory HC requirement for coverage, if not met would penalize the citizen w/a fine or prison.
*Required the catholic church to give out birth control which is against their moral foundation

If you guessed Obamasatin you are wrong, it was romneycare. What are we doing people!

Danielvito

Wow. Way to lie.
The legislature enacted the healthcare law and he tried to shape it as best he could. They already had the vast majority of people on insurance. Also you don’t go to jail. You’re taxes go up to an amount that is half of the premium of the lowest insurance.
Romney did not wake up one day and decide “Hey, the catholic church should give out birth control”. He was forced by law to implement it. In fact Romney VETOED having to force the catholic church to provide emergency contraception. That veto was over ridden by the legislature. I notice Santorum has peddled this lie as well.
I’ll assume the rest of your diatribe is as well researched as these two.

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Best to just stick with the ‘ROMNEY’S A LIBERAL!!111!’ line, takes up so much less space.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

He’s definitely a center-left statist. And working at the Olympics and in Private Equity doesn’t change that fact. And vetoing a bunch of bills doesn’t change that, either. What else do you have? How about some actually center to center-right policies proposed or implemented as governor? Nothing? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Romney implemented and signed into law center left policy in MA. He nominated center-left judges. He is a center-left statist and nothing that you can say will change that record.

I know you’re just a pimply faced kid, but come on, you need to grow up and get some perspective.

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Without Romney that center left policy would have been far left. Without Romney those center left judges would have been far left.

Perhaps you need to get some perspective.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

How do you say it, “people won’t vote for a mormon because they are bigots, you are very revealing. Projection much.

MontanaMmmm

Interesting you are injecting the Mormon part today. On your mind much? Bit revealing don’t ya think?

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM

So spare me the histrionics, Mitt. You’ve cost me more money by far already at the federal level than Rick.

beatcanvas on February 9, 2012 at 10:37 AM

tru dat canvas

DHChron on February 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I’ve only been on the site for the past twenty minutes. Projection, perhaps?

As for how polls say something… you know, I’d ask if you were pretending to be an idiot or not, but then I think I already suspect the answer to that question.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Really. I feel sorry for you.

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Romney is pro abortion how exactly?

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:41 AM

What’s up with the positive post for this candidate. Are you out of your mind? You can’t do this at Hot Air—it’s not normal. /

Rovin on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Heh! I love rattling the cages of some of these folks. A lot of the over-the-top screaming about Santorum is because he is a social conservative AND practicing Catholic. It reminds me of how people were afraid that if John F. Kennedy were elected the Pope would be ruling from the White House–which was a loud and persistent argument against him at the time. A lot of nonsense and drama.

KickandSwimMom on February 9, 2012 at 10:41 AM

A clue for Mittens. There is not a single House or Senate member who did not vote for ear marks. Not agreeing with the practice, just saying it was common practice to bring monies back to one’s district. And for the Rombut who gives his guy a pass because of the democrat legislature in Mass, Bush had too many Rinos to deal with in the Senate when the supposed majority was in place. What a lame excuse. When presented with fact; change them; a democrap trait.

democratsarefools on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Wow, 24/7 huh? That’s funny, because I haven’t even been posting here for the past few days because, funny enough, I have a life.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

whatever dork

DHChron on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Because “Social Conservatives” are a bunch of hypocrite liars. When you want government to be in people’s bedrooms and homes, you’re not conservative, you’re totalitarian. Thats why I stopped supporting the Tea Party. They went from “We want smaller government” to “We need government to make sure you live correctly”. I mean, WTF? No true republican should care who someone sleeps with, and no true Republican should care who someone marries. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you nor does it affect the populace. If you are worried about your families morals, then teach them what ever the hell you want. Thats not the governments job. If you think it is, then go ahead and be honest and support Obama forcing religious groups to sover contraceptives!

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

First, there is no “you” here. I’m not even a social conservative.

Second, your response has nothing to do with what you said earlier, which was that social conservatives would support David Duke as long as he “thumped some Bibles.” I think this is really how most Romney supporters view the Republican base and encapsulates why you guys cannot get the base to vote for you, and why primary turnout is starting to collapse.

