Oh my: Kossacks launch liberal version of Operation Chaos

posted at 10:11 pm on February 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

They’ve hatched a diabolical plot to support the guy whom few people think is electable over the other guy whom few people think is electable.

Why would we do such a crazy thing? Lots of great reasons!

Republican turnout has sucked, and appears to be getting worse by the contest. Unlike the 2008 Democratic primaries, which helped President Barack Obama and the Democrats to build a national organization, the GOP is an organizational disaster, with waning voter interest. That means that it takes fewer votes to have an impact than if Republican turnout was maxed out.

Several of the contests have produced razor-thin margins of victory. Rick Santorum won Iowa by 34 votes, Mitt Romney “won” Maine by 194 votes. It won’t take many of us to swing contests the way we want them to swing.

The longer this GOP primary drags on, the better the numbers for Team Blue. Not only is President Barack Obama rising in comparison to the clowns in the GOP field, but GOP intensity is down—which would have repercussions all the way down the ballot.

The longer this thing drags out, the more unpopular the Republican presidential pretenders become. Just look at Mitt Romney’s trajectory, which followed Herman Cain’s trajectory, and Newt Gingrich’s trajectory, and Michelle Bachmann’s trajectory, and so on.

Their choice, of course, is Santorum, since he’s easier to demagogue on social issues and more poorly funded than Romney is. The first target: The increasingly important state of Michigan, which has an open primary. Rush pioneered this idea four years ago to drag out the Democratic primary by boosting Hillary when it seemed Obama had the Democratic nomination locked up. It might or might not have helped her; there’s some reason to believe that it did but no way to know for sure since Hillary was viewed as the slightly more conservative candidate head to head with O. She was more overtly hawkish than he was at the time (although that distinction has since faded) and she had the centrist cred Bill earned from welfare reform to make her arguably more appealing to moderates than Obama was. As such, it could be that Republicans were crossing over for her on the merits, because they thought she’d govern more like a third-way Democrat than Obama would if elected. We’ll have the same problem deciphering the results in Michigan if Santorum wins. Revisit the data I posted earlier from the CNN poll; RS is by far a more blue-collar populist candidate than Romney is. If he wins Michigan with help from Democrats, is that simple mischief-making by the left or rural, more socially conservative Democrats responding to a Republican who seems to understand the working class a lot better than Romney does?

Exit question: Why do we have open primaries again, anyway? Is there any reason to believe that the independent voters they attract remain loyal to the party in the general election?


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

Frivolous on February 16, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I’d bet Chief was referring to the book ChickenHawk comes from. It was a Viet Nam pilot. Says he had moments that he was terrified and moments that he managed to be brave. “I was a chicken, I was a hawk. I was a chickenhawk.”

smoothsailing on February 16, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Dr.Tesla is here as a member of operation chaos. When you read him pimping Santorum it’s because the left knows he’s a weaker candidate.

V7_Sport on February 16, 2012 at 12:51 AM

I see chickenhawkdriver went crying to his daddy…

Fine, have it your way, it IS your blog. Henceforth “evil liberal doodeyhead” will be the strongest thing I’ll use to refer to Obama.

MelonCollie on February 15, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Look, man, we got real issues with Obama and his marxist tyranny, yet to devolve the conversation, even in jest, to something having to do with shoe-shines and such only plays into the hands of our enemies. I am the least PC man who may have ever walked the face of the earth, but you never give your opponents such rich powder for their cannon. Stay classy, if that is in your wheelhouse.

TXUS on February 16, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Obama wants to run against Romney.
Here are the reasons:
* Santorum is the true conservative, Romney is not
* Romney takes Obamacare out of the discussion, Santorum does not
* Romney takes cap-and-trade out of the discussion, Santorum does not
* Romney takes individual mandate out of the debate, Santorum does not
* Obama will take Romney on healthcare
* Obama will take Romney on individual mandate
* Obama will take Romney on cap-and-trade
* Obama will take Romney on global warming
* Obama will take Romney portraying him as the 1%, the rich
* Obama will cast this election as the rich out-of-touch Romney
against Obama who stands up for the poor, as ridiculous as
that is.

Anyone who is putting forth the thesis that Obama wants to tangle with Santorum is absolutely wrong-headed!

Who excites crowds: Obama: yes
Santorum: yes
Romney : no

Who is passionate about his beliefs and can go toe-to-toe with Obama?
Santorum: yes
Romney : no, platitudes, “hope of the earth” blah blah, script-like

Santorum will hopefully be our nominee, and in November the tsunami that is going to hit Obama will be overwhelming.

Romney might be able to squeak it out against Obama, maybe not.
Santorum would kick Obama’s ass in November !
Landslide !

Mark7788 on February 16, 2012 at 12:58 AM

I gotta say this again: primaries are not all created equal and OpChaos means absolutely nothing in some states–like Pennsylvania and Illinois, for example. Not all states have open primaries and not all states allocate their delegates through the primary or on primary day or directly as a result of who wins the statewide vote.

Many states allocate delegates using a combination of statewide winner and proportionally according to winners by Congressional district. Some states vote for the delegates directly and the primary winner has nothing to do with allocation of delegates.

While PA and IL use the Loophole primary, PA is closed and IL is open. With the Loophole primary, the vote for the presidential candidate is simply advisory, called a “beauty contest,” and the outcome has nothing to do with who wins delegates. In these two large states, voters vote directly for the delegates to the convention within their Congressional districts but in PA all delegates run at-large, not committed to a particular candidate, while in IL the delegate may specify a candidate preference on the ballot but none are bound by law to support that candidate. And for many states I’ve read that delegates are bound to a particular candidate for only the first or second nominating ballots at the convention.

