DNC pivots from Romney to Santorum

posted at 9:50 pm on February 20, 2012 by Tina Korbe

It probably isn’t accurate to say Rick Santorum is now the GOP frontrunner — delegate count is still most important — but it’s also not quite accurate to consider him nothing more than the latest not-Romney. Not only does the latest Gallup tracking poll show that his lead has expanded nationwide, but the Democratic National Committee by its recent attacks on him has also signaled that Santorum has arrived in this race:

“Santorum is leading in the polls nationally – it would be crazy to ignore him at this point,” a Democratic source with knowledge of the shift in strategy tells CNN.

“Rather than focusing on jobs, the economy, or any of the issues that matter most to Americans, he discussed man’s ‘dominion over’ the earth, repeated his patently false claim that prenatal health care is a plot to force more abortions, and questioned the need for public education,” said the DNC press release.

The second, just released Monday afternoon, hits Santorum on the economy.

“Rick Santorum has embraced the same philosophy that created the economic crisis. His tax plan would primarily benefit the very wealthy while adding $900 billion to the national deficit. And it would be a disaster for middle class families. Santorum has attacked the very idea of public education and criticized the Paul Ryan plan that would end Medicare as we know it because it did not go far enough. He opposed extending the payroll tax cut that saves the typical middle class family $1,000. And he opposed rescuing the auto industry which saved 1.4 million American jobs.” argues the DNC.

For its part, the Santorum campaign is unperturbed. A spokesperson told CNN that Obama has to be worried about Santorum because he has credibility to attack the president on health care, the bailouts, cap and tax, and the administration’s assault on religious liberty. That’s all true.

What about the DNC’s accusation against Santorum’s economic policies, though? All the issues the Dems cited are the issues of least concern to conservatives. I’m thrilled, for example, that Santorum didn’t support the payroll tax cut extension; he shouldn’t have. Obama won’t be able to attack Santorum for his repeated requests for a debt ceiling increase, either, and, while the president likes to pretend Santorum’s plan shows no concern for blue-collar workers or the manufacturing sector, it actually shows more concern — and more faith in the government — than most conservatives would like. Obama’s best line of attack against Santorum would have been on social issues — but he’s even turned the tables on himself on that one.


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

Dang, you’re wierd.

Vince on February 20, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Esoteric is an oddity in that he has a brain and isn’t afraid to use it even if it goes against the prevailing conventional wisdom around here.

alchemist19 on February 20, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Look harder.

alchemist19 on February 20, 2012 at 10:53 PM

There is no way I could look at Mittens record as Gov. of MA and come away thinking he will be a conservative president. His record in politics from 1994 until present shows a man so devoid of personal convictions it is disgusting.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I just went back and watched every word from all the GOP debates and three things stood out very clearly when looked at “in total”.

First, Governor Romney when attacked loses his cool and has his worst debate performances. Second, Rick Santorum has not had one gaffe during all the debates. Not one.

And finally, Santorum is the best debater of the all the candidates this GOP season for one simple reason that shines through the debates…he uses his opponent’s statements/record against what they happen to be saying during a debate (i.e, Bachmann got more press for attacking Paul on Iran as “dangerous” but Santorum had the stronger argument during the debate). Another example of this is when Santorum pointed out Romney’s current position vs. his record as governor.

Deep Timber on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I tried to post links but it went to moderation. Google “DNC attacks on Romney” (without the quotes) and you’ll get pages of them.

The same thing happened to me. Posted a bunch of links, but the site ate it up.

Look, it’s not like this is any sort of secret: the DNC and the Obama re-elect has been relentlessly focused on tearing down Romney because 1.) they figured they’d be facing him; 2.) they’re deathly afraid of him as the only GOP candidate who can actually unseat Obama. Remember that Politico article from summer of last year that was featured here on Hot Air, bluntly titled “Obama 2012 Strategy: Kill Romney”?

Well, actually, no…I suppose you’ve forgotten that. Or carefully sought to prevent yourself from learning about it in the first place (people’s ability to strategically avoid information that upsets their preconceived worldview is amazingly strong). But yes: in case you’ve been living under a rock since January of 2011, the Obama/DNC/reelect team has been focused like a laser on Romney. For crying out loud, that undisputed fact is quite literally presumed in Tina’s piece here. How can the DNC ‘pivot’ from Romney to Santorum if they weren’t already focused on Romney to start with?