Third, you’re repeating the myth that the Tea Party is a secret front movement for social conservatives. We’ve heard this from other Romney supporters too. The problem is that nobody cares about social issues: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

“Socons” did not hand Santorum his victory. The truth is the base loathes Romney, with very good reason, and is desperate to find an alternative – ANY alternative, even one like Santorum. You cannot run against the base, talk about how much you hate and despise the base, and then expect them to run to the polls to vote for you in November or in any primary election. Suppressing your own vote is an idiotic strategy.

Finally, I want to address one final comment:

I mean, WTF? No true republican should care who someone sleeps with, and no true Republican should care who someone marries. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you nor does it affect the populace.

Newt: Too much sex outside of marriage!
Santorum: Too little sex outside of marriage!

Doomberg on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Without Romney that center left policy would have been far left. Without Romney those center left judges would have been far left.

Perhaps you need to get some perspective.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Is that a reason to vote for someone? That is evidence of center-right bona fides? How? That just proves that he is not a far left statist. Ok, so that’s good. Now, how do you get from center-left statist to center-right or conservative? You know, where over half of the country is.

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I’ll granted Romney team that – Sen. Santorum’s CV is a target rich environment.

Archivarix on February 9, 2012 at 10:43 AM

When comparing putting up a struggle against an overwhelmingly liberal branch of government to jumping right on into the spending train, I’ll go with the guy who put up a fight.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Not much of a fight considering Ronald Reagan was able to govern from a conservative perspective and get conservative legislation passed with a liberal house and senate.

Face up to this fact: Both Santorum and Romney are managerial progressives and the fight between them is who will more efficiently manage the administrative state. Neither have anything in their records to indicate they are small government conservatives.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Santorum worked within the space and environment he found himself in. While he made use of this (with earmarks) in ways I do not condone nor support, he did not expand the scope of government like Romney did! An expansion of government power and long-term financial instability that ROmney defends to this day. That is a huge difference to many of us.

michaelo on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Newt: Too much sex outside of marriage!
Santorum: Too little sex outside of marriage!

Doomberg on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Mitt Romney’s grandpa: Too much sex partners inside of marriage?

Archivarix on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

whatever dork

DHChron on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

The irony of invoking Adam Smith while defending Romney’s governorship is striking, isn’t it?

beatcanvas on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM

So many talking points, so little time.

Really, I actually have to get going.

But to summarize a counterpoint, all I have to say is:

85% Democratic legislature in Massachusetts. You can either sit on your hands and let them force everything by you, or you can engage and at least try to shift the conversation away from their wet dreams to something at least minutely more preferable.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Santorum . . .has no executive or private sector experience to lean on.

Nonsense.

Santorum was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar, and practiced law for four years at the Pittsburgh law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.

In January 2007 Santorum joined the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a D.C.-based conservative think tank as director of its America’s Enemies Program focusing on foreign threats to the United States including Islamic fascism, Venezuela, North Korea and Russia.

In February 2007 he signed a deal to become a contributor on the Fox News Channel, offering commentary on politics and public policy.

In March 2007 he joined Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC, where he primarily practiced law in the firm’s Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. offices, providing business and strategic counseling services to the firm’s clients.

In 2007, he joined the Board of Directors of Universal Health Services, a hospital management company based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

He also began writing an Op/Ed column, “The Elephant in the Room”, for the The Philadelphia Inquirer. In 2010 he was paid $23,000 by The Philadelphia Inquirer for his work as a freelance columnist.

Emperor Norton on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

The romneycare LIEING dogs are again saying it was the democratic legislature not him that wanted romneycare. This from wikipeda;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

“In November 2004, political leaders began advocating for major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured”

So in 2004, the democrat wanted to cover half and a few days later romneycare PROPOSES HIS PLAN TO COVER EVERYONE!

Will the Mittbots stop lieing, your embarrassing yourselves!

Danielvito on February 9, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You’re absolutely right about executive experience, however, Mitt is who Obama is waiting for, he’s the one Obama can beat the easiest. And if Mittens were to beat Obama, he has the experience to manage the massive government until the next progressive socialist takes office.

cartooner on February 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I don’t believe that’s the case at all. Out of this field, Romney is the only one with the organization and the funding to compete effectively with the One. Yes, Santy or Newt would have the RNC backing them as well as outside groups, and their fundraising would pick up if they become the nominee, but they’d be at a decided disadvantage as far as that goes. That, in particular, will allow Obama to introduce Santy to voters as the wild-eyed extremist who wants to allow states to ban contraception and outlaw homosexuality. His lack of name recognition is helpful to a certain extent, but only if he has the means to set the narrative and introduce himself before the other side can. And he simply doesn’t.