So please, wake up and be sure you understand how your state’s primary works bcuz the rules can be so different from state to state that what you hear and read in the media may not and likely is not the real story or the whole story.

stukinIL4now on February 16, 2012 at 12:59 AM

The longer this GOP primary drags on, the better the numbers for Team Blue. Not only is President Barack Obama rising in comparison to the clowns in the GOP field, but GOP intensity is down—which would have repercussions all the way down the ballot.

The longer this thing drags out, the more unpopular the Republican presidential pretenders become. Just look at Mitt Romney’s trajectory, which followed Herman Cain’s trajectory, and Newt Gingrich’s trajectory, and Michelle Bachmann’s trajectory, and so on.

Kos and Palin are on the same page.

They want to win elections; she wants to make money.

joana on February 16, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Santorum would probably hand the election to the dems and they know it.

i’ll rather run a campaign with businessman who is rich and out of touch vs former senator who wants to ban birth control.

that birth control issue is a killer for us…we will lose big.

TimeTraveler on February 16, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Santorum does not want to ban birth control, and he’s said that in the news, check your facts.
Santorum is against federal mandates on personal matters. He is against the feds over-reaching, dictating to the Catholic church.
You have to learn and understand the constitution, the 10th amendment to grasp this.
Which is worse, and Santorum is the only one who has the balls to bring it against Obama:

Debate:
Obama: Mr. Santorum, so you want to take away a woman’s right to birth control?

Santorum: No, not at all, I am pro-life, but I believe everyone has the right to contraception

Obama: Oh, I thought you said….

Santorum: Mr. Obama, did you work against a bill while you were a state senator which would have saved the life of a child that was born alive? A child that had manage to survive an abortion? To me that says you would let that child just die of neglect, alone, helpless?

Obama: I, uh….well, why should that mother be burdened with a pregnancy….I…..

(Santorum would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate)

Mark7788 on February 16, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Santorum would probably hand the election to the dems and they know it.

i’ll rather run a campaign with businessman who is rich and out of touch vs former senator who wants to ban birth control.

that birth control issue is a killer for us…we will lose big.

TimeTraveler on February 16, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Someone please show me where he is going to mandate a ban on all birth control, please? Not trying to be confrontational – but this is getting pretty tired.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Obama: I, uh….well, why should that mother be burdened with a pregnancy….I…..

(Santorum would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate)

Mark7788 on February 16, 2012 at 1:17 AM

I believe you meant to say “punished with a baby”.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 1:21 AM

They wanted Reagan to run against Carter

No they did not. Are you just making stuff up?

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 1:22 AM

I believe you meant to say “punished with a baby”.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 1:21 AM

His exact words were “Y’know uh, Imma teach my uh, daughters values & morals, but……….’f they make a mistake………………I don’t want ‘em punished…….with a baybeh!”

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Mark7788 on February 16, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Strange. If Obama wants to run against Romney, why are at least four of his PAC supporters – including SEIU and the DNC’s own – running ads exclusively against Romney? How does that make any sense?

Gingrich was surely their dream choice since he has been hated by independents and swing voters for nearly 20 years, one of the most consistently disliked political figures since they started testing politicians other than the President in polling. But Santorum also is an easy target to demonize, and also to energize the base, and perhaps even turn out the disillusioned young voters who’ve spent their lives in public schools “learning” how anyone not down with the entire gay agenda is a homophobe who wants to tie gay men to fence posts.

Adjoran on February 16, 2012 at 1:25 AM

His exact words were “Y’know uh, Imma teach my uh, daughters values & morals, but……….’f they make a mistake………………I don’t want ‘em punished…….with a baybeh!”

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Solid.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 1:27 AM

No they did not. Are you just making stuff up?

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 1:22 AM

No he’s not.

Bluray on February 16, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Mark7788 on February 16, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Noted. If you’re still here and posting next year I’ll be sure to remind you that you said that.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Hey, Libs? If you really wanted to screw us, why not support Romney? It’s what the Mainstream Media did. They knew what was up. You guys really need to work on your gameplan, I don’t think you know what you’re doing, here.

Also, a newsflash for the conservatives, here–you won’t be able to pick a single candidate that the MSM won’t try to dumb down to one issue, demonize, or mock for whatever reason, so if that’s your reason for opposing Santorum then you need to rethink your logic because that’s stupid. This is McCain all over again. “Oh, oh, we need a guy that the MSM will love!!!” Yeah, how did that work out last time, guys?

I’m not saying that Santorum is a perfect conservative, but at least he doesn’t plan to keep government-run health care around and at least he isn’t heaping undeserved praise on Barack Obama.

R. Waher on February 16, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Yep, his supporters have all the charm and persuasive ability of Bill Maher with rabies, and Mitt’s election strategy shows that it’s no accident. No wonder he’s winning friends and influencing people in the Republican electorate.

ebrown2 on February 16, 2012 at 12:16 AM

There are no Romney supporters. There are only abrasive people pretending to be Romney supporters to drive those away from Romney. These are people who are motivated by outside forces rather than internal values. Judging by the amount of folks who wont vote for Romney because of his supporters, the technique has found a target rich environment.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 1:45 AM

Obama wants to run against Romney.
Here are the reasons:
* Santorum is the true conservative, Romney is not
* Romney takes Obamacare out of the discussion, Santorum does not
* Romney takes cap-and-trade out of the discussion, Santorum does not
* Romney takes individual mandate out of the debate, Santorum does not
* Obama will take Romney on healthcare
* Obama will take Romney on individual mandate
* Obama will take Romney on cap-and-trade
* Obama will take Romney on global warming
* Obama will take Romney portraying him as the 1%, the rich
* Obama will cast this election as the rich out-of-touch Romney
against Obama who stands up for the poor, as ridiculous as
that is.

