Team Obama getting worried about Santorum?; Update: DeWine to switch from Romney to Santorum?

posted at 11:35 am on February 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Until now, the Barack Obama re-election campaign has focused its rhetorical guns almost exclusively on Mitt Romney.  The Wall Street Journal reports that may soon change, however.  With Rick Santorum soaring at least for now to the top of the polls, they will begin adding him to their messaging hit list:

President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign has begun discussing whether to attack Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum and try to define him for a general-election audience, potentially breaking from its focus on Mitt Romney.

Obama campaign aides are stepping up their examination of Mr. Santorum’s record to assess his vulnerabilities and consider how their strategy might change if he becomes the GOP nominee.

For example, the Obama campaign has criticized Mr. Romney for shifting his policy stances and painted him as out of touch with middle-class Americans. That line of attack might not prove as effective against Mr. Santorum, who Obama advisers believe has gained ground in the nominating contest by looking more genuine and empathic to voters than Mr. Romney. …

But after Mr. Santorum’s surprise victory in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota last week, Obama campaign aides have been rethinking whether a Romney-centric approach still makes sense, campaign advisers said Thursday.

While other Republicans, notably Newt Gingrich, have risen to challenge Mr. Romney in recent months, Mr. Santorum looks to be a candidate whose appeal isn’t about to fade, they said.

In fact, Santorum’s rise seems to have caught Team Hopenchange a little flat-footed.  How else to explain this weird e-mail bleg to its supporters in Pennsylvania, trolling for dirt in the Keystone State?

The campaign sent an e-mail asking Obama’s Keystone State supporters to submit their most damning “recollections” of Santorum, who served as a congressman and a senator from Pennsylvania for 16 years before losing reelection in 2006.

Santorum became a favorite target of liberals with his passionate statements against homosexuality and abortion, but despite his deeply conservative take on social issues, he has shown some ability to connect with blue-collar voters in the GOP presidential race — voters who have been a hard sell for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and could be crucial in a general election.

“Folks across the country are just starting to learn about Rick Santorum as he enjoys his newfound wave of popularity,” says the note, which was signed by Bill Hyers, Pennsylvania state director for Obama for America. “But people here have known him for some time. . . . And it’s on us to make sure the rest of the country sees Rick Santorum’s true colors.”

Will they start asking the “bitter clingers” in Pennsylvania, too?  Team Obama seems very worried about that blue-collar vote, and they should be, especially in PA, to whom that “bitter clinger” remark was directed in 2008.  Hillary Clinton beat Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio by winning that demographic, and Santorum would be better positioned than Romney to do the same in a general election.  Obama cannot win the White House if he loses both states in November, plus Indiana and possibly Wisconsin, where he’s already in trouble.

Meanwhile, the Santorum campaign just sent out an e-mail informing the media of a “major campaign announcement” in Ohio at 2 pm ET:

Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum will make a major campaign announcement this afternoon at the Ohio State House in Columbus, OH. All media are encouraged to attend.

I’d guess that Santorum picked up a major endorsement — perhaps Governor John Kasich.  Don’t forget that Mitt Romney fumbled his statement of support for Kasich’s controversial PEU reforms last year, although he did end up making it very clear that he backed Kasich.  If Kasich backs Santorum, that may go a long way towards rebutting Romney’s attacks on his campaign for being the candidate of Big Labor, which Santorum has vehemently disputed.  If it’s not Kasich, it had better be someone significant like Senator Rob Portman or a figure of state-wide stature.

Update: It may not be Kasich, who has been neutral so far, but a switcher instead, according to BuzzFeed:

A top Ohio supporter of Governor Mitt Romney will switch sides and endorse Rick Santorum in Columbus this afternoon, a campaign source said. …

While Ohio Gov. John Kasich remains neutral, Romney has the support of a handful of top current and former Ohio officials, including Attorney General Mike DeWine, Rep. Jim Renacci, and former Senator George Voinovich.

Voinovich is more center-right than conservative, which would actually play in Santorum’s favor.  A switcher always has some impact, but we’ll see soon enough how significant the endorser is.  Also, I wrote “Pat Toomey” when I meant Rob Portman, and I’ve corrected it above.

Update II: Maggie Haberman at Politico guesses it’s DeWine:

DeWine and Santorum have a relationship dating back to their days in the Senate, which is why he would be the likeliest of the group. If that does prove true, it will be a huge boost to Santorum, and another very hard-to-spin headline for Romney.

If it’s someone with statewide standing, she’s right — it will add to a sense of momentum in Ohio that’s already gone Santorum’s way for the last two weeks.

Update III: WaPo reporter Dan Balz says that a “knowledgeable GOP strategist” says it’s DeWine, switching away from Romney.  It’s a big deal, in part because of DeWine’s standing in the state, and in part because he’d been seen as a more moderate Republican in Ohio (like Voinovich).  Santorum could use that as an argument that he has a better electability quotient than Romney, and the momentum will reinforce that message.


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

I will never vote for a religious zealot. They are the most dangerous of politicians.

rubberneck on February 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Once again, you are throwing your support over to Rick, he is religious, but not a zealot…obviously since many attacked him for not giving enough, zealots sacrifice everything.
So you are again on the same page as Rick…I knew some of you would start to realize how far off base you were. I knew many of you could not be so easily misled, and duped by the MSM slant on Rick…way to go, you are seeing the light.

right2bright on February 17, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Santorum is well known for his earmarks in PA. He has also been a supporter of big government projects. He is not the pristine conser.painted by many here. But,repeat–a balanced ticket is our only chance and that an outside one.

jeanie on February 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM

In three words (one if my name were Biden): They all suck. I have landed on Santorum as the least sucky of the bunch. The continued attacks on conservative bona fides are ridiculous when the same can be said for all three of the legitimate contenders remaining.

