Will Santorum make the ballot in Indiana? Romney’s state co-chair to help decide

posted at 5:25 pm on February 14, 2012 by Tina Korbe

While Rick Santorum targets Michigan in a big way, a minor controversy brews in Indiana, where, yesterday, four voters filed official challenges to his candidacy, claiming that he fell eight signatures short in Marion County of the 500-signature-per-congressional-district requirement to appear on the ballot. An election commission will decide whether Santorum’s signatures are adequate — and that commission just happens to be chaired by Dan Dumezich, the co-chair of Romney’s Indiana campaign organization.

“I can be impartial,” Dumezich told the Indianapolis Star on Monday. “It doesn’t present a problem for me. Of course, if someone wants to argue [that he should step aside] I’d listen to it.”

The Election Commission will convene hearings soon to determine whether Santorum met the requirements for placing his name in contention for the 27 “pledged” GOP delegates to be awarded May 8. Another 17 unpledged delegates will round out the contingent for the June statewide Republican convention.

Dumezich, a former state representative who flirted with a 2010 U.S. Senate run to replace the retiring Evan Bayh, said he hopes to convene a hearing soon. “In my mind,” he told the Associated Press, ”I can always maintain my objectivity.”

The self-delusion here is rich, but Dumezich is also in a generally difficult spot: Unless he allows Santorum access, he’ll be accused of partisanship — even if the circumstances justify his decision. Far better to remove himself from this decision to avoid the suspicion altogether. If I were Romney, that’s what I’d want, too. If Santorum’s off the ballot in Indiana and Romney wins, Dumezich’s role in the decision will taint the victory. Santorum’s GOP competitors had already agreed not to challenge his name on the ballot anyway — albeit before he won in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado and established himself as an actual contender. Still, no candidate wants to be embroiled in ballot wars; they want to win fair and square.


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

It’s the only issue I have with Rick. But… that’s it.

You may see a single issue, I see many – and the most important to me.

But let’s be real. Either Obama or Rick/Newt/Mitt/Ham Sandwich will be facing the choice of either: 1) serious budget reform – and actually getting a budget passed! – and making enough tangible cuts and restructuring, or 2) kick the can down the road, increase spending, then force Congress to pass stiff austerity measures right when the REAL doomsday approaches. Which, because enough people will become dependent on the government, will cause riots, looting and anarchy not unlike Greece.

In different ways, either Rick, Newt, Mitt or the Ham Sandwich will be more likely to do option #2, even if they are dragged into it. The realities of how much we are in jeopardy financially will force Rick into reversing on earmarks anyway – he would have no choice BUT to.

And the universal opinion is that Obama will only do option #2

I don’t trust Santorum to do any sort of budgetary reform, even the easiest one, like cutting a bit on discretionary spending. I think his economic populist views are deeply ingrained in him – a similar situation to Obama. Mostly a product of his upbringing and the teachings of Catholicism. Entitlements? The man voted for the biggest expansion of entitlements in decades – and was a key actor in getting it passed – just a few years ago.

He’s defending earmarks even now. Why would he turn around once elected?

The Dems will never trot out someone that is a genuine moderate on a national scale ever again. And if they do, it would be along the lines of misleading the public enough to have them think that “he/she’s one of us!”

Come to think of it, that’s just what Obama did in 2008.

Myron Falwell on February 14, 2012 at 6:31 PM

True, but I wasn’t fouled by Obama because he clearly didn’t have the record of a moderate.

Cuomo and Boren have records that show they’re fiscally responsible. Of course, I wouldn’t call Cuomo a moderate overall – he’s the typical NY liberal when it comes to social issues.

Santorum on the other hand, has an Obama-lite record.

That’s why the choice would be easy for me.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Let’s see, didn’t Obammy force all the ppl who were running for the Senate seat he ‘won’ off the ballot,including the expected winner? Yep the mitt,er Obammy way.

angrymike on February 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I take it back! Bambi, who is a Paulnut, has posted an objectionable comment or two because she’s spamming. That however cannot be blamed on the eeeevil Romneybots (or whatever you want to call us).