Esoteric on February 20, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Santorum changes the dynamics, though…in a season when the economy would normally be the main issue, his stances on social issues will be at the forefront. And, those will certainly scare independents into Obama’s corner. And it’s not abortion…it’s the birth control thing, and other issues that he’s brought up that paint him as the crazy theocrat who wants to legislate morality.

No offense, but I think you’re being a little naive. People will most certainly reward a failure like Obama if they’re scared about the prospect of a Santorum presidency.

changer1701 on February 20, 2012 at 10:57 PM

This is where you and your ilk are so misguided.

Santorum is NOT saying he will legislate birth control out of existence or something close to that.

He is making a point that our culture is rotting largely because of the availability of contraceptives. I don’t totally agree with that myself, but he isn’t running to be pope. He knows he couldn’t actually legislate his own conscience. He still makes a MUCH better conservative case than Romney ever will.

Bitter Clinger on February 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM

There is no way I could look at Mittens record as Gov. of MA and come away thinking he will be a conservative president. His record in politics from 1994 until present shows a man so devoid of personal convictions it is disgusting.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I was responding to someone’s question about judicial nominations specifically and on that matter Romney made the best of a horrible situation. I’ve engaged you before so I already know you don’t have much of an open mind on the matter so I’m not going to waste my time explaining the facts that I know you will ignore because they don’t fit your carefully constructed narrative.

alchemist19 on February 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Dang, you’re wierd.

Vince on February 20, 2012 at 10:50 PM

O RLY? Care to explain how so?

Esoteric on February 20, 2012 at 10:53 PM

What Obama is doing is attacking Santorum in such a way as to 1.) elevate him in the minds of GOP primary voters as “the real deal”; 2.) quite intentionally FAIL to attack on his true vulnerabilities, which is his crazy-weird, alienating social positions. The reason for that is because they want to save them for the general election, if he gets there. Going after him on that front now risks 1.) Santorum losing the nomination to Romney as his uglier and more unpalatable positions come out and get repeated; 2.) wasting the attacks now by letting them sink in months before the final vote, instead of keeping them fresh for a general voting public that doesn’t know about Santorum’s crazy stuff yet.

This is a tactic that is as old as the republic, for crying out loud. It’s called “choosing your opponent,” and it is exactly what Harry Reid did, for example, in Nevada in 2010, where he relentlessly attacked Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian and completely left Sharron Angle alone (the only ‘attack’ he made on her before the primary was something labeling here “the Tea Party true believer,” an ‘attack’ that is transparently not an attack at all, but rather designed to make GOP voters who saw it think “hey, she really is good!”).

I have a hard time figuring out whether you don’t realize this, or you do but you’re under an omerta by Ed Morrissey (or Salem) and can’t bring the point up. Because you sound like Pollyanna right now…and it’s all going to end in tears if Santorum is the nominee. Obama isn’t going to say word one about his economic policies. It’ll be gays, contraception, “Protestants have been misled by Satan, Father of Lies,” and “the government needs to be in the bedroom” 24/7.

Esoteric on February 20, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Who did you run a campaign for?

Vince on February 20, 2012 at 11:04 PM

And it’s not abortion…it’s the birth control thing, and other issues that he’s brought up that paint him as the crazy theocrat who wants to legislate morality.

changer1701 on February 20, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Please provide a link to an actual quote where Santorum has stated that he wants to ban contraception.

He has stated his position and personal beliefs but has never advocated banning them. Nor has he indicated any desire to do so.

He has stated that he believes it is wrong for the government to require that employers who are morally opposed to contraception to have to provide it to their employees. Especially if those employers are religious institutions and this would violate their doctrines.

/You wouldn’t happen to be George Stephanopoulis by any chance, would you?

AZfederalist on February 20, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Obama isn’t going to say word one about his economic policies. It’ll be gays, contraception, “Protestants have been misled by Satan, Father of Lies,” and “the government needs to be in the bedroom” 24/7.

Esoteric on February 20, 2012 at 9:59 PM

We can only hope that Obama is as stupid as you. If O does you say he will lose

rik on February 20, 2012 at 11:11 PM

his is where you and your ilk are so misguided.

Santorum is NOT saying he will legislate birth control out of existence or something close to that.