@RasmussenPoll #Ohio: #Obama Leads #Romney, Tied with #Santorum… http://t.co/J5RHtOlG

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM

As has been mentioned before, Santy has had the benefit of not attracting a lot of negative attention throughout this process. That will change, and I doubt those numbers will hold up.

changer1701 on February 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Reality is the Santorum’s negatives are probably less than Romney’s, and there is no “scumbag” preconception to reinforce like there was with Newt. He needs to attack him on substance, which is career politician with ZERO executive experience. Otherwise he will end up doing more harm to himself than Santorum.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

By refusing to offer positive and conservative policy prescriptions and merely going nuclear on his opponents (often from the left, especially on entitlements and free speech), there is a perceived “scumbag” in the Romney v. Santorum dustup and it’s not Santorum.

So, center-left statist executive experience is going to be the determinative factor in who is selected as the GOP nominee? Sounds like we’re going to have European style political options before we enter European style entitlement/fiscal disaster.

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Aw, jeeezz …

I was so sure that Mitt was gonna start telling us why we should support him, instead of even more of this “the-other-candidate-is-a-dangerous-morally-compromised-piece-of-crap” routine.

Mitt, I’ve already seen this movie … coupla times, for that matter …

RedPepper on February 9, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Marco Rubio killing it at CPAC right now.

http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-cpac-2012-live-stream/

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Without Romney that center left policy would have been far left. Without Romney those center left judges would have been far left.

Perhaps you need to get some perspective.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

At least you are being honest. I respect that. He is a conservative managerial progressive. He will efficiently manage the progressive administrative state. Nothing in his record indicates he will rise up to the occasion to try and slay leviathan. Eventually the last lender will say no and then what?

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Jonah needs to get out and talk to a different set of conservatives in a different part of the country if that is what he honestly believes. No Republican candidate in my lifetime has stirred up revulsion like Romney.

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM

You forgot about McLame.

jistincase on February 9, 2012 at 10:49 AM

85% Democratic legislature in Massachusetts. You can either sit on your hands and let them force everything by you, or you can engage and at least try to shift the conversation away from their wet dreams to something at least minutely more preferable.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

That’s all nice and dandy, but it doesn’t actually demonstrate any inclination to center-right or conservative policy. Nothing in his record does. The way that he discusses the free market doesn’t; the way that he discusses entitlements doesn’t; the way that he discusses minimum wage doesn’t; the way that he discusses taxes doesn’t; the way that he discusses the safety net doesn’t. So why do you think he is? Foolishness.

besser tot als rot on February 9, 2012 at 10:49 AM

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Romney is pro abortion how exactly?

We all know he was pro-abortion for years, just as his mother was, but then he supposedly converted to pro-life (as he was pivoting toward the national scene). But after his so-called conversion to life, he came out and said it was the “right thing to do” to force Catholic hospitals to dispense morning-after abortion pills. So not only did he fail to do what he should have done (take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary) he said it was the “right thing to do.”

He is an immoral hack.

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 10:49 AM

“Buy this, or go to Jail”

-Governor Mitt Romney

GAME OVER MITT.

portlandon on February 9, 2012 at 10:50 AM

beatcanvas on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

yes, I’m sure the father of capitalism is a big mittens fan

DHChron on February 9, 2012 at 10:51 AM

First, there is no “you” here. I’m not even a social conservative.

Second, your response has nothing to do with what you said earlier, which was that social conservatives would support David Duke as long as he “thumped some Bibles.” I think this is really how most Romney supporters view the Republican base and encapsulates why you guys cannot get the base to vote for you, and why primary turnout is starting to collapse.

Third, you’re repeating the myth that the Tea Party is a secret front movement for social conservatives. We’ve heard this from other Romney supporters too. The problem is that nobody cares about social issues: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

“Socons” did not hand Santorum his victory. The truth is the base loathes Romney, with very good reason, and is desperate to find an alternative – ANY alternative, even one like Santorum. You cannot run against the base, talk about how much you hate and despise the base, and then expect them to run to the polls to vote for you in November or in any primary election. Suppressing your own vote is an idiotic strategy.