These are all valid points – and precisely the reason why I can’t get behind Romney in this primary. Mitt takes so much off the table when campaigning against 0bama…his rallies will basically be “Vote for Mitt – he’s alright!”

Anyone who is putting forth the thesis that Obama wants to tangle with Santorum is absolutely wrong-headed!

Who excites crowds: Obama: yes
Santorum: yes
Romney : no

Who is passionate about his beliefs and can go toe-to-toe with Obama?
Santorum: yes
Romney : no, platitudes, “hope of the earth” blah blah, script-like

Santorum will hopefully be our nominee, and in November the tsunami that is going to hit Obama will be overwhelming.

Romney might be able to squeak it out against Obama, maybe not.
Santorum would kick Obama’s ass in November !
Landslide !

Mark7788 on February 16, 2012 at 12:58 AM

I am not there yet with Santorum. The “safe” play of nominating Mitt could simply be to put someone on the ballot who is not named Barack Obama and then try to make it 100% referendum on Obama. Not saying it’s the right move – but not ready to say it’s the wrong move yet either.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Obama would destroy Santorum. The man is a goober.

scotash on February 16, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Yep, his supporters have all the charm and persuasive ability of Bill Maher with rabies, and Mitt’s election strategy shows that it’s no accident. No wonder he’s winning friends and influencing people in the Republican electorate.

ebrown2 on February 16, 2012 at 12:16 AM

There are no Romney supporters. There are only abrasive people pretending to be Romney supporters to drive those away from Romney. These are people who are motivated by outside forces rather than internal values. Judging by the amount of folks who wont vote for Romney because of his supporters, the technique has found a target rich environment.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 1:45 AM

You’ve noticed that too, eh? And his campaign style is not much different than his supporters style. Always ready to look down their nose and call you stupid for considering a vote for anyone other than Mittens. Mitt, his campaign, and his supporters remind me a lot of…well…Democrats.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Obama would destroy Santorum. The man is a goober.

scotash on February 16, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Well, that settles that. Who can argue with such sound logic?

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 1:58 AM

Their choice, of course, is Santorum, since he’s easier to demagogue on social issues and more poorly funded than Romney is.

Duh. What have I been saying all along. They DON’T want to face Romney in the general.

CAUTION: Those afflicted with anti-Romney paranoia become useful idiots who carry water for the Left and serve Obama’s agenda.

cicerone on February 16, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Hey, Libs? If you really wanted to screw us, why not support Romney?

Yes, why aren’t they? Hmmm…

It’s what the Mainstream Media did. They knew what was up. You guys really need to work on your gameplan, I don’t think you know what you’re doing, here.

Well that’s one way of looking at it.

Also, a newsflash for the conservatives, here–you won’t be able to pick a single candidate that the MSM won’t try to dumb down to one issue, demonize, or mock for whatever reason,

Duh. That is news to no one.

so if that’s your reason for opposing Santorum

It’s not but that is a very nice strawman you just built there.

then you need to rethink your logic because that’s stupid. This is McCain all over again. “Oh, oh, we need a guy that the MSM will love!!!” Yeah, how did that work out last time, guys?

And what’s the point of building a strawman if you’re not going to knock it down?

I’m not saying that Santorum is a perfect conservative,

I will say that’s the Understatement of the Day.

but at least he doesn’t plan to keep government-run health care around

None of our four remaining candidates do.

and at least he isn’t heaping undeserved praise on Barack Obama.

R. Waher on February 16, 2012 at 1:41 AM

I assume that’s a shot at Romney’s refusal to launch a personal attack on a president who is still personally liked. We’re facing some of the same challenges the Democrats did in 2004 where the incumbent had some unpopular policies but wasn’t disliked as a person.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/jan/29/voters-dont-elect-people-they-dont-like/

People don’t like it when you’re mean to someone they like. For some reason people like Barack Obama. It’s a loser politically right now to scream into a camera that the Bamster is a dangerous anti-American socialist who hates this country as it was founded, and so Mitt won’t go there. None of our guys should. Us being critical of them for not isn’t the best use of our time.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 2:34 AM

I assume that’s a shot at Romney’s refusal to launch a personal attack on a president who is still personally liked.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 2:34 AM

Last time someone used that logic in an election – we heard our candidate say “you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency”. How’s that working out for us?

I’m not saying Romney isn’t the right guy here – but just saying there are some REAL valid concerns people have with him.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 2:53 AM

People don’t like it when you’re mean to someone they like. For some reason people like Barack Obama. It’s a loser politically right now to scream into a camera that the Bamster is a dangerous anti-American socialist who hates this country as it was founded, and so Mitt won’t go there. None of our guys should. Us being critical of them for not isn’t the best use of our time.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 2:34 AM

This….+ millions. Adults understand the value of statesmanship and avoid school yard taunts that always have to be walked back. Even then, you cannot un-ring a bell.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Exit question: Why do we have open primaries again, anyway? Is there any reason to believe that the independent voters they attract remain loyal to the party in the general election?

Why indeed? They need to be replaced with closed primaries across the board. If you can’t be bothered to pick a side, then it shouldn’t bother you that you can’t help pick a candidate for the side that you didn’t pick.

Open primaries are just another way in which the game is rigged in favor of the liberals (just like caucuses and “no-I.D.” voting).