He is making a point that our culture is rotting largely because of the availability of contraceptives. I don’t totally agree with that myself, but he isn’t running to be pope. He knows he couldn’t actually legislate his own conscience. He still makes a MUCH better conservative case than Romney ever will.

Bitter Clinger on February 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM

No, you’re the one that is misguided. The Dems will accuse Santorum of wanting to ban contraceptives, regardless of whether it’s true or not. And many people will believe it.

Obama is the favorite in this election. The Republican candidate will have a shot if the economy is still floundering, and if they can present themselves as a palatable (i.e., not crazy) alternative. The one thing that Santorum might have going for him in this regard is that the Dems might overplay their hand, making Santorum look batshit crazy, which could blow up in their faces in the debates if Santorum can outperform expectations.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Vince on February 20, 2012 at 11:04 PM

What exactly do you think is wrong with his argument? It looks like a pretty good analysis to me.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 11:17 PM

running a candidate who will be forced to talk about his hardcore (and frankly extreme, even for me) positions on social issues — something conservatives LOSE on

Something conservatives lose on? The last truly conservative person we had run for president was Ronald Reagan. I thought that turned out rather well. No,what you and others at the DNC fear is being drawn in to a position to defend their moral values, or lack thereof. Doesn’t it tell you something when the majority of the establishment and mainstream media are pulling for Mccain, I mean Romney (Freudian slip)?
The only reason that the democratic party won big in 2008 is because people went in to the voting booth and pulled the lever for democrats when in reality they were mainly there to vote for Obama. The only reason the RNC wants a candidate that can win the presidency is because they know that these same people will pull the big republican lever thereby sweeping a bunch of republicans in to office. They are playing it safe with a moderate candidate as apposed to a conservative one so that no matter what happens, they will still maintain their power.
I am still not in anyone camp as of yet (what we truly need is a candidate that is a cross between Ronald Reagan and John Wayne). As it stands right now, I’m leaning towards Santorum. I don’t care about elect ability, or what the media thinks, I will vote for someone who I cam believe in. End of story. One final question, if Santorum claimed he was a Muslim, would ANYBODY attack him on that basis. I think not.
A lot of Romney and DNC posters on this thread. If your DNC, go back to Kos where you belong. If your for Romney, save your attacks for Obama, because if he gets elected for four more years, we will all probably be in jail as dissidents.

bandutski on February 20, 2012 at 11:18 PM

This is where you and your ilk are so misguided.

Santorum is NOT saying he will legislate birth control out of existence or something close to that.

He is making a point that our culture is rotting largely because of the availability of contraceptives. I don’t totally agree with that myself, but he isn’t running to be pope. He knows he couldn’t actually legislate his own conscience. He still makes a MUCH better conservative case than Romney ever will.

Bitter Clinger on February 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM

No, I and my “ilk” aren’t the misguided ones here. He’s talked about the state being able to ban contraceptives, and he’s said birth control harms women…THAT’S what people will focus in on, not some larger point about society (which they won’t agree with, either). He might know he can’t legislate his conscience, but he’ll have a very hard time convincing others that isn’t something he’d try to do. I don’t personally think a theocrat makes the best case for conservatism, either.

changer1701 on February 20, 2012 at 11:18 PM

We can only hope that Obama is as stupid as you. If O does you say he will lose

rik on February 20, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Right. Because Obama can run on his achievements, like the terrific economy and Obamacare… No wait…

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Please provide a link to an actual quote where Santorum has stated that he wants to ban contraception.

He has stated his position and personal beliefs but has never advocated banning them. Nor has he indicated any desire to do so.

He has stated that he believes it is wrong for the government to require that employers who are morally opposed to contraception to have to provide it to their employees. Especially if those employers are religious institutions and this would violate their doctrines.

/You wouldn’t happen to be George Stephanopoulis by any chance, would you?

AZfederalist on February 20, 2012 at 11:10 PM

You’re giving the public way too much credit and the Democrat attack machine way too little. Did it matter that Mitt Romney didn’t really mean that he enjoys firing people? No, it mattered what they could get into a 30 second TV attack ad. The line of attack on Santorum will probably go something like this….