It would be more effective to pick and choose a few points here and there, and then link to the site, but hey, that’s just me…

Buy Danish on February 14, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Bambi on February 14, 2012 at 6:31 PM

All that stuff you said is not nearly as bad as Romneycare and his flirtation with cap/tax (having John Holdren as an advisor on how to implement carbon caps in MA).

Mittens is wrong on the two biggest issues we now face.

And he’s gutless, won’t call Obama a socialist and is NOW supporting automatic min wage increases.

And being the Establishment pick should tell you all you need to know about Mittens.

LevinFan on February 14, 2012 at 6:45 PM

I am re posting this because it speaks volumes as to how many breaks the Romney campaign gave Santorum in Illinois. Once again, 600 signatures per district are needed, and this is what the Santorum folks collected:

Here is the breakdown of the 18 districts in Illinois and how many signatures the Santorum folks fell short. 600 per district are needed.

District 1: 348
District 2: 179
District 3: 120
District 4: 143
District 5: 724
District 6: 331
District 7: 516
District 8: 649
District 9: 209
District 10: 193
District 11: 130
District 12: 208
District 13: 94
District 14: 179
District 15: 261
District 16: 252
District 17: 182
District 18: 630

This is inexcusable for any serious national campaign. In my opinion the Romney campaign cut Santorum enough breaks. As you can see Santorum didn’t even come close here and the Romney folks dropped their challenge. From here on out the Romney team should just tell him , “Tough luck. Do your work next time”.

kurtd on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

LevinFan on February 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Look, I don’t agree at all with Joana’s analysis, but you’re no better by objecting to Santorum=Marxist while insinuating Romney is a Socialist. And you sound like a baby when you say, “are you trying to get me banned” – something she did not come close to saying.

Time for a general cease fire with these silly and unhelpful comparisons to Obama. Obama is off the charts dangerously bad on every single issue we face- whether it be social, economic, or foreign policy. Our candidates at their worst are on an altogether different planet in terms of differences. All this sort of “Obama-lite blah blah blah” talk does is make Obama look less malevolent in comparison. Hopefully that’s not your goal. It’s only the future of the Republic that’s at stake here…

Buy Danish on February 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM

kurtd on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I am a Santorum supporter, but if these numbers are correct, I’d have to agree with you.

Just Sayin on February 14, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Well I’ll be,
Bambi
And
Kurtd
Are really earning their keep.

angrymike on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Holy Crap. How many of you idiots know who you’re supporting?

Rick Santorum’s Voting Record is NOT CONSERVATIVE. IN fact, if you read through this list and you THINK Santorum is conservative AT ALL, you’d be a fool!

Don’t let Ed Morrissey mislead you into voting for a POSEUR:

Santorum was a serial earmarker, requesting billions of dollars during his time in the Senate, and not reversing his position on earmarks until he was out of Congress in 2010. As recently as 2009, Rick said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

Santorum voted for H J Res 47 Debt Limit Increase Resolution

Santorum voted to raise the national debt ceiling five times

Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands and thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere.

In fact, according to Club for Growth, “in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.”

Santorum voted for CAFTA, which removes duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations, resulting in nearly ALL textile companies leaving the South.

Santorum voted for Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (though he now says he will repeal it), which imposes job-killing federal regulations on businesses.

Santorum voted against the National Right to Work Act of 1995, which would have repealed provisions of federal law that “require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.”

Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill

Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill, which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed, allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed and repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.

Santorum voted to confirm President Bill Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.

Santorum voted for Medicare prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D, though critical of it now. It is the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson, which now costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities, according to Club for Growth.

Santorum voted in 1997 to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, “which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouse’s wrist,” according to a press release from Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights.

Santorum voted in 1999 for a bill “disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns … but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows,” again according to Dudley Brown’s release.

Santorum “came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate,” per Brown.