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I’m sure ardent conservative women will vote for him. Some probably share his values. Moderates and independents wont.

rubberneck on February 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Apparently moderates and independents not only share Obama’s values but are pretty comfortable with what Obama is doing to the country.

neuquenguy on February 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I will never vote for a religious zealot. They are the most dangerous of politicians.

I guess Obama’s out then.

rubberneck on February 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM


“I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me,” Obama said, noting he did not “fall out” of the pew. Rather, it was a cerebral decision. “I submitted myself to His will and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.”

It’s this story of his adult conversion — something he shares with President Bush — that attracts even some white evangelicals, despite his liberal pro-choice politics.

“When I speak with evangelical young people, there’s a real openness to Obama,” says Michael Gerson, President Bush’s speech writer, known for crafting the president’s lofty religious rhetoric.

“He speaks an authentic language of faith rooted in his own conversion experience. He specifically rejects a kind of simplistic secularization as a message, that somehow religion has nothing to do with politics. So I think there is an authentic appeal there,” Gerson says.

angryed on February 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I will never vote for a religious zealot republican. They are the most dangerous of politicians.

rubberneck on February 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Anybody else smell the desperation?

DanMan on February 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

The Columbus Dispatch had a bit of info:
Some national outlets are speculating the Santorum endorsement could come from Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, previously a Romney supporter. DeWine was scheduled to give the invocation for Romney’s event in suburban Cleveland last night, but did not attend.

Santorum already had two speaking engagements scheduled for this evening near Cincinnati and two events in Columbus on Saturday.

Likely Ohio Republican voters favored the former Pennsylvania senator Santorum over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 36 percent to 29 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

There are 2 coasts you know and moderates abound here along with independents. Do not know about the west coast, but have read that many are mods and indies over shadowed by liberals. Dismiss them at your peril if you must.

jeanie on February 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Wow, so now Hot Air is censoring any pro-Newt news links? I’ve been trying to post them for the last 10 mins but they won’t show up…

Nice that this blog has finally shown its true colors….

tkyang99 on February 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Team Obama getting worried about Santorum

So is everybody else

EddieC on February 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM

The Romney collapse continue unabated…

This endorsement switch is significant, and it won’t be the last.

Norwegian on February 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Wow, so now Hot Air is censoring any pro-Newt news links? I’ve been trying to post them for the last 10 mins but they won’t show up…

Nice that this blog has finally shown its true colors….

tkyang99 on February 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Most likely you are using a word that gets flagged. Are you using the word rev(the letter 0)lution?

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM

2008 and 2012 are perfect reasons to introduce a major third party to this country.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM

flyfisher on February 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Pretty sure rubberneck is a Rick supporter, no one is that stupid to post what he has, he is just using sarcasm to get his point across, he is so silly.

right2bright on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Yes, the frothy, sweater vested zealot is a threat! Be sure to get out and vote for him! Don’t give the evil Kenyan 4 more years!

KeninCT on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

A top Ohio supporter of Governor Mitt Romney will switch sides and endorse Rick Santorum in Columbus this afternoon, a campaign source said. …
While Ohio Gov. John Kasich remains neutral, Romney has the support of a handful of top current and former Ohio officials, including Attorney General Mike DeWine, Rep. Jim Renacci, and former Senator George Voinovich.

DeWine and Santorum have a relationship dating back to their days in the Senate, which is why he would be the likeliest of the group. If that does prove true, it will be a huge boost to Santorum, and another very hard-to-spin headline for Romney.

I live in Ohio and I am supporting Santorum at this point. But neither Dewine nor Voinovich are highly thought of. Dewine did win the AG race in 2010 but he was running against Cordray and Dewine was seen as the lesser of two evils. Unless it’s Portman, I don’t think this will be that big a deal.

Bitter Clinger on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

2008 and 2012 are perfect reasons to introduce a major third party to this country.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Isn’t there a national Libertarian party?

neuquenguy on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Wow, DeWine is almost as big a RINO as Voinovich. He’s pro-life but he’s anti-Second Amendment.

Happy Nomad on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I am wondering here who will be Tom Ridge’s pick. If Perry was in the race it would’ve been obvious but my guess is that he’s gonna endorse Romney, since to me he’s part of the establishment.

So far still no ads against Santorum except for Mittens, and no ads from anybody else. I will keep paying attention and see what happens.

For more local info from where I am at, go to http://goerie.com. There’s the rest of the PA media here, and I mean the WHOLE state.

Hope I am of some help here.

ProudPalinFan on February 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Hot Air is so pro-Santorum and anti-Gingrich it’s become a joke. They’re not even trying to hide it anymore.

Anyways, Adelson just gave Newt another 10 million. You guys have to go to Drudge for the link because we-hate-Newt-Air certainly isn’t going to let anyone post it here.

tkyang99 on February 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Isn’t there a national Libertarian party?

neuquenguy on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Yeah right. Like enough people in this country care about freedom.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM

An endorsement from DeWine isn’t the greatest thing, but could be much worse if it were from George Voinovich. I didn’t know that Voinovich endorsed Romney. He would have been better off being endorsed by Arlen Specter even.

Norky on February 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Sadly, Portman, I think, endorsed Romney weeks ago. All the same, he was a great choice for Ohio to put in the Senate. Now, if we, in Ohio, could torpedo Sherrod Brown in November.