Finally, I want to address one final comment:

I mean, WTF? No true republican should care who someone sleeps with, and no true Republican should care who someone marries. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you nor does it affect the populace.

Newt: Too much sex outside of marriage!
Santorum: Too little sex outside of marriage!

Doomberg

Hahahaha, full on denial mode. Yeah Tea Party backed winners like Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell because of their vast executive experience? Um, no.
And then its the “Well to show the Tea Party hasn’t gotten preachy, I’ll show a poll of all americans”. Um, yeah. Not all americans are tea partiers (I would vinn diagram for ya to make it easier if this site allowed.). My point with David Duke was socons would support anyone who acted right. If you’d prefer, American families value associations would endorse a serial adulterer if he said the right things.
Also, I’m not the one who put a diatribe against gay marriage on the front of my home page. I’m not the one listing gay marriage as my #2 issue. Rick Santorum on the other hand….

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Without Romney that center left policy would have been far left. Without Romney those center left judges would have been far left.

Perhaps you need to get some perspective.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

This. I swear, some Republicans have no clue how many states in this country work. They think that because they live in a state where Republicans can win, and do whatever they want after because Republicans control the state legislature, that every state is like that.

People dont get what it is like to be a Republican in states where if in 20 years you vote for a winning candidate, you should consider yourself lucky.

And the Republicans that can win in those states are not Republicans that win in states like Georgia or Kentucky.

Moreover, even if Republicans win in those states, they have to deal with a legislature that is overwhelmingly Democrat. So, to govern, they have to compromise. And in Romney’s state, the legislature was 85% Democrat, which meant that without compromise, nothing would get done.

So, Romney might not have created a healthcare reform bill that he would have loved, but he needed to negotiate with a Democratic legislature to get it passed, which moved it to the left. But without Romney, it would have been a lot more progressive.

Sorry for the long post, but it really seems like many people from more conservative states fail to comprehend those points.

milcus on February 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Jonah needs to get out and talk to a different set of conservatives in a different part of the country if that is what he honestly believes. No Republican candidate in my lifetime has stirred up revulsion like Romney.

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM

You forgot about McLame.

jistincase on February 9, 2012 at 10:49 AM

While it’s true that McCain stirred up revulsion among a lot of us, many people gave him credit for his service to the nation and his years as a POW. Bob Dole got a lot of the same credit. Because of their personal sacrifices, both men were, and remain, respected in a way Romney will never be.

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Because “Social Conservatives” are a bunch of hypocrite liars. When you want government to be in people’s bedrooms and homes, you’re not conservative, you’re totalitarian. Thats why I stopped supporting the Tea Party. They went from “We want smaller government” to “We need government to make sure you live correctly”. I mean, WTF? No true republican should care who someone sleeps with, and no true Republican should care who someone marries. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you nor does it affect the populace. If you are worried about your families morals, then teach them what ever the hell you want. Thats not the governments job. If you think it is, then go ahead and be honest and support Obama forcing religious groups to sover contraceptives!

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Me thinks you are no Tea Partier, or Republican for that matter.

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 10:53 AM

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

do ya havta go…do ya havta!

DHChron on February 9, 2012 at 10:54 AM

We all know he was pro-abortion for years, just as his mother was, but then he supposedly converted to pro-life (as he was pivoting toward the national scene). But after his so-called conversion to life, he came out and said it was the “right thing to do” to force Catholic hospitals to dispense morning-after abortion pills. So not only did he fail to do what he should have done (take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary) he said it was the “right thing to do.”

He is an immoral hack.

flyfisher

Too easy. Knew you’d just repeat Santorum’s lie about it. What did Romney actually do about the Catholic Church and contraception? He vetoed the legislation. Yep, Romney is so pro abortion that he said “no” to forcing the catholic church to give out contraception. The Massachusetts legislature overrode his veto. Romney was left with no choice. He as the governor of Massachusetts had to follow the law.

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:55 AM

That quote would be from Will Rogers, not Roy Rogers. But then, Will Rogers never met Barack Obama.

pdigaudio on February 9, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Marco Rubio killing it at CPAC right now.

http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-cpac-2012-live-stream/

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Thanks Duh! (and for the other one).