Theophile on February 16, 2012 at 3:01 AM

Last time someone used that logic in an election – we heard our candidate say “you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency”. How’s that working out for us?

I’m not saying Romney isn’t the right guy here – but just saying there are some REAL valid concerns people have with him.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 2:53 AM

Romney’s comment was that Obama was a nice guy that is in over his head, has failed miserable at governing, and has no ability to fix the economy.

In my view, that is the total opposite of “you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency”.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 3:13 AM

Last time someone used that logic in an election – we heard our candidate say “you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency”. How’s that working out for us?

I’m not saying Romney isn’t the right guy here – but just saying there are some REAL valid concerns people have with him.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 2:53 AM

You’ve set up a false dilemma. In 2008 the media set a trap and McCain charged into in head first but the fact McCain gave everyone permission to vote for Obama does not mean we need to scream “ANTI-COLONIALIST SECRET KENYAN MUSLIM TRAITOR!” There is plenty of room between the mistake McCain made and the pure red meat arch-conservatives will eat up but will turn off moderately engaged voters.

The trick then is to call Obama an idiot without using the words so we still seem like people you would want to pal around with. Reagan was the master of this; recall the line in the Goldwater speech “The trouble with our liberal friends isn’t that they’re ignorant, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so.” With Obama, I don’t know, maybe instead of calling him a black separatist Marxist you could say he’s trying but that he’s in over his head. By saying that you’re still making it clear that you can’t vote for him but you’re doing it without getting personal and turning people off.

And you’ll get no argument from me that there aren’t a ton of real, valid concerns about Mitt Romney. I keep trying to force myself to like the guy but every time I get close he goes out and says something about indexing the minimum wage to inflation. Seriously though, if we’re trying to note all of the reasons not to like Romney, “Doesn’t personally insult Obama,” shouldn’t even be mentioned. It’s actually one of his positives that he is smart enough not to do that.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 3:32 AM

Currently, Romney is garnering the most money from Wall Street (more than Obama) and where else will the money come from? If Santorum ends up as the GOP nominee, it’s a sure bet that the Wall Street money will stop and begin to funnel back to Obama. Wall Street supports Romney due to his business experience but will switch back to Obama if it looks like he will win. Like it or not, big money makes a big difference and it will take big money to beat Obama. A constant saturation of TV and radio ads reminding Americans about Obama failures is what will win the Whitehouse for the GOP. You know darn well the left will throw eveything they have at the GOP nominee and Romney as the nominee will be the only GOPer that can get close to what Obama will have in the money department.

BabysCatz on February 16, 2012 at 3:47 AM

With Obama, I don’t know, maybe instead of calling him a black separatist Marxist you could say he’s trying but that he’s in over his head.

See, this is the problem people have with the mushy middle right now. What you say is factually incorrect. He’s not in over his head…as evidenced by the contraception issue last week, he is intentionally changing the dynamic between gov’t and citizen…and doing a fine job with it. So to soften it to “gosh golly he’s tryin ril hard” is disingenuous and the base knows it…and as we saw last election, it doesn’t resonate w/ undecideds. You give him credit for trying to maintain our system of governance that we’ve had for the last 200 years…which is FAR more than he deserves credit for.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 3:51 AM

Santorum does not want to ban birth control, and he’s said that in the news, check your facts.

Debate:
Obama: Mr. Santorum, so you want to take away a woman’s right to birth control?

Santorum: No, not at all, I am pro-life, but I believe everyone has the right to contraception

Obama: Oh, I thought you said….

Santorum: Mr. Obama, did you work against a bill while you were a state senator which would have saved the life of a child that was born alive? A child that had manage to survive an abortion? To me that says you would let that child just die of neglect, alone, helpless?

Obama: I, uh….well, why should that mother be burdened with a pregnancy….I…..

(Santorum would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate)

Mark7788 on February 16, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Unfortunately, Santorum has had sufficient exposure over his many years in the public eye that there are many clips that could be cut for campaign ads with quotes that suggest he does want to ban contraception. Obama’s campaign just needs to take short clips out of context. They’ll be able to do a lot of damage. It’s predicted Obama will have 1 billion dollars to spend. A billion dollars worth of video clips with Santorum stating contraceptives hurt women, and some of his many other far right social positions on homosexuality and other issues will have a lot more negative impact on uncommitted voters than a strong debate performance that hardly anyone watches.

talkingpoints on February 16, 2012 at 4:24 AM

See, this is the problem people have with the mushy middle right now. What you say is factually incorrect. He’s not in over his head…as evidenced by the contraception issue last week, he is intentionally changing the dynamic between gov’t and citizen…and doing a fine job with it. So to soften it to “gosh golly he’s tryin ril hard” is disingenuous and the base knows it…and as we saw last election, it doesn’t resonate w/ undecideds. You give him credit for trying to maintain our system of governance that we’ve had for the last 200 years…which is FAR more than he deserves credit for.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 3:51 AM

I’m talking about playing the field as it’s striped. Do I personally think it’s that he’s in over his head? No, not at all. I think it’s all been deliberate and in line with his ideology.

So that brings us to the rhetoric. No doubt Mitt is soft-pedaling it but as an informed, engaged member of the base I understand why he’s doing that. I don’t like it but I do understand it and quite frankly the elements of the base being critical of him for it are stupid. There are people out there who aren’t that interested in politics, will not take an interest in politics but still show up and vote for the person they would most like to have a beer with. It would be nice if it wasn’t that way but as I’m fond of reminding my liberal friends, utopias don’t exist. We can ignore that reality and lose those votes or we can make accommodations for it, be smart enough to realize what’s going on and why and give ourselves a chance to win. I prefer the latter.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 4:25 AM

open primaries are idiotic.

rob verdi on February 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM

Why indeed? They need to be replaced with closed primaries across the board. If you can’t be bothered to pick a side, then it shouldn’t bother you that you can’t help pick a candidate for the side that you didn’t pick.