BuckeyeSam on February 17, 2012 at 11:42 AM

We are all praying for Josh Mandel!! Here is the latest from Jim DeMint:

Josh Mandel Trails By Only 4 in Ohio — February 10, 2012

http://senateconservatives.com/site/endorsements/2012/oh/josh-mandel

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Yes, the frothy, sweater vested zealot is a threat! Be sure to get out and vote for him! Don’t give the evil Kenyan 4 more years!

KeninCT on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I like trolls because they are fun to play with. But they have to be somewhat interesting first.

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Yes, the frothy, sweater vested zealot is a threat! Be sure to get out and vote for him! Don’t give the evil Kenyan 4 more years!

KeninCT on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

You see Kenin, it will be a life spent alone, if you don’t craft a better pick up line then that. You will remain dateless until you do. Oh, did you clean of that sofa yet? Ick.

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Hillary Clinton beat Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio by winning that demographic, and Santorum would be better positioned than Romney to do the same in a general election. Obama cannot win the White House if he loses both states in November, plus Indiana and possibly Wisconsin, where he’s already in trouble.

No worries about Pennsylvania. Obama will easily carry Pennsylvania if Santorum is the nominee. Other states may catch on to this fact.

thuja on February 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM

tkyang99 on February 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM

I love Newt because I think he is the only one with the guts to shake things up but right now he isn’t much of a blip on the radar screen. Fingers crossed for another resurgence.

Cindy Munford on February 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Obama would be the happiest man on Earth if Santorum was the nominee.

A few ads from some shady Soros-sponsored group of Santorum talking about how married people are immoral for using contraceptives (I belive the term Santorum used was “sexual libertines”) and the suburbs would go running into Obama’s arms.

This is a head fake, and ask yourself this “How much have liberal groups spent taking down Santorum in this primary?” Have they spent one penny?

Because the unions spent a heft sum trying to take down Romney in Florida.

Until I see them put their money where their mouth is, I’m chalking this up as a head fake to garner support for Santorum.

BradTank on February 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Isn’t there a national Libertarian party?

neuquenguy on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Yeah right. Like enough people in this country care about freedom.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I don’t know. Seems to me that it is the perfect place for people who want a Republican party without the social issues.

neuquenguy on February 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Yes, the frothy, sweater vested zealot is a threat! Be sure to get out and vote for him! Don’t give the evil Kenyan 4 more years!

KeninCT on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

HAHAHA! These sarcastic posts are getting a little weirder, but still funny…thanks for the laugh.
Although the term “frothy” is a bit juvenile, childlike almost except for the “ugly” factor…but a good sarcastic post…

right2bright on February 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I know, right? I almost feel sympathy for Kenin. Almost.

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Mike DeWine is as center-right as Voinovich is (as evidenced by the infamous “Gang of 14″ moment). But don’t forget that Mike DeWine’s son, Kevin, is now the chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. Not suggesting anything, but it is an interesting coincidink…

Myron Falwell on February 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Wow, DeWine is almost as big a RINO as Voinovich. He’s pro-life but he’s anti-Second Amendment.

Happy Nomad on February 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Funny you bring that up. My wife ran into Dewine and his campaign staffers several times during the 2010 primaries. My wife is a BIG 2nd Amendment girl and let Dewine know that she didn’t appreciate is anti-2nd Amendment stances during his years in Congress. One of the last times that she crossed paths with one of his staff, the staffer saw her and ran over to her and breathlessly let her know that Dewine had gone out and gotten his “concealed carry” permit. LOL

Bitter Clinger on February 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Do endorsements really do anything? It tends to annoy me if it government officials. I was amazed to hear Paul Gigot speak positively about Sen. Santorum this morning on Fox.

Cindy Munford on February 17, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Some endorsements mean more than others. If Santorum is getting a “switcher” like Mike DeWine, it means far more than the five minute endorsement Romney got from Donald Trump. The fact of the matter is that Obama has been ramping up a class warfare strategy against Romney and the MSM has done all it can to ensure that Romney gets the nomination. BUT…. the American right is speaking out and they are not singing the praises of Mitt.

Happy Nomad on February 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Not sure where all of HA stands but Ed has made it clear as glass. I would rather he had not since it’s coloring my attitude towards postings. It’s a free country and his blog after all though.

jeanie on February 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Mike DeWine is as center-right as Voinovich is (as evidenced by the infamous “Gang of 14″ moment). But don’t forget that Mike DeWine’s son, Kevin, is now the chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. Not suggesting anything, but it is an interesting coincidink…

Myron Falwell on February 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Kevin Dewine is actually a cousin of Mike Dewine, not his son. Nonetheless, Kevin Dewine is an a$$hole extraordinare.

Bitter Clinger on February 17, 2012 at 12:49 PM

The leftys here in HA are panicking over Santorum. They will keep pushing this “Santorum is a socon radical zealot” meme, we’ll see if it sticks, but I hope conservatives will continue to push back.

neuquenguy on February 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM

This endorsement switch is significant, and it won’t be the last.

Norwegian on February 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM

While individual endorsements aren’t a big deal, the fact that someone’s actually switching to Santorum from Romney is a big deal. Something like this happening makes me wonder if the “Death Star” is going to fire a dud this time.

Doomberg on February 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM

. BUT…. the American right is speaking out and they are not singing the praises of Mitt.

Happy Nomad on February 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

And it isn’t being taken very well. I do like when a Democrat endorses a Republican. I know it’s petty but what the heck.

Cindy Munford on February 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Not sure where all of HA stands but Ed has made it clear as glass. I would rather he had not since it’s coloring my attitude towards postings. It’s a free country and his blog after all though.

jeanie on February 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

You would rather someone lie to you like so called objective journalists do? You really think it isn’t better to understand someone’s position on an issue so you can better evaluate what they write or say?