KOOLAID2 on February 9, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Me thinks you are no Tea Partier, or Republican for that matter.

MontanaMmmm

Because I believe government has no place in peoples home? Me thinks you’re no American, probably Chinese.

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:57 AM

“That’s just a taste of the laundry list contained in the note, with plenty more following. But the message from the Romney camp seems to be clear in two regards. First, they are absolutely taking Santorum seriously now, and the contest in Missouri ran up a big red flag as to what could happen if Newt changed his mind and bowed out, leaving Mitt in what would effectively be a two man race against the long dreaded, but never fully defined, single “Not Mitt” candidate. It wasn’t pretty.” – Jazz

Good Golly, Miss Molly!
(cue Little Richard, one of the “mud people” – (Blacks) according to the “LDS”)
Mittens is using the same tactics he used to force out of the SLC Olympics his fellow “jack-mormons” who are only focused upon that which enriches them. It’s a long and sordid tale of misery, murder, and corruption.
(some of us have kept up with such sordid tales)

Hmmmmmmmm … It seems as though I’ve seen this picture previously as I spent most of my life living in Mormon-Lite country – Arizona.
“The Bible Belt” (lived and worked there too) would rather vote for a Catholic and not a Mormon? Here’s my shocked face:
(and no, i have no financial interest in e-trade)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqVBKO_QM3o

Mittens is a fraud. Period.
(what’s good for ME may not be good for THEE)

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 9, 2012 at 10:58 AM

and still NOT the blueprint for 0bamacare….

Branch Rickey on February 9, 2012 at 11:00 AM

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Romney is pro abortion how exactly?

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:41 AM

That’s all you got out of that whole post? Take the blinders off dude! And yes, saying what he did when gov was the same as being pro abortion but that is an inconvenient fact for a Mitt supporter.

jistincase on February 9, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Too easy. Knew you’d just repeat Santorum’s lie about it. What did Romney actually do about the Catholic Church and contraception? He vetoed the legislation. Yep, Romney is so pro abortion that he said “no” to forcing the catholic church to give out contraception. The Massachusetts legislature overrode his veto. Romney was left with no choice. He as the governor of Massachusetts had to follow the law.

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:55 AM

I did not repeat any lie. I know the precise sequence of events. When it was all said and done, he came out and said it was the “right thing to do.” Even if he was out of options to prevent, he did not have to say that it was “right.”

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 11:03 AM

going so far as to borrow a quote from Roy Rogers, saying that Rick “never met an earmark he didn’t like.”

LOL That would be Will Rogers Jazz, not the Singing Cowboy, Roy. Trigger is insulted.

kenny on February 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Hahahaha, full on denial mode. Yeah Tea Party backed winners like Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell because of their vast executive experience? Um, no.

The Tea Party backed O’Donnell because Castle was indistinguishable from a Democrat, and because they didn’t have any other alternatives besides O’Donnell. It wasn’t because O’Donnell was a “social conservative.”

I didn’t really pay as much attention to Nevada as I did DE and AK so I can’t comment as much on that.

And then its the “Well to show the Tea Party hasn’t gotten preachy, I’ll show a poll of all americans”. Um, yeah. Not all americans are tea partiers (I would vinn diagram for ya to make it easier if this site allowed.).

That would be one thing, sure, but it shows that only 2% of Americans view religious/social/moral issues as the most important issue facing the country today. Are you telling me that these 2%ers have hijacked the entire Tea Party and Republican base? Is that seriously going to be the rallying cry of Romney supporters – “I am the 98%?”

The Tea Party is a loose connection of individuals from the Republican base who are worried about out of control government spending, have looked at Romney’s record and found it wanting, and who have been tarred and smeared by that candidate’s surrogates as extras right out of Deliverance. The bottom line is that Romney is actually suppressing his own vote. Get Chris Christie, get Paul Ryan, or even get Jeb Bush, but find some other establishment candidate to back (if you must have one) or be prepared to lose to Obama in November. It’s that simple.

Doomberg on February 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

At least you are being honest. I respect that. He is a conservative managerial progressive. He will efficiently manage the progressive administrative state. Nothing in his record indicates he will rise up to the occasion to try and slay leviathan. Eventually the last lender will say no and then what?