Santorum voted with Barbara Boxer in 2005 on the Gun Lock Requirement Amendment

Santorum voted for the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill and then flip-flopped and voted against it in S 1805 – Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill

Santorum voted against HR 2356 – Campaign Reform Act of 2001

Santorum voted for an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 that requires television broadcast providers to give their lowest rates to political candidates.

Santorum voted for HR 1 – No Child Left Behind Act

Santorum sponsored legislation to force companies to pay laid off workers benefits.

Santorum worked for an increase in funding big government programs like Head Start.

Santorum voted for taxpayer money to go to Pennsylvania families for their heating bills.

Santorum introduced and co-sponsored big government health-care bills.

Santorum voted for HR 796 – the protection of abortion clinics

Santorum actively supports the Global Fund, which was created by the United Nations to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but also “channels a large portion of its funds through Planned Parenthood’s affiliates around the world and through a British group Marie Stopes International (the largest chain of abortion mills in the UK, with 66,000 abortions a year.)… to operate in Cambodia, Fiji, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Burma, Kenya, Tanzania, and other countries,” according to the pro-life Gerard Health Foundation that provides millions of dollars to pro-life groups.

Santorum boasted of teaming up with Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton in his 2006 political ad for re-election to the U.S. Senate, which he lost to Democrat Bob Casey Jr. by the largest margin of victory ever for a Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania and the largest margin of victory for a Senate challenger in the 2006 elections.

Santorum opposed the tea party and its reforms in the Republican Party and conservative movement just a couple years ago saying, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party … to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”

Holy Crap!

http://race42012.com/2012/02/13/chuck-norris-trashes-rick-santorum/

mountainaires on February 14, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Well I’ll be,
Bambi
And
Kurtd
Are really earning their keep.

angrymike on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Facts are stubborn things little Mikey. I guess you believe in the liberal Jesse Jackson theory that says you don’t have to do your work to get on the ballot. Just whine and cry your way onto it. And I thought you folks were the “real conservatives”. So much for that.

kurtd on February 14, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Have not read through all the comments, but the few I read (the first ones) amazed me at their ignorance of Indiana.

Santorum had more than enough signatures for the ballot. One must get 500 per congressional district. Of which, he has all but Marion County (Indianapolis). They had claimed that he was short by 24 of over 700 submitted. His campaign came back and challenged 49 signatures that were deemed invalid mostly because the spouse of the other individual used “” in their address spot. These are generally okay, except in Marion County where even a Repub running for Governor had issues with I believe 17 sigs.

This is blatant politics. Period

PuritanD71 on February 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM

tl;dr
malclave on February 14, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I hate to sound really dumb, but what the heck?

Bambi on February 14, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Look, I don’t agree at all with Joana’s analysis, but you’re no better by objecting to Santorum=Marxist while insinuating Romney is a Socialist. And you sound like a baby when you say, “are you trying to get me banned” – something she did not come close to saying.

I never said Romney was a socialist so don’t put words in my mouth.

He’s a big gov’t corporatist. He has never and will never be a conservative. It’s the same garbage as usual. Both Bush’s were a disaster. Too many big gov’t programs. Before Obama, W spent more than any other President. And that’s what the Establishment wants with Mittens, more of that same nonsense.

I’ll fight to the end to get the most conservative person we can get and that’s Santorum.

Don’t get me wrong though, if Mittens gets the nomination I’ll even campaign for him since I know he’s NOT a Marxist. Just like I plugged my nose and voted for McLame.

If Mittens wins the presidency it’ll be b/c conservatives like me drag him across the finish line and I know we’ll be the first ones he’ll stab in the back. Still, I’d fight for him over Maobama, so you can stop making your assumptions.

Now the question goes back to you: why do you support a wimpy moderate in Mittens? I’ve seen you do nothing but bash real conservatives like Palin out of fear that she’d destroy Mittens.

LevinFan on February 14, 2012 at 7:04 PM

mountainaires: While I am not saying that Santorum’s record is necessarily conservative, I do object to obviously-biased sampling of his record.