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Bitter Clinger on February 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

The one thing that stands out most to me, when I think about DeWine, is that corny, checkered flannel shirt he wore when he campaigned.

Norky on February 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

It’s a big deal, in part because of DeWine’s standing in the state, and in part because he’d been seen as a more moderate Republican in Ohio (like Voinovich).

LOL. DeWine is a douchebag. This endorsement will hurt Santorum, not help him. I voted for DeWine only because, in 2006, I decided that I will not vote for a Democrat–no matter how bad the GOP candidate.

BuckeyeSam on February 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

A DeWine switch is interesting, since his cousin(?) heads the state GOP and has been undercutting Kasich since the beginning.

If Kasich goes for Mitt, then Mitt can show he really is not the establishment choice in OH…which could shore up the numbers.

DeWine is not a boon for Rick. He won because the previous female AG was a progressive nutjob openly selling out the state to Acorn and other fronts.

Mitt doesn’t need backers.

He needs a freakin plan!

In bullet-points!

By next week!

budfox on February 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

has barry stopped dyeing his hair recently? it’s looking like he is letting it go grey according to the pic and what i ahve seen of him recently. is this his way to attract younger guys at the bathhouse who like “older guys”? will larry sinclair find it sexy? does anyone know?

GhoulAid on February 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

The downside of wearing it that short is that roots show very quickly. No matter, he surely has a full-time White House hairdresser, or maybe he uses Moochie’s.

slickwillie2001 on February 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM

budfox on February 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Didn’t he release a 12 million page economic plan some months back?

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM

‘evaluate what they write or say’..yes, that’s exactly my problem. lol

jeanie on February 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Wow, so now Hot Air is censoring any pro-Newt news links? I’ve been trying to post them for the last 10 mins but they won’t show up…

Nice that this blog has finally shown its true colors….

tkyang99 on February 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Its a conspiracy to oppress your views and prevent news of Newt from being disseminated to the meat bags mindlessly refreshing this blog. That’s why HotAir employs three-hundred offshore moderators who constantly comb the comments section for any pro-Newt comments. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t banned you yet. Perhaps they have decided that more drastic action is required, and the unmarked vans are already en route to your location now. But, they won’t be able to find you if you cover all your windows and walls with aluminum foil. Better get to work.

… on the other hand, it could just be that you tried to re-post the same comment/link multiple times, and the auto-filter suspected thought you were spamming the website and your comments have been sent to moderation. But you should still start stapling that tin foils to the walls, just to be sure.

Lawdawg86 on February 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM

This is a head fake, and ask yourself this “How much have liberal groups spent taking down Santorum in this primary?” Have they spent one penny?

That would be because Santorum was a non-factor until very recently. You don’t use your sledgehammer to swat a buzzing gnat.

Because the unions spent a heft sum trying to take down Romney in Florida.

BradTank on February 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Which is why Gingrich won Florida so handily, and why the MSM pumped Gingrich and worked with his campaign to coordinate a negative media blitz against Romney over a period of days, and… wait a minute. /

The reason for this email is Santorum is virtually an unknown to the Obama team and they are starting to face the fact that he, rather than Romney, could potentially be their opponent. The OWS machine won’t be too helpful against someone known primarily for socon stances.

Doomberg on February 17, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Seriously, I don’t understand why so many of you guys buy into the media narrative concerning social conservatism. The historical electoral record does not support the meme.

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM

You’re argument is that, in the past, solidly Christian conservatives could win elections. Of course they could, because the country used to be solidly Christian. But that’s just not the case anymore. When Reagan was elected president, most adults were married, most gays were in the closet, most people still went to church regularly, many stores still closed on Sundays. Now, most people have openly gay friends, skip church, support gay marriage, stay unmarried themselves, have children out of wedlock, stream hardcore porn. So don’t tell me that the historical record is good for socons. Name some socons in the last twenty years who’ve enjoyed popularity on the national stage.

That’s the point, unless we’re going to allow the vote to take place in 1950 rather than 2012, Santorum’s going to lose.

EricW on February 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I love Newt because I think he is the only one with the guts to shake things up but right now he isn’t much of a blip on the radar screen. Fingers crossed for another resurgence.

Cindy Munford on February 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I’m with you. My problem is that I can’t defend against the sticks and stones Dems will throw at Romney–and a little less so with Santorum. But with Newt, I can deal with his baggage. Dems are going to smear Newt on philandering after decades of covering for Clinton? That’s rich.

I still think nobody can expose Obama to middle-of-the-road independents like Newt.

My hope is that Santorum hurts Romney severely–even fatally–and then GOP voters look at Santorum and decide, “What a minute. Tenth look at Newt?”

BuckeyeSam on February 17, 2012 at 12:59 PM

When Romney got the endorsement, I’m sure it was dismissed as just another move from the Establishment. Now that Santy gets it, suddenly it’s very important. LOL.

changer1701 on February 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Don’t know about grey, but his hair does look ‘sprayed on’. Sorry for channeling Imus, but it does.

jeanie on February 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Not sure where all of HA stands but Ed has made it clear as glass. I would rather he had not since it’s coloring my attitude towards postings. It’s a free country and his blog after all though.

jeanie on February 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Hugh Hewitt might be what you are searching for.

flyfisher on February 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM

My hope is that Santorum hurts Romney severely–even fatally–and then GOP voters look at Santorum and decide, “What a minute. Tenth look at Newt?”

BuckeyeSam on February 17, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Tenth look at a guy with his own sky-high unfavorables?

changer1701 on February 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Name some socons in the last twenty years who’ve enjoyed popularity on the national stage.