Open primaries are just another way in which the game is rigged in favor of the liberals (just like caucuses and “no-I.D.” voting).

Theophile on February 16, 2012 at 3:01 AM

That’s been going on in CA since I was of voting age in 2004. Illegal immigrants are literally bussed in to polling stations, handed ballots, and they vote for democrats, I’ve seen it happen right in front of me. Nobody says a word about it. I don’t know if it went on before that, but It’s a big reason the GOP is virtually powerless here. Voter fraud is rampant, and with Union backing, It’s totally suppressed.

Anyway, I’ve noticed alot of the more sane HA posters have been trying to warn the ABR people for weeks about this crap, but It’s like banging your head against a wall. The MSM, and now the Kostards are all trying to rig this for Obama so he can make the election about birth control, bring out the crazy in Santorum, and own us in November.

This was all planned out a while ago too. Read about Dick Morris calling out George Stephanopoulos on Hannity because George started pressing Romney about the contraception issue in a debate a week before Obama came out with his stupid mandate. Romney had all the momentum at the time, and didn’t bite because he didn’t know WTF Stephanopoulos was getting at. Then, a week later the Socialcons are all rabid and supporting a loser because they’re mad at Obama.

Do not fall for this trap.

1984 in real life on February 16, 2012 at 5:26 AM

They wanted Reagan to run against Carter
No they did not. Are you just making stuff up?

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Oh dear God, were you even alive in 1980?

YES, the de3mocrats openly gloated that Reagan was a crazy old warmonger, who wanted to ban abortion, and send your kids off to die fighting the Soviets in some proxy war, if he didn’t start WW II just for fun..

This was CARTER we’re talking about.. the until now, most unpopular, thin skinned angry at everyone who didn’t kiss his ring wreck and ruin any opposition democrat president ever..

and his people bragged they would decimate Reagan..

look it up, before letting your bigotry cloud your thinking.

The FACT is, the outrage here, isn’t that Santorum will loose, it’s that he might win. That is the source of Mittbots rage here. They personally hate the guy, hate social cons, hate anybody who isn’t in that great bland swarth of squishy moderates who’d just be democrats, but can’t because they see the fiscal reality.

But on social issues, the Mittbots agree with Obama much more, than they ever will with us. Or conservatives in general.

We see Romney as McCain 2.0… Dole, George HW Bush… amazing that the Mittbots refuse to see the similarities.

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 5:45 AM

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 5:45 AM

I really don’t think anyone truly believes Santorum can be elected, They’re just mad that Mitt isn’t pandering to evangelicals. These are the same people who were supposedly die-hard Perry, Cain, and Gingrich supporters a few months ago.

Can you really tell me, with a straight face, that Santorum the broke, loser Senator can beat the billion dollar Obama machine, and the MSM?

Romney has polled pretty consistently against Obama for over a year now, and he won more votes in Florida than, what all of Santorum’s caucus states combined? Santorum is a loser, with no experience running anything. I don’t really like Socialcons, but It’s too bad Huckabee didn’t run, at least he was qualified to be President and I could have supported him. Santorum is a joke.

1984 in real life on February 16, 2012 at 5:59 AM

So what the he11 do SweaterVest’s apologists want us to think he means when he says that the “dangers of contraception” and “the whole sexual libertine idea” are “important public policy issues?” Are you going to tell us that he doesn’t intend do anything about “important public policy issues” if elected?

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also unitive, but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These have profound impact on the health of our society.

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 6:05 AM

Santorum will scare off most people who are informed and rational.

Basilsbest on February 15, 2012 at 11:08 PM

He will also scare off the indies in the general. His extremist positions and Washington insider status is not what they want in a POTUS.

csdeven on February 15, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Same stuff they said about Reagan. Oh, but that’s right. The Romney shill answer for Reagan is to pretend he was liberal like Romney, that his views “evolved” over time (Hah! When does Romney’s start evolving? It’s a little late now!), and that Reagan would fail the “True Conservative Purity Test.”

Liberals are always screeching that some conservative candidate is about to institute a brand new theocracy. I don’t know why Romney supporters have to keep adopting the same liberal scare tactics, but they keep doing it.

Oh, that’s right. Because Romney’s only chance at the nomination is to destroy everyone else.

tom on February 16, 2012 at 6:14 AM

ok, let me get this straight….the yankees are getting ready to pick their team captain….so it only makes sense to let the red sox vote also…we don’t want to anger them cause we have to play them this summer. also, the reason turnout is down is cause republicans KNOW that their vote is going to be used to turn out the communist barack chavez, simple really.

tm11999 on February 16, 2012 at 6:25 AM

The FACT is, the outrage here, isn’t that Santorum will loose, it’s that he might win. That is the source of Mittbots rage here. They personally hate the guy, hate social cons, hate anybody who isn’t in that great bland swarth of squishy moderates who’d just be democrats, but can’t because they see the fiscal reality.

But on social issues, the Mittbots agree with Obama much more, than they ever will with us. Or conservatives in general.

We see Romney as McCain 2.0… Dole, George HW Bush… amazing that the Mittbots refuse to see the similarities.

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 5:45 AM

Nailed it.