If you want to convince me of a non-conservative voting record, tell me 100 votes ‘of substance’ (not in the ‘naming post office’ mold) that Santorum made, and then tell me what % you agree with.

Alternately, randomly select 5 of 20 important policies to conservatives, and then give me Santorum’s complete voting record on them.

Believe me, I’m fairly sure if you let me cherry-pick votes for ANY member of US Congress, I can make them look like a liberal.

Scott H on February 14, 2012 at 7:04 PM

http://race42012.com/2012/02/13/chuck-norris-trashes-rick-santorum/

mountainaires on February 14, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Nobody gets trashed by Chuck Norris lived long enough to tell about it.

Archivarix on February 14, 2012 at 7:05 PM

What are you going to try to have me banned??

Do you know what a Marxist is??? Obviously you don’t. You should apologize for lumping Santorum in the same boat.

Santorum’s record is a million times better than Mittens.

Romneycare alone disqualifies Mittens. First, it takes the issue off the table in the general election, the biggest issue. Mittens supports big gov’t run healthcare. His lame defense is that it was only at the state level. So?? Socialism is ok on the state level? It led to MA having the highest health care costs in the county, made the feds bail them out, and cost over 18000 jobs.

LevinFan on February 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I think that looking at his record on fiscal and economic issues, it’s fairly easy to see that there isn’t much of a difference between Obama and Santorum. I’ve explained why – and why I think his record is much worse than Romney’s (who at least vetoed dozens and dozens of spending bills); feel free to refute my points. I’ve been asking for people to point out what’s exactly conservative or even moderate on Santorum’s record on those issues for hours – so far the fews that have responded said “nothing”.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Mikey likes newt.
You ppl are expecting a Savior, I’m sorry Ron’s gone, but You ppl would have hated on Ronnie if now was then.

angrymike on February 14, 2012 at 7:07 PM

joana: Some of us do not only look at fiscal and economic issues. I understand you do not seem to care much about social issues, but that does not mean that others should not, either.

One point I would like to make is that you are comparing an executive (and their veto power) to a legislator. That in itself is a comparison worth making, but you seem to lose it in the mix.

I will say, though, that voting for any Democrat is utter foolishness. They are not beholden in any way to your vote, and they will pander shamelessly to their base in the same way that Obama does. Cuomo is no different from the rest in that regard. Remember that the Democrat party engine is a machine. To them, their parts are nearly interchangeable. It matters less to them which Democrat is in the WH as long as A Democrat is in the WH.

Scott H on February 14, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Santorum’s inability to collect signatures fills me with hope for his chances in November.

Mattpat11 on February 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I think that looking at his record on fiscal and economic issues, it’s fairly easy to see that there isn’t much of a difference between Obama and Santorum. I’ve explained why – and why I think his record is much worse than Romney’s (who at least vetoed dozens and dozens of spending bills); feel free to refute my points. I’ve been asking for people to point out what’s exactly conservative or even moderate on Santorum’s record on those issues for hours – so far the fews that have responded said “nothing”.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 7:06 PM

One of the things about this primary process that has grated so much is the absolute, black-and-white certitude that one candidate or the other was indisputably better than the others. That hasn’t been the case at all. Either a given candidate was reasonably conservative but personally flawed, or else he/she was politically flawed but personally acceptable.

Joana, you’ve obviously got an agenda, and that’s fine. It’s just not going to change any minds when you try to present someone like Romney as being even more conservative than GWB and angrily denounce anyone who disagrees with you. People aren’t buying what you’re selling, so maybe positivity and a general focus on electability would serve your purpose better.

Nom de Boom on February 14, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Speaking of voting issues, I wonder if this has legs:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/did-mitt-romney-commit-voter-fraud

“Did Mitt Romney commit voter fraud when he cast a ballot for Scott Brown in last year’s special election in Massachusetts? On Monday, one of his lesser known opponents for the GOP presidential nomination, Fred Karger, filed a complaint with Massachusetts state election officials alleging that he voted for Brown, as well as in other Massachusetts elections, when he was not in fact a resident of the Bay State.”