That’s the point, unless we’re going to allow the vote to take place in 1950 rather than 2012, Santorum’s going to lose.

EricW on February 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM

G.W.Bush was a pretty solid Social Conservative.

neuquenguy on February 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM

That’s the point, unless we’re going to allow the vote to take place in 1950 rather than 2012, Santorum’s going to lose.

EricW on February 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I am talking about the last 12 years. There is absolutely no electoral evidence to support the media driven meme that social cons scare voters away. Bush II was a social con and the media tried very hard to paint him as a scary Christian. How did that work out? McCain tried hard not to be a social con. How did that work out?

Santorum can easily deal with the contraception issue and he is in the mainstream when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. But ultimately the electoral record clearly shows that social cons are not scarey boogeymen to the average voter.

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Team Obama getting worried about Santorum? Are you kidding??! The nomination of Rick Santorum would be a gift beyond measure to Team Obama.

SukieTawdry on February 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Obama would be the happiest man on Earth if Santorum was the nominee.

A few ads from some shady Soros-sponsored group of Santorum talking about how married people are immoral for using contraceptives (I belive the term Santorum used was “sexual libertines”) and the suburbs would go running into Obama’s arms.

This is a head fake, and ask yourself this “How much have liberal groups spent taking down Santorum in this primary?” Have they spent one penny?

Because the unions spent a heft sum trying to take down Romney in Florida.

Until I see them put their money where their mouth is, I’m chalking this up as a head fake to garner support for Santorum.

BradTank on February 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM

The way both Newt and Mitt have spent SuperPAC resources trying to tear each other down, it makes this argument almost moot.

Each of the remaining three candidates (not factoring in Ron) has baggage that’s mostly out in the open now. If Team Obama hasn’t been spending time preparing opposition research for all three (since the day they announced), I would be deeply shocked.

And you and I know that Obama and every single Dem will regurgitate the same generic talking points about how “[fill in name] wants to poison the water, dirty the air, throw Granny off the cliff after feeding her only Alpo, forcing your child into having back-alley homemade abortions, etc.”, regardless of who gets the nomination.

Myron Falwell on February 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Mitt Romney suffers from the ‘weirdo factor’

Meanwhile, Google users are doing their best to redefine “Romney” as a verb meaning “to defecate in fear”. For example: “Newt Gingrich shook my hand and I Romneyed everywhere”.

Romneyed!

Stayright on February 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Anyways, Adelson just gave Newt another 10 million. tkyang99 on February 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Adelson? Are you sure it wasn’t Romney? ;-)

rhombus on February 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM

’m with you. My problem is that I can’t defend against the sticks and stones Dems will throw at Romney–and a little less so with Santorum. But with Newt, I can deal with his baggage. Dems are going to smear Newt on philandering after decades of covering for Clinton? That’s rich.

I still think nobody can expose Obama to middle-of-the-road independents like Newt.

My hope is that Santorum hurts Romney severely–even fatally–and then GOP voters look at Santorum and decide, “What a minute. Tenth look at Newt?”

BuckeyeSam on February 17, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I thought the same thing about Newt, in terms of defending him and making the case for his Presidency to my undecided friends. Its not too hard to parry criticisms of Newt’s personal life. But then I was hanging out with my sister a few weeks back (who I would describe as a very low-information voter) and Newt’s comments about building a lunar colony came on the news. Try defending Newt’s views about lunar statehood to your average person, and then tell me he is still easy to defend.

I cannot defend Rick Santorum’s social views. But I can defend him on this ground: Rick is forthright with his beliefs and he sticks to his guns, he isn’t just another pandering pol. Though I disagree with him on a host of issues, Rick is a man of integrity; the same cannot be said for Newt or Mitt. And Rick opposed the bailouts.

On balance I would still prefer Newt as President, but I think Santorum is a far stronger candidate for the office, and would make an excellent President (so long as he avoids being Preacher-in-Chief).

Lawdawg86 on February 17, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Tenth look at a guy with his own sky-high unfavorables?

changer1701 on February 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Sorry, Romney’s campaign begins and ends with Romneycare. Obama’s got a glass jaw, but Romney won’t be able to land even one punch. America won’t like Romney’s halting, passive-aggressive style of going after Obama. Meanwhile, dripping with contempt, Newt will be able to deliver body blows to Obama every day of the campaign.

BuckeyeSam on February 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM

This is the best article that I have ever read about Newt.

For all of Newt’s supporters:

http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/dear-speaker-gingrich.html

I found this from a Poster (FreeManWalking 2/15/12 @10:07PM) at
RightScoop. It was on this thread. Oh, do you want to hear Allen West sing? Not bad.

http://www.therightscoop.com/rep-allen-west-sings-pretty-woman/

It was late, so I haven’t finished reading the article on Newt yet.

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Wow, so now Hot Air is censoring any pro-Newt news links? I’ve been trying to post them for the last 10 mins but they won’t show up…

Nice that this blog has finally shown its true colors….

tkyang99 on February 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Seems to be working fine. Perhaps there is some user error involved with your problem.

Hot Air is so pro-Santorum and anti-Gingrich it’s become a joke. They’re not even trying to hide it anymore.

Anyways, Adelson just gave Newt another 10 million. You guys have to go to Drudge for the link because we-hate-Newt-Air certainly isn’t going to let anyone post it here.

tkyang99 on February 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM

If there a problem with your “link” button, it is possible to just edit HTML tags.