He’s an old quote of Santorum’s that I’m sure will come back in the general:

“It’s [contraception] 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 will lift the second and third words out of that and run an ad that says “Rick Santorum says contraception is not okay.” The counter for that will go something along the lines of “Yes he said that and it is what he personally believes but that doesn’t necessarily mean that if he’s elected…….” and you’ve lost the argument already. The attack is short, to-the-point and easy for the uninformed voter to digest. The explanation is a lot longer, more nuanced and won’t be able to get around the fact that Santorum both said and believes that. Advantage: Democrats. Big time.

alchemist19 on February 20, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Deep Timber on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I think a lot of Rick Santorum. But do you really think he debated better than Newt?

hawkdriver on February 20, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Santorum is NOT saying he will legislate birth control out of existence or something close to that.

Bitter Clinger on February 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Please provide a link to an actual quote where Santorum has stated that he wants to ban contraception.

AZfederalist on February 20, 2012 at 11:10 PM

It doesn’t matter whether he said it or not. Sarah Palin never said “I can see Russia from my house,” but plenty of people believe that she did.

Look at how the media spun Santorum’s speech. “Santorum questions Obama’s Christian faith.” If you read what the man really said it’s obvious that’s not how he meant it, but most people won’t. And the media will go out of their way to aid and abet their misunderstanding. The Obama campaign will come out with their misleading statements and press releases, the media will print them verbatim, and people will believe them.

And BTW, I don’t think Romney can win this election either. At this point we are well and truly hosed.

Shadow on February 20, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Has Rick Santorum actually questioned the need for public education? Oh my… Compared to that, even ObamaCare and TARP are minor issues. First look at Santorum?

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 11:30 PM

And BTW, I don’t think Romney can win this election either. At this point we are well and truly hosed.

Shadow on February 20, 2012 at 11:23 PM

I think that we’ve still have a good chance.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Deep Timber on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I think a lot of Rick Santorum. But do you really think he debated better than Newt?

hawkdriver on February 20, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Debate? Yes. Santorum is the best of them at getting his opinion out and contrasting his position with his opponent’s viewpoint and giving specific examples of flip flops in his opponent’s record and debate statements.

Now, if you want red-meat, flame-thrower lightnig media host on fire…Gingrich is untoppable. However, it can get stale quickly if overused and appears weak when ABC/CNN host isn’t on the stage. Gingrich is also the strongest at explaining a problem in historical terms but often jumps to oversimplified solution due to too much time spent explaining problem.

Deep Timber on February 20, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Well I just tried to submit a long (but not remotely obscene) comment three times…and it failed to post all three times. Dunno what’s going on.

Esoteric on February 20, 2012 at 11:42 PM

He might know he can’t legislate his conscience, but he’ll have a very hard time convincing others that isn’t something he’d try to do. I don’t personally think a theocrat makes the best case for conservatism, either.

changer1701 on February 20, 2012 at 11:18 PM

The only way (the ONLY way) we lose with Santorum is if people manage to ignore the facts. Fact #1: Santorum voted for the Abortion Clinic Access Bill. If you don’t know what that is, look it up. And then tell me how any sane doesn’t realize that shows he already has a record of voting Constitution over conscience. Get it? He’s already proven he won’t do what you’re trying to gin up fear over.

Santorum’s record speaks volumes, and is consistent over the years. That’s what makes him such a great candidate. He will stand up to whatever vetting they throw at him. Sure, he’s awfully far to the con side of so-con, but as long as that doesn’t stop him from doing his Constitutional duty as the leader of the free world, I’m okay with it. And it’s my job to convince others.

And it’s yours too! Get the truth out about Santorum not try to figure out why we should go with the guy who backs both healthcare mandates and cap and tax. For goodness sakes, is that who you really want to vote for?

AJsDaddie on February 20, 2012 at 11:44 PM

DNC strategy for Santorum: Leave Santorum alone and let him keep talking.

Roymunson on February 20, 2012 at 11:50 PM

The only way (the ONLY way) we lose with Santorum is if people manage to ignore the facts.

Why do you think people aren’t completely capable (indeed, LIKELY) to ‘ignore the facts’?

And also, what makes you so certain that those things which you claim are “facts” are actually “facts”?

Esoteric on February 20, 2012 at 11:50 PM

DNC strategy for Santorum: Leave Santorum alone and let him keep talking.

Roymunson on February 20, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Guess you missed the headline of this thread.

Bitter Clinger on February 20, 2012 at 11:52 PM

It doesn’t matter whether he said it or not. Sarah Palin never said “I can see Russia from my house,” but plenty of people believe that she did.