Right now, the Mittdogs are racking their brains trying to come up with an equivalent to Bush 41′s epithet of “Voodoo economics.”

tom on February 16, 2012 at 6:37 AM

Can you really tell me, with a straight face, that Santorum the broke, loser Senator can beat the billion dollar Obama machine, and the MSM?

Straight face this… Ronald Wilson Reagan, the Woman hating, abortion banning WW III loving lunatic Dr. Srangelove that the left BEGGED to run against… remember him?

Romney has polled pretty consistently against Obama for over a year now, and he won more votes in Florida than, what all of Santorum’s caucus states combined?

Well hell Tex… just give the man a crown and be done with it,.. if this were a done deal for Romney, you and the rest wouldn’t be here telling us all how STUPID, CRAZY, BIGOTED AND MONGOLOID WE ARE… heavan forbid an opinion different than yours get a whiff of daylight..

Santorum is a loser,

subjective opinion.. but do continue..

with no experience running anything.

How many compamies have the last ten presidents run?;;

that isn’t the only criteria, and only a self serving Mittbot would suggest it was if that weren’t Mitt’s only skill.. he sure as Hell has no people skills.. His tone deaf gaffs are going to be run on a nonstop loop till November..

I don’t really like Socialcons,

what a friggin shock… it’s like all the paleo conservarives got together, held a meeting and decided to slander every other kind of con, as a bigot and enemy of humanity…

Still waiting for the apologies from your side about the wild, extreme distortions of Santorum’s positions on birth control…

better never elect another conservative Catholic,.. they…. whisper…. hates womens, and birth control… pulls away nodding solemnly… so sad.. that he wants to let the Vatican make policy…

When JFK ran, my mother’s church said the same about him..

so when is hating Rick going to be as strongly condemned as religious bigotry by you guys.. as much as Hating Romney is?

but It’s too bad Huckabee didn’t run, at least he was qualified to be President and I could have supported him.

Like I believe that…. you hate us, remember?

Santorum is a joke.

1984 in real life on February 16, 2012 at 5:59 AM

and Romney is a liberal squish, running in sheeps clothing. There, I insulted your guy too… can we stop with the school yard crap now?

If you think, being an unmitigated ass is going to change any minds.. but this sin’t about any of that.

It’s a very public temper tantrum by the Romney at any cost, no matter what, even if we shred the friggin party to get our great white dope… we’ll have our DAMMED McCain/Dole/Ford/Bush HW no matter who we have to smear..

Because you guys have such a track record of success and all.. right?

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 6:46 AM

Nominating an ideological Senator with no experience running anything
What could go wrong?

DavidW on February 16, 2012 at 6:52 AM

Here in The Great Lake State (Michigan for the geographically-challenged), Romney is carpet-bombing (a misnomer, btw) the airwaves with anti-Santorum TV ads non-stop. The vile attacks are occasionally interspersed with what a nice Michigan boy Willard was – with family pics and all!

NOTE: Not one ad has mentioned when and where Mittens did his Mormon “mission”. The ads mysteriously jump from the fresh-faced little boy to the adult Willard having a wife and kids.

Our new RINO Governor (Snyder) has endorsed Mittens. I’m shocked! /sarc

I have an idea for Santorum: Play Hardball.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 16, 2012 at 6:58 AM

Why do we have open primaries again, anyway?

Because we are the Stupid Party.

petefrt on February 16, 2012 at 7:07 AM

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 6:05 AM

Santorum was right, in everything he just said.. you quoted him to scare people, but where in that entire comment, did he say, we will ban contraceptives?

He’s trying to start a conversation, about the ammoral drift in our society, that if it’s legal, and available, it must be moral that… right? We’ve had generation after generation, shed sins, and shame, and all to run face first into that brickwall called reality. How many unwed mothers these days? How many kids raised on welfare, because there was no moral prohibition, to getting pregnant at 16.. Hell schools provide free day care now, just to be compassionate.. The inner cities have degraded into cesspools of crime and poverty, because the black family, once the bedrock of American society has been destroyed, fractured by social welfare types who laugh and sneer at teaching teens to wait..

That’s just sooooo mean.. they’re teens.. snicker, come on, you know they’ll do it anyway….

right?

Wrong.. my generation didn’t, I was terrified of what my father would have said to me, if I’d gotten a girl pregnant, most kids were. That shame, of breaking that social rule was a good thing when it allowed kids to grow up, and establish a life before having a child to raise.. and boys weren’t given a pass, they paid for their children, forced marriages rarely happened, but teens working two jobs to pay for that prom night…

did..

Santorum is right, and you’re a snob if you think the public won’t hear what he says as a good idea. People need social rules, or society falls apart, the libertine lifestyle may be the goal of some folks but not most..

all I ever wanted was one woman to love till death… children, who could beproud of their parents.. and be proud also to raise their children with the same rules..

You can’t demagogue this message, when it hits to the core beliefs of so many people..

He won’t ban your dammed rubbers,.. but he will advocate a return to a society, when they won’t be as necessary, or used as a bandaid for failed feel goodism run amuck… Teens are hormone driven to a point, but they are also, our children, and they are smart, vastly smarter than the usual liberal policies give them credit for. They aren’t rutting goats, and we should grant them the respect of allowing them to know the reasons why, waiting is for their best interests..

instead of fear mongering about that crazy Senator who wants to bans condoms. It’s absurd to claim he’d try, and only a child like mind believes it any way.

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 7:13 AM

Nominating an ideological Senator with no experience running anything
…What could go wrong?