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Are you not old enough to remember the state of the SLC Olympics before he took over? He certainly rose up and slew the leviathan of international corruption that was the established culture of the Olympic games.

His success in the private sector did not come because of effectively managing the status quo. You don’t turn around failing enterprises without shaking things up dramatically, and pissing off a lot of people along the way.

Regardless of what you think about his time in Mass, it’s just ridiculous to fault him because he didn’t do enough. NOBODY could have done enough in that situation to please the people who want another excuse as to why they don’t like Romney.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

.No true republican should care who someone sleeps with, and no true Republican should care who someone marries. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you nor does it affect the populace

Except we don’t live in an ideal world where everyone is 100% responsible for their personal behavior.

So when you sleep with someone and contract an STD the populace may have to pay for the treatments if you aren’t self sufficient and or pay for the research on new antibiotics because they failed to use them correctly and contributed to the development of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains.

If you sleep with someone and a pregnancy occurs the populace will have to pay for it if you aren’t self sufficient. Two girls came into our pregnancy center last week. Guess what they aren’t self sufficient so they get referred to a state social service agency who signs them up for TANF, medicade and SNAP. Now what they did in the privacy of their own bedrooms affects the populace who has to pay for it. Your philosophy is quite narrow and doesn’t take into account unintended consequences.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Sorry, I guess someone already caught that Will Rogers misquote. Still funny though.

kenny on February 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Because I believe government has no place in peoples home? Me thinks you’re no American, probably Chinese.

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I believe that the Government has no place in peoples homes either, that is why I don’t believe in the government (state or federal)forcing me to purchase healthcare, you seem pretty upset this morning. Your swearing and making comments like the one above do nothing to earn any respect for your case.

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Mitt did not force Catholics to pay for the abortion pill. He stood with Catholics. This is the truth.

He did force everyone in Massachusetts into a crap health care system with Teddy the Immoral smiling away. This is truth too.

Branch Rickey on February 9, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Romney wanted to be an insider too, he just couldn’t make the cut.

29Victor on February 9, 2012 at 11:08 AM

“Buy this, or go to Jail”

-Governor Mitt Romney

GAME OVER MITT.

portlandon on February 9, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Why would you even post something like this? Maybe the better question is why would I even bother responding to it…

At least try and have some semblance of rational, intelligent, honest thought.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:11 AM

So attacking Romney is fair game…but Romney points out their record, and it’s horrific??!! Why, because a few d!pshits on this forum have anointed him the “true conservative”. Oh and because he loves Jesus and hates gays.

I hope Mitt pounds this whiny, union butt kissing, weasels ass to eternity.

xxessw on February 9, 2012 at 11:11 AM

So when you sleep with someone and contract an STD the populace may have to pay for the treatments if you aren’t self sufficient and or pay for the research on new antibiotics because they failed to use them correctly and contributed to the development of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains.

If you sleep with someone and a pregnancy occurs the populace will have to pay for it if you aren’t self sufficient. Two girls came into our pregnancy center last week. Guess what they aren’t self sufficient so they get referred to a state social service agency who signs them up for TANF, medicade and SNAP. Now what they did in the privacy of their own bedrooms affects the populace who has to pay for it. Your philosophy is quite narrow and doesn’t take into account unintended consequences.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Congratulations, you just made the case for Obamacare.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM

rOmNeY bLoWs

DHChron on February 9, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Enlighten me. What reason did Santorum give for endorsing Arlen? I have heard him give two different reasons.

Paddington on February 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

He went with the GOP establishment which wanted Specter and thought Toomey was too conservative and would lose a general election. And they were probably right, that year. Specter got more votes in PA than John Kerry did.

But Santorum should have to answer for the fact that Arlen Specter became a Democrat and provided the 60th vote for the Democrats in the Senate.

rockmom on February 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Romney wanted to be an insider too, he just couldn’t make the cut.

29Victor on February 9, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Yep. Loosing to Kennedy in Massachusetts was the best thing that happened to Romney. Kept him in the private sector so he is so much better prepared to be president now than he would have been had he been stuck in Washington all this time.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM

No true republican should care who someone sleeps with, and no true Republican should care who someone marries. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you nor does it affect the populace. If you are worried about your families morals, then teach them what ever the hell you want. Thats not the governments job. If you think it is, then go ahead and be honest and support Obama forcing religious groups to sover contraceptives!