I’m sorry, but only truly stupid people believe that. Anybody who can’t figure out the difference between SNL and reality deserves whatever kind of government they get. But if we let those people choose the government, then we deserve that government too.

Look at how the media spun Santorum’s speech. “Santorum questions Obama’s Christian faith.” If you read what the man really said it’s obvious that’s not how he meant it, but most people won’t. And the media will go out of their way to aid and abet their misunderstanding. The Obama campaign will come out with their misleading statements and press releases, the media will print them verbatim, and people will believe them.

Which is why it’s your job to go to each person you know and explain why it’s just not true. That’s what I’ve been doing and what I’ll be doing from here to November. Chances are I won’t swing my dark blue state, but if the polls look even a little shaky here it’s a way to siphon energy out of the national machine.

And BTW, I don’t think Romney can win this election either. At this point we are well and truly hosed.

Shadow on February 20, 2012 at 11:23 PM

I would vote for Romney if he won the primary. But there’s no way I can back him the same way I am Santorum. What am I supposed to say? That tired crap about how Romenycare is “working” in Massachusettes? Who gives a crap? It’s a mandate!!! How do you defend his cap and tax position? His abortion position? His judicial picks? Yeah, I’d vote for him, but I can’t campaign for him. My campaign would be AGAINST Obama, and that’s not the best way to win an election, especially when you have the media in the tank for the other side.

AJsDaddie on February 20, 2012 at 11:54 PM

What exactly do you think is wrong with his argument? It looks like a pretty good analysis to me.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 11:17 PM

He’s not making an argument, he’s stating what he considers is fact. He has no way of knowing what their strategy is.

No one builds up an opponent so they can face them in an election. Witness what they came out with the last two days against Santorum.

You try to weaken an opponent in any way possible. They don’t care who they run against. They’ll lie aqbout anyone they have to face and Romney takes Obamacare off the table which should be a major issue in the campaign.

Vince on February 21, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Why do you think people aren’t completely capable (indeed, LIKELY) to ‘ignore the facts’?

Because I’m not a flippin’ liberal. Conservatives believe that given the chance people make reasoned, responsible choices. If you don’t believe that, you’re a liberal. I mean, that’s by definition: liberals think the voters are too stupid to do what’s right, so government has to do it for them. If that’s what you belive, stick a (D) next to your name and go hang with the Kos kiddies.

And also, what makes you so certain that those things which you claim are “facts” are actually “facts”?

Esoteric on February 20, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Well, I guess because I deal with reality. It’s a FACT that he voted for the Abortion Clinic Access Bill. A real, actual fact. If you’re having trouble with that then there’s little that I or anyone can do for you.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Because I’m not a flippin’ liberal. Conservatives believe that given the chance people make reasoned, responsible choices. If you don’t believe that, you’re a liberal.

Somebody hasn’t read their Burke, their Kirk, or their Buckley. American conservatism has, in fact, always believed exactly the OPPOSITE: the ‘people’, broadly speaking, are something of a rabble. This is why we have a republic instead of a direct democracy, this is why Athens failed, this is why senators used to be appointed by state legislatures instead of directly elected. If you believe that people ALWAYS make the correct, reasoned, decision then 1.) you are stating something that runs directly contrary to 4,000 years of recorded human history; 2.) you have to discard every single American election where the voting public made a horribly stupid choice (like, say, electing Carter, or Obama, or Johnson over Goldwater, or FDR as president-for-life).

I live in the real world, as a conservative. I believe as a Christian that humankind is fallible, flawed, and prone to weakness and foolishness, easily led astray by those who distract with shiny baubles (whether literal or metaphorical) or who promise impossible things. I’m pretty sure that you do too, at least when you’re not opportunistically pretending otherwise because you’re arguing with somebody on the other side of an issue. I have no confidence in the ability of an electorate to ‘see through’ the lies of the Obama campaign and the MSM, precisely because I know exactly how effectively they’ll be pitched. And I have empirical evidence of the ability of American voters to screw things up, in the recent past: 2008. What’s your counterargument?

Esoteric on February 21, 2012 at 12:12 AM

In addition: ironically enough, the difference between me (as a true conservative) and someone like Rick Santorum (as a big government theocon) is that even though I think people often make the WRONG decisions, I still believe they have the right to do that. People have the right to do stupid things (they also have to face the consequences, just as many here on Hot Air will have to own up to their responsibility for backing Santorum if/when he proves to be an electoral disaster). Santorum, however, wants to use the power of the government to prevent us flawed humans from doing the things that he personally thinks is wrong because his religious beliefs tell him so.