But please don’t do it. Fragile minds might break from the totally awesome news that HA filters out for us.
/SARC

WhatNot on February 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

It was more fun when Newt was attacked because he’s far more interesting and entertaining than Santorum who is predictable and trite. Still not a Newt fan, but enjoyed the drama. Romney is predictable and trite too unless you take umbrage that it’s not been duly noted.

jeanie on February 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Both DeWine and “King George” Voinovich are left of center. I lived in Ohio for King George’s reign in Columbus, and well remember DeWine leaving the LT Governor’s slot to run for the Senate. Both were closer to the center than either Glen or Metzenbaum, but that’s not saying an awful lot.

Quartermaster on February 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Oh, NOOOOO !!

Look what Ed posted on we Hate-Newt Air:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/17/breaking-adelson-gives-gingrich-backing-super-pac-another-10-million/

WhatNot on February 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM

A DeWine switch is interesting, since his cousin(?) heads the state GOP and has been undercutting Kasich since the beginning.

If Kasich goes for Mitt, then Mitt can show he really is not the establishment choice in OH…which could shore up the numbers.

Or Kasich simply stands in the shadows and endorses no one. He’s still unpopular in many parts of the state (no thanks mainly to the SB5 debacle, a failure on all fronts) so even if he endorsed Mitt, it wouldn’t have any effect.

Even if it was to get back at the DeWine clan.

DeWine is not a boon for Rick. He won because the previous female AG was a progressive nutjob openly selling out the state to Acorn and other fronts.

[rhetorical]

Consider, again, since Kevin DeWine is the state GOP chair… was the AG nomination per-arranged so Mike DeWine would have no competition in a primary? Anyone would have won that seat because Jennifer Brunner was so deeply beatable, and Mike was the best that could be trotted out?

[/rhetorical]

I personally think it’s Voinovich that’s switching. Makes the most sense on different political and personal levels.

Mitt doesn’t need backers.

He needs a freakin plan!

In bullet-points!

By next week!

budfox on February 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

John “I have a plan!” Kerry comes to mind. And not in a good way.

Myron Falwell on February 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM

WOW! Ed, going all in on Santorum this week! What is hilarious about Ed, Allah, and many posters on here and very hypocritical is that when Romney was/is racking up the endorsements almost everyone on here was saying “Oh, endorsements mean squat…” Yet, now that Santorum gets a couple we need to say HUGE this is for him yada yada yada…

I just think it is amazing we are AGAIN looking at electing the EXACT opposite of what is needed to fix THE ECONOMY by going with a guy who has never run anything but his Senate office and is a HUGE SOCIAL Compassionate Conservative which were the things that ticked most of us TPer’s off about Bush.

How do the rest of you TPer’s square the fact that Santorum is on tape saying he is concerned about the libertarians and the TP people in the conservative movement?

I’m still confident in a Romney presidency.

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM

DEWINE = ANOTHER LOSER. A BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVE.

AND SENATE CRONY.

BIG DEAL.

reliapundit on February 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM

It’s a big deal, in part because of DeWine’s standing in the state, and in part because he’d been seen as a more moderate Republican in Ohio (like Voinovich).

It is NOT a big deal. DeWine is a yawn here in Ohio. We dumped him as a US Senator because of his wimpiness, yet somehow he got voted in as AG. His endorsement is worthless.

NotEasilyFooled on February 17, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Consider, again, since Kevin DeWine is the state GOP chair… was the AG nomination per-arranged so Mike DeWine would have no competition in a primary? Anyone would have won that seat because Jennifer Brunner was so deeply beatable, and Mike was the best that could be trotted out?

On your first point, yes, the establishment cleared the GOP primary field for Mike Dewine to run for AG. Dave Yost was initially running against him then suddenly opted to jump to the Auditor’s race.

On the second point, Jennifer Brunner wasn’t AG. She was Secretary of State and opted to run for U.S. Senate (and lost in the Democrat primary, LOL!!). Cordray (now the illegal head of CFPB) was the AG that Dewine ran against.

Bitter Clinger on February 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Now, if we, in Ohio, could torpedo Sherrod Brown in November.

BuckeyeSam on February 17, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Worth repeating.

GrannyDee on February 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM

DeWine backing Romney: moderate squish endorses another.

DeWine backing Santorum: shows broad appeal and electability.

Team Obama “very worried” about Santorum, although so far every single specific anti-Republican ad put out by Democratic PACs, spending millions, has been attacking Romney.

Boy, when Ed is in the tank, he’s in the tank.

Adjoran on February 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM

WOW! Ed, going all in on Santorum this week! What is hilarious about Ed, Allah, and many posters on here and very hypocritical is that when Romney was/is racking up the endorsements almost everyone on here was saying “Oh, endorsements mean squat…” Yet, now that Santorum gets a couple we need to say HUGE this is for him yada yada yada…

If it were a random endorsement it would not make much difference. However, it’s someone switching FROM Romney to Santorum, which is much more significant.

Doomberg on February 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Wow, so now Hot Air is censoring any pro-Newt news links? I’ve been trying to post them for the last 10 mins but they won’t show up…

Nice that this blog has finally shown its true colors….

tkyang99 on February 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

No, the link you were trying to post has the word “casino” in it, which trips our spam filters, thanks to the large amount of comment and trackback spam we get from online casinos. As soon as I saw both of the attempts to post the link, I approved them — and as you can see now, I wrote a post about the CBS News story even before I had a chance to check the spam filter.

Nice bout of paranoia, though.

Ed Morrissey on February 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM

How do the rest of you TPer’s square the fact that Santorum is on tape saying he is concerned about the libertarians and the TP people in the conservative movement?

I’m still confident in a Romney presidency.