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Sorry, but this is just stupid. Republican have historically cared about all that stuff from the very founding of the pary, so yes indeed they should.

The fact that this doesn’t fit into your worldview doesn’t give you the right to re-define what a “true Republican” is.

Now, you might mean that a “true conservative” feels this way, but that wouldn’t be true either. If it were it would mean that the Founding Fathers weren’t “true conservatives” because they cared about this kind of stuff too.

In fact, by your definition, “true Republicans” (or “true conservatives” if that’s what you mean) didn’t actually exist anywhere except in anarchist communes until about twenty years ago.

29Victor on February 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Yep. Loosing to Kennedy in Massachusetts was the best thing that happened to Romney. Kept him in the private sector so he is so much better prepared to be president now than he would have been had he been stuck in Washington all this time.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM

In Romneyland losing is WINNING! Truly a magical place.

His support of abortion, gun control and caping CO2 emissions helps him better understand his opponenets too, right? Because he thinks like them.

29Victor on February 9, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Because “Social Conservatives” are a bunch of hypocrite liars. When you want government to be in people’s bedrooms and homes, you’re not conservative, you’re totalitarian. Thats why I stopped supporting the Tea Party. They went from “We want smaller government” to “We need government to make sure you live correctly”. I mean, WTF? No true republican should care who someone sleeps with, and no true Republican should care who someone marries. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you nor does it affect the populace. If you are worried about your families morals, then teach them what ever the hell you want. Thats not the governments job. If you think it is, then go ahead and be honest and support Obama forcing religious groups to sover contraceptives!

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

This is patently untrue, and it is the same nonsense that liberals have been peddling for years in an attempt to justify any and all behaviors. And it’s why I am proudly conservative and think libertarians are just as dangerous as liberals.

No one lives in a vacuum. The behavior of one individual does affect other individuals. Going further and having society sanction behavior, such as gay marriage, ends up affecting society as a whole.

Our founders understood that our system of government and the society that they set up would fall apart quickly if there was not an underlying moral foundation. Without the “social conservative” issues, the economic ones that libertarians love to preach about are meaningless, because the country will cease to exist anyway.

Issues such as promoting a culture of death through abortion, assisted suicide, etc.; condoning patently unnatural and immoral behaviors through things such as gay marriage; eliminating morals and values from the education of our children in their schools; and promoting the destruction of the family through endless government hand-outs have done far more to contribute to the mess our country is currently in than has any amount of taxing, spending, or regulating that we rally against.

Shump on February 9, 2012 at 11:18 AM

But Santorum should have to answer for the fact that Arlen Specter became a Democrat and provided the 60th vote for the Democrats in the Senate.

rockmom on February 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Why should Santorum have to answer for that? Was he supposed to know that Specter would change parties?

KickandSwimMom on February 9, 2012 at 11:18 AM

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 10:53 AM

But what *is* it, then?

A moby? A Ronulan??
Or maybe just a Mitt-wit?

Number34 on February 9, 2012 at 11:20 AM

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I guess you believe that going from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 is ocean acidification also because the pH went lower. You are the one that pointed out he governed from a center left position. I don’t fault him for that. I agreed that that was accurate and commended you for your honesty. Romney ran as a progressive and governed as a center left progressive. If he were to win the white house he would be a competent conservative managerial progressive. Those are the facts on he ground.

I don’t happen to agree that a managerial progressive no matter how competent is what we need at this time in the economic history of our country.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Mitt did not force Catholics to pay for the abortion pill. He stood with Catholics. This is the truth.

Branch Rickey on February 9, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Yes what you said is true. He is not responsible for the actions of the courts or his legislature. But once it he was overturned, he came out and said this:

“In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

The courts did not force him to say it was the right thing, neither did his legislature.

To quote Terrence Jeffrey, “A true leader would have said: I will defend the First Amendment right of Catholics to freely exercise their religion — against those who would force them to participate in abortions — all the way to the Supreme Court.”

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 11:22 AM

In Romneyland losing is WINNING! Truly a magical place.