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 7:22 PM

I have been following Hot Air for years… just started commenting. The crap I’m reading this election leaves me feeling no hope for our country. The Republican Party/conservative movement is over I am convinced. The Marxists have won by helping us to break into a million pieces . To read the personal attacks on the candidates… and the commenters… is disgusting. I favor Romney; but any of them would be better than “The One”. Romney/Santo/Newt/Paul: none of them are Marxist or liberal. None of them are perfect conservatives either. The rhetoric on here is exactly what Obama & Axelrod and their ilk want to see. We have succeeded in assuring no Republican can beat Obama. God bless this beautiful country; I fear for our future.

PKinMI on February 14, 2012 at 7:26 PM

I think that looking at his record on fiscal and economic issues, it’s fairly easy to see that there isn’t much of a difference between Obama and Santorum. I’ve explained why – and why I think his record is much worse than Romney’s (who at least vetoed dozens and dozens of spending bills); feel free to refute my points. I’ve been asking for people to point out what’s exactly conservative or even moderate on Santorum’s record on those issues for hours – so far the fews that have responded said “nothing”.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I can’t take anything you say seriously when you put Santorum and Maobama in the same sentence. I can’t stand the RINO Mittens but he’s NOT a Marxist.

Wake up.

And Santorum was the floor leader as a Senator to pass welfare reform. I’d say that’s pretty conservative. He also fought for social security reform and the Syria Accountability Act. In fact, I’m not sure there’s anyone who’s stronger on national security than Santorum.

Mittens record is terrible. That’s why he’s not running on it and having his Superpac smear conservatives.

Also, as for their platforms Mittens has the most moderate ideas. Business as usual for taxation and will reduce the corporate tax to 25%.

Santorum will lower the rates to 10% and 28%. He’ll lower the corporate tax to 17% and 0% for MFG. He’s outlined a plan to cut $5T in 5 years.

Much more significant proposals unlike Mittens.

Again you should be ashamed of yourself for comparing Santorum to Maobama.

LevinFan on February 14, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Some of the Romney people have gone so far overboard with comments about Rick Santorum I have to wonder if they are using the talking points of the Romney camp.

No way can you compare Santorum to Obama — not happening. Rick Santorum never ran to the left of a Democrat for office or ran on the agenda that he was pro-choice in order to get elected Governor of one of the most liberal states we have. That belongs to Mitt Romney who is a liberal, moderate, or conservative based on the audience.

PhiKapMom on February 14, 2012 at 7:41 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-14/santorum-pitch-undermined-by-senate-loss.html

There’s another post for buy danish: see I can do it!

Bambi on February 14, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Romney – Ron Paul – Obama – Generic Democrat – Ham Sandwitch – Generic Republican – Rick Santorum – Newt Gingrich – Republican Candidate behind door number 3

From least desirable to most desirable and yes, I know how to spell sandwich.

astonerii on February 14, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I can’t take anything you say seriously when you put Santorum and Maobama in the same sentence. I can’t stand the RINO Mittens but he’s NOT a Marxist.

Wake up.

And Santorum was the floor leader as a Senator to pass welfare reform. I’d say that’s pretty conservative. He also fought for social security reform and the Syria Accountability Act. In fact, I’m not sure there’s anyone who’s stronger on national security than Santorum.

Mittens record is terrible. That’s why he’s not running on it and having his Superpac smear conservatives.

Also, as for their platforms Mittens has the most moderate ideas. Business as usual for taxation and will reduce the corporate tax to 25%.

Santorum will lower the rates to 10% and 28%. He’ll lower the corporate tax to 17% and 0% for MFG. He’s outlined a plan to cut $5T in 5 years.

Much more significant proposals unlike Mittens.

Again you should be ashamed of yourself for comparing Santorum to Maobama.