Now THAT is something I find to be truly unconservative.

Esoteric on February 21, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Santorum, however, wants to use the power of the government to prevent us flawed humans from doing the things that he personally thinks is wrong because his religious beliefs tell him so.

Now THAT is something I find to be truly unconservative.

Esoteric on February 21, 2012 at 12:15 AM

This is a lie. Please find some examples of Santorum saying he’ll impose his religious beliefs on you. Exact quotes, please. Then we’ll do the reading comprehension game.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Somebody hasn’t read their Burke, their Kirk, or their Buckley. American conservatism has, in fact, always believed exactly the OPPOSITE: the ‘people’, broadly speaking, are something of a rabble.

Oh lovely. Another liberal elite in conservative clothing. How does HA attract you folk?

I live in the real world, as a conservative. I believe as a Christian that humankind is fallible, flawed, and prone to weakness and foolishness, easily led astray by those who distract with shiny baubles (whether literal or metaphorical) or who promise impossible things.

Yep, you’re a liberal. Me, I believe in the inherent greatness of America as a country and in its inhabitants. I believe the real Americans run into the burning building, not away from it. I believe that you and your ilk want to appeal to the basest nature of the entitlement class, and I believe that you will get your comeuppance. 2010 started it, and 2012 will just be chapter two.

And I have empirical evidence of the ability of American voters to screw things up, in the recent past: 2008. What’s your counterargument?

Esoteric on February 21, 2012 at 12:12 AM

2008 was a perfect storm of a horrible candidate hand-picked by the RINO establishment (I’m guessing that’s your natural habitat) combined with a sense of history and not a little white guilt thrown in. Mash that up with a media that was entirely in the tank for Obama, and it was almost a shoo-in. That’s probably the only way the guy could have won; that perfect storm of a hard-line constituency, a massively biased media and a dispirited electorate. And even then, Sarah almost made it a horse race!

Remember, other than 2008 Obama has a pretty lackluster election record. And We the People won’t be fooled again. Unless Obama pulls a mighty course change to the center like Arkansas Bill, he’s toast. And that’s even before Breitbart starts leaking whatever he has in the film canisters.

And in the end, if we are to lose the country (and be sure that I’m concerned that the country couldn’t survive another four years of this administration) to Obama, I’d rather do it with a Conservative than with yet another “it’s my turn” establishment RINO.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Me, I believe in the inherent greatness of America as a country and in its inhabitants. I believe the real Americans run into the burning building, not away from it. I believe that you and your ilk want to appeal to the basest nature of the entitlement class, and I believe that you will get your comeuppance. 2010 started it, and 2012 will just be chapter two.

A willingness to run into the burning building does not preclude one from being led astray by a charlatan.

2008 was a perfect storm of a horrible candidate hand-picked by the RINO establishment the GOP primary electorate (I’m guessing that’s your natural habitat) combined with a sense of history and not a little white guilt thrown in.

FIFY

Mash that up with a media that was entirely in the tank for Obama, and it was almost a shoo-in.

And that same media is entirely in the tank this year, too.

That’s probably the only way the guy could have won; that perfect storm of a hard-line constituency, a massively biased media and a dispirited electorate.

The first two of those haven’t changed and it remains to be seen about the latter.

And even then, Sarah almost made it a horse race!

That’s half a sentence. The second half of that sentence is “until the electorate really got to know her.”

Remember, other than 2008 Obama has a pretty lackluster election record. And We the People won’t be fooled again.

I hope you’re right but I would like to take that on more than faith alone.

Unless Obama pulls a mighty course change to the center like Arkansas Bill, he’s toast.

It’s probably not that simple. This is an uphill climb no matter what.

And that’s even before Breitbart starts leaking whatever he has in the film canisters.

Which might not end up resonating. Jeremiah Wright should have resonated but it didn’t. I wouldn’t bank on Breitbart bailing us out here; I personally think most people aren’t going to be moved by 30 year old movies.