29Victor on February 9, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Oh please. The fact is his life and experiences were much different because he didn’t win the 94 senate race than they would have been had he won. Do you seriously want to argue that years spent in the senate are better preparation to be president than years spent in high level leadership roles in the private sector?

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:22 AM

It’s easy for those of us that live in solid red country to see that Romney is a weasel, that can’t be trusted. More than anything, his image will be his downfall. If Santorum is still in the race, when our primary comes up in may, I have no doubt that he will win this state in a landslide, and every other state connected to us, with the exception of Illinois. If Rick stays focused and doesn’t fall into Romney’s gotcha traps, he’ll keep cruising along and win big.
Romney is almost at a point, if not there already, where his money won’t matter and may end up hurting him more than helping him.

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Romney’s avenging angels attack Santorum as anti-gay bigot in 3…2…1…

Al-Ozarka on February 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Romney’s avenging angels attack Santorum as anti-gay bigot in 3…2…1…

Al-Ozarka on February 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM

The Rickophobes?

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Yes what you said is true. He is not responsible for the actions of the courts or his legislature. But once it he was overturned, he came out and said this:

“In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

The courts did not force him to say it was the right thing, neither did his legislature.

To quote Terrence Jeffrey, “A true leader would have said: I will defend the First Amendment right of Catholics to freely exercise their religion — against those who would force them to participate in abortions — all the way to the Supreme Court.”

flyfisher on February 9, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Only Rick Santorum and a bunch of evangelist aholes believe that a rape victim should have to carry a product of the rape to full term.

xxessw on February 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM

10 if he said all the right things, thump the bible some, they’d vote for David Duke over Romney.

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Because I believe government has no place in peoples home? Me thinks you’re no American, probably Chinese.

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Interesting you are injecting the Mormon part today. On your mind much? Bit revealing don’t ya think?

Zaggs on February 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM

You got me/ I was responding, to your thump the bible comment, I took your bait, and you took mine. I don’t give a fit about Romneys religion it’s his policies and demeanor that bother me.

MontanaMmmm on February 9, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Congratulations, you just made the case for Obamacare.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM

You have a pretty warped mind. How you got from me pointing out the flaws in his/her philosophy about non effects on the populace to it being a support for Romobamacare is a problem in you thinking. I don’t support 3rd party paying (government or private insurance) as beneficial to our health system. We need to revert to catastrophic insurance for true emergencies and we pay everything else out of pocket.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:33 AM

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Congratulations, you just made the case for Obamacare.
gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM

No, chemman made the case for ‘sexual discipline’.

Testosterone urges can and should be kept under control. If you just can’t, then THAT makes the case for having your testosterone removed.

But what do I know?
I’m just a Ned Fland . . . I mean Rick Santorum supporter.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Just saw this on Rasmussen. Ohio: Obama Leads Romney, Tied with Santorum. Ohio is a swing state, hmmm.

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM

The amount of shilling between the camps is weird. Romney and Santorum are both decent, hardoworking and relatively conservative folk.

And, as politicians, they both have their stinkies.

Deafdog on February 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I guess you believe that going from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 is ocean acidification also because the pH went lower. You are the one that pointed out he governed from a center left position. I don’t fault him for that. I agreed that that was accurate and commended you for your honesty. Romney ran as a progressive and governed as a center left progressive. If he were to win the white house he would be a competent conservative managerial progressive. Those are the facts on he ground.

I don’t happen to agree that a managerial progressive no matter how competent is what we need at this time in the economic history of our country.

chemman on February 9, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Rolling back every environmental regulation created since the beginning of time wouldn’t generate enough CO2 to acidify the ocean. Similarly there’s not enough any one person could do to “conservify” Massachusetts.

And I did not ever say that Romney governed from a center left position. I said he kept legislation more to the center than the far left where it would have been without him. And it’s impossible to say where things would have been had the legislature there not overridden the 800+ vetos he issued attempting to keep them even farther to the right.

Asserting that he would be nothing more than a “conservative managerial progressive” as “facts on the ground” is just ridiculous. His history in the private sector suggests otherwise, but I would never be so presumptuous as to declare any unknown future case as “facts on the ground”.

gotsig on February 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I’d rather have Ned Flanders than Mr. Burns.

Norky on February 9, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4