DavidW on February 16, 2012 at 6:52 AM

About as much as nominating a decidedly nonpartisan self discribed progressive former one term New England governor, who’s ultra wealthy and tone deaf in a near economic disaster where folks are resenting the big moneyed people. Try and paint Obama as too liberal and out of touch, when Romney’s fortune plays to the favored democrat strawman rich man’s aprty theme.

what could go wrong, by letting them use the same old play book they used to success so many times before…

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 7:21 AM

Santorum was right, in everything he just said.. you quoted him to scare people, but where in that entire comment, did he say, we will ban contraceptives?

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 7:13 AM

He said it was “public policy.” It isn’t and no self-respecting conservative or American for that matter should consider for one second that government has any authority to infringe on those rights.

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 7:27 AM

Liberals are about as effective at these things things as Air America has taken over the talk air waves…

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 7:31 AM

Ever hear the saying, “Be careful what you wish for?” Dems should be careful what you wish for….

Static21 on February 16, 2012 at 7:39 AM

open primaries are idiotic.

rob verdi on February 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM

Could not agree more. Did not know my state, Tennessee, was open- primary. Don’t think too many cross-over chaos votes here, though. Most people are either asleep (and think our pathetic senators Alexander and Corker are great) or they are working on their meth lab. Pretty sad.

FastTalker on February 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM

He said it was “public policy.” It isn’t and no self-respecting conservative or American for that matter should consider for one second that government has any authority to infringe on those rights.

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 7:27 AM

No self respecting conservative, should be ducking a dialog on these issues..

and that is exactly what he’s advocating, a dialog..

why is that so terrififing, that you’d invent a policy on banning contraceptives out of whole cloth? A dialog about our society and where it’s gone off the rails, isn’t the same as what you are telling us he meant.

His words are clear.. public policy can encourage, can inform, but it can’t make anyone stop buying contraceptives. Which, no where in his three paragraphs, does he explicitly say, what you are telling us, he said?

Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor

He’s telling you, us, in those lines, he wants to discuss these issues.. that is plain, or why else say what I just quoted, he isn’t going to force anyone to do anything..

But it’s now verboten, to talk about the failed liberal social activism of the last 50 years?

since when?

Possibly, since the great unchanging beast of conformity, and go along, get along moderates in the party, decided to wage jihad against the social cons, who are sick to death of just letting the immoral left decide what’s socially acceptable, instead of families.

The moderates, are the ones stuck in the past, unable, unwilling to consider that in 50 years of pop culture war waging, the American family has been colateral damage once too often. When, are you supposed conservative moderates going to get in the game, and stop telling everyone to shut up..

We can talk about what we find acceptable, find a consensus,.. but not, if we run away sucking our thimb, everytime the left and media say…. BOO!…

It’s not just about the damned money,.. our kids are under assault. and I do take this personally,. I still have kids in school, and we can’t keep ducking this fight.

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Dr.Tesla is here as a member of operation chaos. When you read him pimping Santorum it’s because the left knows he’s a weaker candidate.

V7_Sport on February 16, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Weaker than who, the author of Obamneycare?

razorbackchick on February 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Exit question: Why do we have open primaries again, anyway?

Um, because we’re stupid?
Because Independents whined about wanting a voice in who is on the ballot in the general?
Because Democrats want to be able to pick our candidates for us?

There is NO GOOD REASON for open primaries. And every piece of junk mail I get from the RNC gets sent back to them with “Closed Primaries” written across the donation card… and no check.

Dexter_Alarius on February 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Last time someone used that logic in an election – we heard our candidate say “you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency”. How’s that working out for us?

I’m not saying Romney isn’t the right guy here – but just saying there are some REAL valid concerns people have with him.

CycloneCDB on February 16, 2012 at 2:53 AM

Romney’s comment was that Obama was a nice guy that is in over his head, has failed miserable at governing, and has no ability to fix the economy.

In my view, that is the total opposite of “you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency”.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 3:13 AM

uh guy,… he’s referring to 08 and McCain.. McCain said that, or something to that effect. Totally destroying any rational, for electing McCain…

You have gotten this idea in your head, we want Romney screaming Yo Mama at Obama in every possible venue..

You might find one or two..

Our demand, is he confront Obama on his incompetence, and outright failures, his corrupt administration, and his gun running Attorny General.

He can do that, without calling Obama a socialist, or something else, that the butterfly wing fragile independents will melt into a puddle of sympathy for..

The independents in the pols I saw, are running away from Obama as fast as they can,.. it might help keep them that way, if the Romney dead enders, didn’t spread misinformation on Santorum., He’s not the Spanish Inquisition, no matter how much some folks say he is.

They demagogoued Reagan, and George Bush, they survived, Reagan flurished.. and Santorum has one quality like him.. He’s a nice guy, you can’t make people believe he’s some kind of whackjob just by saying it’s so.. they don’t buy it, when they see him in person, or hear him speak.. He is not a scarey guy, he just isn’t.

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Duh. What have I been saying all along. They DON’T want to face Romney in the general.

CAUTION: Those afflicted with anti-Romney paranoia become useful idiots who carry water for the Left and serve Obama’s agenda.

cicerone on February 16, 2012 at 2:30 AM

yeah… they’re just trembling like new born colts at the thought…

or laughing..

take yer bet.

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Too bad Willard Fillmoure Romneycare can’t attack Obama as aggressively as his hatchet-men slaughtered all his Republican opponents – I guess it’s hard to run on your “executive experience” when it’s based on banning guns, spending profligately, appointing liberal judges, imposing socialized health care, and supporting the global warming sham.