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Simple. I consider myself a fiscal/nat-sec conservative and a Tea Partier. I disagree with Rick on social issues, but I don’t find social issues particularly relevant to how I vote. Going from there, I believe that Rick is a strong conservative. He puts himself out there, and he is consistent in his beliefs. Mitt Romney strikes me as a liberal doing his best to impersonate a conservative (see: “severe conservative”, reflexively defending his “conservatism” by highlighting his opposition to gay marriage, etc.). He is a complete and total phony, I have no idea where he stands on any of the issues, and I have zero confidence that he will show any kind of consistency in the campaign or in office, should he make it there.

Rick opposed the bailouts; Romney supported them. Rick can prosecute the case against Obamacare; Romney uses the same defenses for Romneycare that Obama uses for Obamacare (i.e. “we were trying to solve the freerider problem”, “we were encouraging private sector competition”, “everyone got to keep their private insurance plan”), and in doing so, he will mainstream Obamacare and make Republican opposition to the law look like hypocritical opportunism.

Lawdawg86 on February 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM

This isn’t going to help when you have 3 BIG conservative sites or think tanks panning your tax policy:

“We have to compete with manufacturers all over the world who want your job and in some cases took your job,” Santorum said yesterday at the Detroit Economic Club.

Likening it to the need for America to produce its own food and weapons, he added: “We need to have a manufacturing base in this economy. Why? Because of our national security.”

That has conservative policy analysts crying foul, while advocates for other sectors of the economy quietly gripe that they’d be effectively underwriting manufacturing under Santorum’s plan by paying a higher tax rate than otherwise needed.

“Giving a preferential rate is picking winners and losers through the tax code,” said Curtis Dubay, a tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “The goal of tax reform should be a neutral tax code.”

“This is not free-market economics, this is trying to tilt the market toward manufacturing, and it will hurt the economy rather than help it, because resources would be artificially diverted from other sectors of the economy to manufacturing,” Dubay said.

Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Santorum’s plan would “create the biggest tax dodge in history,” as businesses raced to redefine themselves as manufacturers.

“How do you define manufacturing?” asked Andy Roth of the conservative Club for Growth. “Do movie studios manufacture films? Do book publishers, when they send a .pdf of a manuscript to China, are they manufacturing books? Companies are going to game this.”
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02/17/021712-news-campaign-1-3/

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Ed Morrissey on February 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM

It disgusts me how much you’re in the tank for CBS Ed!

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

It is NOT a big deal. DeWine is a yawn here in Ohio. We dumped him as a US Senator because of his wimpiness, yet somehow he got voted in as AG. His endorsement is worthless.

NotEasilyFooled on February 17, 2012 at 1:33 PM

With “Republicans” like DeWine and crybaby Voinovich, Ohio doesn’t need Democrats.

Happy Nomad on February 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Bush II was a social con and the media tried very hard to paint him as a scary Christian. How did that work out? McCain tried hard not to be a social con. How did that work out?

Bush II originally ran as a moderate, especially on social issues. You’ll recall that he made a point in his campaign of courting the Log Cabins. It’s hard to judge how social conservatism played into the his presidency overall, since Iraq overshadowed everything else. But in his second term he played to socons as a mid-term strategy, and it did him no favors in ’06. And do note that your single example of a successful social conservative left office as one of the least popular presidents ever.

To present McCain’s failure as a failure of social moderates is disingenuous. With Bush’s abysmal approval ratings, the gas shock in the Gulf, and the implosion of Lehman Brothers I’m sure a socon would’ve lost too. In fact, McCain was polling evenly or ahead of Obama up until all of that happened, so I don’t buy your claim. But from the McCain did pick up a social con for his veep. How’d she go over with the public?

So again, name a socon who’s enjoyed nationwide popularity in the last few years.

On the other hand, one good example of social conservatism winning an election is in 2004, when gay marriage was on the ballot in Ohio. Arguably, it saved Bush more than Bush did. It’s harder to attack a ballot initiative than a person, so take that as a suggestion as to how social conservatives should pursue their agenda.

Santorum can easily deal with the contraception issue and he is in the mainstream when it comes to abortion and gay marriage.

Abortion vacillates depending on the president, so he will probably not have a problem there. On gay marriage, though, you’re simply wrong. Most people now support either gay marriage or civil unions. Santorum’s not only on the wrong side of the issue, but he’ll make it an issue in his campaign simply by getting the nomination. And while I think Santorum can explain his stance on contraception to our satisfaction, it will continue to hurt him among the larger population of voters.

But ultimately the electoral record clearly shows that social cons are not scarey boogeymen to the average voter.

We’ll see, but I don’t think it looks good.

EricW on February 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM

It disgusts me how much you’re in the tank for CBS Ed!

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

You should see my shrine to Dan Rather …

Ed Morrissey on February 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I will never vote for a religious zealot. They are the most dangerous of politicians.

rubberneck on February 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Yeah, boy. We all know how “dangerous” those 20-year disciples of the “Reverend” Wright are….

jfs756 on February 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I personally think it’s Voinovich that’s switching. Makes the most sense on different political and personal levels.
Myron Falwell on February 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I would hope that Santorum or anyone looking for an endorsement from Ohio would understand a Voinovich would be the same as a Senator Brown(D) endorsement. Avoid that at all costs.

Voinovich & Brown voted the same most of the time.

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I would hope that Santorum or anyone looking for an endorsement from Ohio would understand a Voinovich would be the same as a Senator Brown(D) endorsement. Avoid that at all costs.

Voinovich & Brown voted the same most of the time.

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Aye, but if it’s Rep. Renacci that switches?

Myron Falwell on February 17, 2012 at 1:49 PM

You should see my shrine to Dan Rather …

Ed Morrissey on February 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM

You can’t please them all Ed, LOL So you might as well please yourself:-) You do a great job!!! Happy Friday too!