LevinFan on February 14, 2012 at 7:28 PM

But he was a floor leader to kill the efforts from the conservative wing of the GOP on welfare reform. He cut the establishment deal between Clinton and the moderate Republicans – that was his leadership, to pass the democratic approved “welfare reform” (how is it working?). Do you really remember that? People were appalled by the treason of Dole/Santorum. Buchanan and Forbes ran on it against Dole in the primary. Now it’s become a conservative achievement? You don’t get how bizarre that is?

The Syria Accountability Act? Look, you can just read my post and see why I don’t think there’s much of a difference between Obama and Santorum and why I’d vote for Democrats like Dan Boren or Mario Cuomo over Santorum without thinking twice. Mentioning the Syria Accountability Act is irrelevant for my argument. I mean, the bill was introduced by a Democrat and Kennedy, Reid, Biden, Boxer, etc, all voted for it. You know it’s bad when a guy was 20 years in Washington and his supporters are praising his legislative work by mentioning pieces that were sponsored and voted by all the ultra-liberal hacks in the Senate. At least Romney would veto bills. Santorum co-sponsored them with the liberals.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:11 PM

One of the things about this primary process that has grated so much is the absolute, black-and-white certitude that one candidate or the other was indisputably better than the others. That hasn’t been the case at all. Either a given candidate was reasonably conservative but personally flawed, or else he/she was politically flawed but personally acceptable.

Joana, you’ve obviously got an agenda, and that’s fine. It’s just not going to change any minds when you try to present someone like Romney as being even more conservative than GWB and angrily denounce anyone who disagrees with you. People aren’t buying what you’re selling, so maybe positivity and a general focus on electability would serve your purpose better.

Nom de Boom on February 14, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I couldn’t care less about selling anything. I never presented Romney as a conservative – as I said, I never voted for Romney, never called him a conservative, even voted for his primary opponents – but I think only religious freaks would consider GWB a conservative (because of his stances on gays, etc.). He certainly was no friend of fiscal and economic conservatives. My only agenda is to discuss the issues and express my point-of-views. I don’t have much positive to say about these candidates and I’m not going to lie.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:19 PM

I think that looking at his record on fiscal and economic issues, it’s fairly easy to see that there isn’t much of a difference between Obama and Santorum.

joana

Sure it is….if you’re drunk….or a dishonest hack. I’m going with the latter in your case.

xblade on February 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM

I think that looking at his record on fiscal and economic issues, it’s fairly easy to see that there isn’t much of a difference between Obama and Santorum.

joana

Sure it is….if you’re drunk…or a dishonest hack. I’m going with the latter in your case.

xblade

xblade on February 14, 2012 at 8:32 PM

I don’t have much positive to say about these candidates and I’m not going to lie.

joana

Why would you when Obama is your guy, lol?

xblade on February 14, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Who ends sentences with “lol”?

Do some posters think that if they keep calling me names – ugly, drunk, hack, Obama staffer, Romney staffer, nuts, etc, etc. – I’ll be intimidated and stop posting about how awful is Santorum’s economic and fiscal record and how his views on the role of government and personal autonomy are similar to Obama’s and opposed to those of conservatives?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM

From here on out the Romney team should just tell him , “Tough luck. Do your work next time”.
kurtd on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

This incompetence could be a negative ad all in itself.

LevinFan on February 14, 2012 at 7:04 PM

I never said Romney was a socialist so don’t put words in my mouth.

Okay. I apologize. He’s not a socialist he just acts like one. I read your comment too quickly and picked up on this sentence:

His lame defense is that it was only at the state level. So?? Socialism is ok on the state level? It led to MA having the highest health care costs in the county, made the feds bail them out, and cost over 18000 jobs.

+++

Now the question goes back to you: why do you support a wimpy moderate in Mittens? I’ve seen you do nothing but bash real conservatives like Palin out of fear that she’d destroy Mittens.