SilverDeth on February 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

It is easier to brand an unknown with their liberal fears, look at Mrs. Bachman, turned into a shrill caricature of the experienced articulate tax lawyer that she is.

There are certain things about Romney’s personality, which while boring to zealots on our side, render his personality seemingly harmless to the Independents. Competent Businessman, of course he has piles of money, he is smart on money and the economy. They will throw all the other things at him, but shape shifter, flip flopper, Shameleon? I am quoting Bill Clinton there.

If you want Santorum, better get a PAC to start putting out his record and making him attractive, because the only thing the majority of Americans know is that he cried when his baby died. And they made that into something bizarre.

I truly believe that we can shove hard on any candidate, but right now, Santorum needs to prove himself in swing states not in Red States, and the national polling is an aggregate of republican popular opinioin, not an electoral count, we still elect a president with the electoral college, it is not a direct vote, take a look at this map for the states Obama needs to lose this time.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Fleuries on February 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I’m not saying Romney isn’t the right guy here – but just saying there are some REAL valid concerns people have with him.

What are the Real Valid concerns about Romney, I forget… that he won’t engage in name calling against the president? he criticizes him with rational thought every day.

Romney will leave the name calling to the PACs. Until campaign finance comes full circle and you can give the candidate the money to do with as they please, this is how negative advertising will be done.

Name calling is not Romney’s style. He’s a gentleman, that is MORE than ok with me.

Fleuries on February 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Too bad Willard Fillmoure Romneycare can’t attack Obama as aggressively as his hatchet-men slaughtered all his Republican opponents

You name call, “hatchet man” but Romney didn’t do those ads, the PACs will call the names, not Romney. He is gracious, and has put out nice ads about himself. I like the car ad from the MI campaign, he is driving himself, he looks and speaks very naturally. You should look it up and do your homework, and learn about Romney so you know about him.

I know I can count on you to support him against Obama.

Fleuries on February 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

she had the centrist cred Bill earned from welfare reform

Now it all makes sense, you’re a crypto-Jour0lista.

Knott Buyinit on February 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Fleuries on February 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Romney also makes an attack on the Presidents healthcare plan really difficult. That is Romney’s problem.

Santorum needs to lighten up on women. The military comment had me cringing. And I don’t know where the birth control harms women came from but we just don’t need him talking about that. Seriously.

Right now my pick is Santorum but I think he needs to focus on Obama’s record not convinceing anyone of his conservatism. We all know he’s a social conservative. Now lets talk about how he is really knowledgable about Iran and the Middle East. Lets attack the healthcare law. Lets attack Obama and his record. Who he hurt during the auto bailout, how his NLRB treated Boeing. How he doesn’t support vouchers for poor kids many black who want a better education. The pipeline going to China instead of Texas. The price of gas. The reason Israel thinks they have to go to war with Iran because we don’t have their back. Stuff like that.

magicbeans on February 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Tired of the debates, bored with the mud slinging, getting royally sick of the word ‘conservatism’. We’re beating this to death. Maybe ,just maybe, this is why turnouts are so lack luster. Folks may have reached the saturation point.

jeanie on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Santorum would kick Obama’s ass in November !
Landslide !

Mark7788 on February 16, 2012 at 12:58 AM

I believe you are spot on in everything you posted in this post, with the possible exception of this. Honestly, you are far more optimistic and have greater faith in the American electorate than I. I think a majority are so stupid and/or morally bankrupt that they will not vote for a moral man. I hope you are right, but I’m not going to let myself hope too much. That said, I don’t think any of our candidates will fare any better, so we might as well have a clear choice between good and evil.

Santorum 2012!!!

pannw on February 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The Kossacks can’t even get their information straight. They’re telling their minions that the MI primary and the ND caucus are open and while they are on the Dem side, they are not on the Repub side.

I’m gonna keep posting and repeating this: people educate yourselves on your state’s primary or caucus. The primaries and caucuses differ from state to state and also may differ by party within a state in how delegates are allocated with regard to the presidential candidate vote or whether they’re allocated on the primary/caucus day. I repeat, they also differ between the Dem and Repub parties within a single state.

As an example, in ND, who wins the caucus is merely a suggestion and delegates are voluntarily apportioned according to those results and only for the first ballot at the convention. However, all delegates are free, at any time, to vote their conscience.

So duh!

stukinIL4now on February 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Weaker than who, the author of Obamneycare?

razorbackchick on February 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Weaker than a big spending, big government nanny state social con who’s last name is synonymous with butt-froth.

V7_Sport on February 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Irrelevant diabolical LibTard® plot is irrelevant.

Americans want zero gone.

8thAirForce on February 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

10 bonus points for the exit question.

dunce on February 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Don’t blame me for the open primary process. I’ve been fighting against that for years.

BTW, our current Governor won in large part to the Democrats that voted for him in the 2010 primarys. Today they are trying to get him recalled, so this could end up another big debacle for the liberal democrats.

DannoJyd on February 16, 2012 at 7:40 PM

“It’s absurd to claim he’d try, and only a child like mind believes it any way.”

Doesn’t matter the topic, or which GOP candidate “he” is. Our public is so low-information, has such a lack of critical thinking ability, to compare them to a child insults lots of children. They’ll believe anything they hear on CNN or in gossip.

I was so disappointed in the caliber of the US citizen in ’08. Now, with even less excuse, the polls show Ø at or above 50%. This is imbecilic. It makes me feel like giving up. If the US is composed of ignorant selfish fairy-tale fans, they deserve what they get. You and I might not deserve what we get, but how long can we fight hogs running to food? Get yer free ____ here, just vote Dem.

jodetoad on February 17, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3