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM

You should see my shrine to Dan Rather …

Ed Morrissey on February 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM

What kind of font did you use to make it?

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I’m going to a townhall with Santorum next Saturday here in Columbus…mainly out of curiosity, as I’m not really backing any candidate at this point. I’ll vote for whomever isn’t Obama.

tdpwells on February 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Aye, but if it’s Rep. Renacci that switches?

Myron Falwell on February 17, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I haven’t checked up on him lately so don’t know how he’s voting.
Too many varmints to track, LOL If you know anything, let me know.

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I’m still confident in a Romney presidency.

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM

It isn’t even certain that he’ll get the nomination. Romney certainly has an enthusiasm gap with the GOP base. Santorum, not so much.

As to Santorum’s stand on social issues, it shouldn’t be an issue for two reasons. First, this is an economics election. Secondly, the lies being told about what Santorum would do if elected seem pretty tame compared to the jug-eared idiot and his unilateral decision to force religious organizations fund abortions. Put another way, Santorum’s views look sensible next to the way Dems are looking to get into your bedroom.

Happy Nomad on February 17, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Yeah, boy. We all know how “dangerous” those 20-year disciples of the “Reverend” Wright are….

jfs756 on February 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Obama was able to dodge the issue by denouncing him, and of course he got a big assist from the media. Something tells me Santorum’s not going to hold a presser to tell us he thinks that the Pope is an idiot. I’d love to see it though, not because I hate the Pope, but at this point I’m just hoping for some entertainment.

EricW on February 17, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I’m going to a townhall with Santorum next Saturday here in Columbus…mainly out of curiosity, as I’m not really backing any candidate at this point. I’ll vote for whomever isn’t Obama.

tdpwells on February 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Hope you get a chance to ask a question. Do you know where it’s going to be held? Columbus is a busy place on a Saturday:-)

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM

but at this point I’m just hoping for some entertainment.

EricW on February 17, 2012 at 1:53 PM

HA isn’t enough? LOL

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Mark Levin and Michelle Malkin are backing Santorum. That’s good enough for me.

mozalf on February 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Lawdawg86 on February 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Law…You need to recheck Santorum’s stances as even ANTI-Romney Erick Erickson posted a whole slew of bills Santorum has backed and he is NOT as conservative as many think he is…
As for Romney you can go to his website as well as the guy ran in 2008 and so his record is out there and he is conservative. So many people on HA have bought into this idea that he is some HUGE liberal is ridiculous! People spout “facts” about him that are not even true ONLY because they have been repeated so much! Gay Marriage is one HE NEVER supported it. He stopped the state of MA from becoming the entry door for the rest of the nation so they could get married in MA and go back to their home states hoping their state would recognize the marriage. Cap-N-trade is another lie. He backed out of the RGGI deal yet there are HA posters stating he backed Cap-n-Trade. He also did not ban assault weapons as even the NRA of MA and G.O.A.L. the largest Gun Owners Action League in MA said the MEDIA AND PEOPLE got it wrong and it was a victory for gun owners the bill he signed.
See Here as one example:
Legislation: During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.
His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006.

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons
This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

So there are MANY positions that people here believe are true and are false or they’ll twist the truth to give the appearance of liberalism.

Bottom line there is NOT a BETTER CANDIDATE for our current situation of the economy than Romney. There is a fact.

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 1:59 PM

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Yeah, the great “conservative economists” who think that outsourcing all our jobs will somehow lead to more jobs here in the U.S. is really a winning strategy. And having everything made in China and India sure makes us more secure. s/

fight like a girl on February 17, 2012 at 1:59 PM

But in his second term he played to socons as a mid-term strategy, and it did him no favors in ’06. And do note that your single example of a successful social conservative left office as one of the least popular presidents ever.

EricW on February 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM

None of this detracts from what I said, but social conservative issues did not sink Republicans in 2006 or 2008. And since McCain couldn’t bring moderates to him being a nonsocial con, what makes you think it matters?

Ultimately many voters are social cons and many more just don’t give it much credence. No one has ever lost a national election because they are a social con.

On gay marriage, though, you’re simply wrong. Most people now support either gay marriage or civil unions.

What do you base this on? Every single referendum on the issue going against gay marriage? And where does Obama publicly stand on this issue?

Often times looking at what Democrats refuse to campaign on tells us a lot about where most Americans stand. And Obama will not touch abortion or gay marriage with a 50 foot pole unless Santorum brings it up.

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM

It disgusts me how much you’re in the tank for CBS Ed!

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

You should see my shrine to Dan Rather …

Ed Morrissey on February 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Ed,
You’re killing me with all these Santorum articles…BUT that was funny above! touche’

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Hope you get a chance to ask a question. Do you know where it’s going to be held? Columbus is a busy place on a Saturday:-)

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Hotel near the airport. Apparently it was arranged by a conglomeration of 912 groups and Ohio Liberty groups. It’s free, but they’re taking donations from attendees to help defray the costs, and they’re piggybacking a food drive on top of it.

tdpwells on February 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Give it up. There is no rational person who thinks Romney is more conservative than Santorum.
Rick had one the highest conservative voting records when he was in the House and Senate.
Nitpicking a few votes out of over 4000 cast won’t change that fact.

fight like a girl on February 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Hope you get a chance to ask a question. Do you know where it’s going to be held? Columbus is a busy place on a Saturday:-)

bluefox on February 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Sorry – it’s tomorrow, not next Saturday. Been on vacation and my schedule is all off. ;-) He must be staying the night since he’s here today for the endorsement/announcement, and stopping to speak to the group on his way out in the morning.

tdpwells on February 17, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3