My problem with Palin has nothing to do with Romney – it waaaay predates anything to do with him. I think she gives great speeches but I loathe populism (it’s an emotionally-based, dangerous manipulation of the electorate). I hate it when the Left does it (Obama!) and I hate it when the right does it (Palin, Huckabee, et al, ad nauseum). I have long objected to her attacks on our candidates. I think she’s way over her head when it comes to strategy. I’m not impressed by her bromides. She has no background as a strategist yet she’s running around the country telling her eager beaver followers who to vote for. Now she’s doubled-down and is intentionally creating chaos with her “rage against the machine” and “hey, let’s have a brokered convention” tactics. This is exceedingly reckless and, gosh, is it unfair of me to infer it’s a self-serving move and she’s hoping we pick her?

Buy Danish on February 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Obama’s win for senate was purely based on eliminating his competition with legal challenges…and he won.
Mitt has learned from his master well…policies mean nothing, if you can find technical legal issues to challenge…

right2bright on February 14, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Romney is a problem solver. He is an expert at turning failing financial enterprises around. There is nobody better in the entire nation to be our next POTUS.

MJBrutus on February 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Being a good problem solver is only an asset if you’ve figured out what the problem is. Romney doesn’t think social security is a problem – it’s successful, he says. He doesn’t think the poor are a problem – just throw them some more bones, if they want it. He hasn’t proposed meaningful tax reform. I guess that’s not a problem either.

So what problems do you think Romney is going to solve? I’m actually concerned about his “fixes”. I think they may be worse than the original problems.

NbyNW on February 14, 2012 at 9:08 PM

eight signatures short? good grief. let the man on the ballot. it’s no big deal. if santorum isn’t on the ballot, we have romney to blame. isn’t it convenient that one of the people deciding works for him. wow.

Sachiko on February 14, 2012 at 9:45 PM

How much more evidence do we need that Mittens is…

a severely imperialist pr*ck.

He needs to drop out now. He’s destroying the GOP in one election cycle.

KirknBurker on February 14, 2012 at 9:58 PM

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM

They call you names because Romney’s record is by far ten times worse than Santorum’s…

and you know it.

KirknBurker on February 14, 2012 at 9:59 PM

tl;dr
malclave on February 14, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I hate to sound really dumb, but what the heck?

Bambi on February 14, 2012 at 7:04 PM

“too long; didn’t read”

Although, to be fair, it wasn’t just the length and the lack of formatting. If someone copies and pastes a wall of text like that, my eyes are pretty likely to just glaze over while I scroll down. A link and a summary, maybe a quote or two, and I just might head over to read the post being copied. Copying the whole thing into a comment just means it’s less likely to be read.

malclave on February 14, 2012 at 9:59 PM

malclave on February 14, 2012 at 6:42 PM

slickwillie2001 on February 14, 2012 at 10:57 PM

As a Santorum supporter, it doesn’t bother me that Rick won’t be on the ballot.

What bothers me is the refusal to accept WRITE-INS.
.
Does anyone here know if IN is like VA, on the subject of write-ins?

listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM

If Santorum’s off the ballot in Indiana and Romney wins, Dumezich’s role in the decision will taint the victory.

So the rules don’t apply to Santorum AGAIN?

Holy crap! If Santorum doesn’t have the signatures, then he’s not on the ballot. Period.

csdeven on February 15, 2012 at 1:16 AM

My problem with Palin has nothing to do with Romney – it waaaay predates anything to do with him. I think she gives great speeches but I loathe populism (it’s an emotionally-based, dangerous manipulation of the electorate). I hate it when the Left does it (Obama!) and I hate it when the right does it (Palin, Huckabee, et al, ad nauseum). I have long objected to her attacks on our candidates. I think she’s way over her head when it comes to strategy. I’m not impressed by her bromides. She has no background as a strategist yet she’s running around the country telling her eager beaver followers who to vote for. Now she’s doubled-down and is intentionally creating chaos with her “rage against the machine” and “hey, let’s have a brokered convention” tactics. This is exceedingly reckless and, gosh, is it unfair of me to infer it’s a self-serving move and she’s hoping we pick her?

Buy Danish on February 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM

well put…

lexhamfox on February 15, 2012 at 2:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2