And in the end, if we are to lose the country (and be sure that I’m concerned that the country couldn’t survive another four years of this administration) to Obama, I’d rather do it with a Conservative than with yet another “it’s my turn” establishment RINO.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 12:30 AM

We could argue about whether the fact Mitt was next in line is a disqualifying factor just because that’s what Republicans tend to do, or how exactly Mitt went from DeMint and Limbaugh-endorsed conservative alternative to RINO in a four year span where he did nothing politically, but I have a feeling that discussion will go nowhere fast.

alchemist19 on February 21, 2012 at 1:07 AM

I believe as a Christian that humankind is fallible, flawed, and prone to weakness and foolishness, easily led astray by those who distract with shiny baubles (whether literal or metaphorical) or who promise impossible things.

What bible did you read? Could you please provide some passages? A true christian ( of which there are very few) believes as Christ did in the ultimate goodness of mankind. That is why he died on the cross. That most have chosen to follow the wrong path is not a reflection of God himself, but a willing choice made in contradiction of the holy spirit which he placed in all of us.
Lead by deeds, not words. If what you say is true (as liberals would have you believe), then we are abdicated of any personal responsibilities. God made us this way so what can I do?
As to 4000 years of recorded history, yes there a many foolish things that we, as a race, have done. There are also a lot of great accomplishments that have transpired, as well as great acts of heroism and kindness. Many people have sacrificed their lives in order that we may even have this debate. Don’t cheapen their memory by callously putting them all in the same category.
Governments will rise and fall. The institutions of man will dissipate upon the very breathe of the God they so readily mock. All earthly things will die, and then dwindle down to the dust from whence they were sprung.

bandutski on February 21, 2012 at 1:15 AM

It’s iocaine powder – do they attack Santorum because they want us to choose him or – to do they really want to hurt Santorum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s0UURBihH8&feature=related

ArthurMachado on February 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM

@ Bitter Clinger

Santorum was for individual mandate in 1994 on a national level.

False

Romney was always against an individual mandate on the national level.

Debatable, but since the law is already there, largely irrelevant. And since the law that is there looks just like Romneycare, it’s a little hard to believe Romney will work hard to repeal it.

Romney can attack obama better than santorum can.

Hasn’t happened yet. Santorum’s been the most effective critic so far.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/1994-report-santorum-supported-individual-mandate/343086

A reporter summarized it this way, but actual video from the campaign shows the reporter was wrong.

Santorum is a big government liberal who voted for medicare part d, bridge to nowhere, no child left behind.

Romney supporters argue that Santorum is liberal. Irony, right?

Santorum is why gop lost in 2006 with big spending and schiavo.

ryandan on February 20, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Not even close. Conservatives were not happy with spending, but it wasn’t conservatives who voted to give Nancy Pelosi the House. As I recall, the big phrase of the turnover was “a culture of corruption.” Anyone really going to claim that Santorum was corrupt?

The Democrats won in 2006 by running candidates that were more conservative than Republicans — who they promptly ignored once the had the power in the House.

So the “fix” is to run even more liberal RINOs like Romney? Really?

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 21, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Mittbots are whining like a csdeven without its bread crust from Grammy.

SparkPlug on February 20, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Good one.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 21, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Esoteric is an oddity in that he has a brain and isn’t afraid to use it even if it goes against the prevailing conventional wisdom around here.

alchemist19 on February 20, 2012 at 10:59 PM

When can we look forward to that?

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 21, 2012 at 1:41 AM

The Democrats won in 2006 by running candidates that were more conservative than Republicans — who they promptly ignored once the had the power in the House.

So the “fix” is to run even more liberal RINOs like Romney? Really?

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 21, 2012 at 1:30 AM

You know I’ve heard this repeated a lot since 2006 to the point it’s something of right-wing conventional wisdom and whenever I see unquestioned conventional wisdom I always make a point to question it. I would agree that in 2006 the Democrats ran a number of candidates who were more conservative than the average Democrat but not necessarily Democrats who were more conservative than their individual Republican opponents. There is a huge difference between the former and the latter and I read your statement as claiming the latter.

If it is your belief that the Democrats won in 2006 by running candidates who were on-balance more conservative than the Republican candidate in that same race then I would like to know which races they were where the more conservative candidate was the Democrat and the Democrat defeated a Republican incumbent. If that was really what gave the Democrats the majority in 2006 and they went from 30 seats down to a 30 seat majority then the list of such races should be fairly long. Give me 10 or so.

alchemist19 on February 21, 2012 at 1:59 AM

The Democrats won in 2006 by running candidates that were more conservative than Republicans — who they promptly ignored once the had the power in the House.

So the “fix” is to run even more liberal RINOs like Romney? Really?

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 21, 2012 at 1:30 AM

You know I’ve heard this repeated a lot since 2006 to the point it’s something of right-wing conventional wisdom and whenever I see unquestioned conventional wisdom I always make a point to question it. I would agree that in 2006 the Democrats ran a number of candidates who were more conservative than the average Democrat but not necessarily Democrats who were more conservative than their individual Republican opponents. There is a huge difference between the former and the latter and I read your statement as claiming the latter.

If it is your belief that the Democrats won in 2006 by running candidates who were on-balance more conservative than the Republican candidate in that same race then I would like to know which races they were where the more conservative candidate was the Democrat and the Democrat defeated a Republican incumbent. If that was really what gave the Democrats the majority in 2006 and they went from 30 seats down to a 30 seat majority then the list of such races should be fairly long. Give me 10 or so.

alchemist19 on February 21, 2012 at 1:59 AM

Spend time digging through old articles to compile a list of 10, then spend hours arguing — inevitably — over whether those particular examples really meet whatever standard you have?

Sorry. Don’t have that kind of time. But what I’m saying has been the assessment of multiple people who’ve looked at that election, and there’s simply no denying that the Democrats ran far more conservative candidates than they usually run. People voted for those candidates because they were fresh and sounded conservative. Then, they all voted for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

We could call it the Gene Taylor maneuver, after the Democrat from South Mississippi who always wound up in the papers for going contrary to his own party, and voting more conservatively than the rest of the Democrats in the House.

But Gene Taylor lost his seat to a newcomer in 2010. The bumper sticker most often seen for the winning campaign? Fire Pelosi. People got wise to the fact that no matter how much he talked a good game as a conservative, he kept voting for Nancy Pelosi and enabling her agenda.

The Democrats strategy, as I mentioned in that post and the one above it, was to accuse Republicans of corruption, then run conservative challengers against them. Then those conservative Democrats voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, and were ignored by the Democrat Congress for the rest of their term.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 21, 2012 at 2:11 AM

2008 was a perfect storm of a horrible candidate hand-picked by the RINO establishment the GOP primary electorate (I’m guessing that’s your natural habitat) combined with a sense of history and not a little white guilt thrown in.

FIFY

You didn’t fix anything. McCain was probably the worst possible choice but he was force-fed to the electorate by the RINO establishment the same way they’re trying to force-feed Romney. And it ain’t workin’ the second time around.

And even then, Sarah almost made it a horse race!

That’s half a sentence. The second half of that sentence is “until the electorate really got to know her.”
alchemist19 on February 21, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Oh please, spare me the PDS. Without Palin, McCain wouldn’t have even been in the race. But that’s neither here nor there, and it in fact makes my point: an old tired retread who wouldn’t fight and a grizzly mama that would turned a rout into a rumble. It didn’t end well, but for a while it was a race.

Four years of blatant water-carrying by the media has neutered them. The folks who voted for Obama for “historical” reasons don’t have those reasons anymore. And even some of his diehard constituencies are showing weakness.

And I talk to the youngsters. The smart ones – the ones that realize that AGW is a hoax and who agree that grade schoolers don’t need to learn about sex toys – are sensing that the whole liberal agenda concept is less about freedoms and more about power. And while they may not vote Republican, a lot of them aren’t going to vote for Obama either.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Spend time digging through old articles to compile a list of 10, then spend hours arguing — inevitably — over whether those particular examples really meet whatever standard you have?

Sorry. Don’t have that kind of time. But what I’m saying has been the assessment of multiple people who’ve looked at that election, and there’s simply no denying that the Democrats ran far more conservative candidates than they usually run. People voted for those candidates because they were fresh and sounded conservative. Then, they all voted for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

We could call it the Gene Taylor maneuver, after the Democrat from South Mississippi who always wound up in the papers for going contrary to his own party, and voting more conservatively than the rest of the Democrats in the House.

But Gene Taylor lost his seat to a newcomer in 2010. The bumper sticker most often seen for the winning campaign? Fire Pelosi. People got wise to the fact that no matter how much he talked a good game as a conservative, he kept voting for Nancy Pelosi and enabling her agenda.

The Democrats strategy, as I mentioned in that post and the one above it, was to accuse Republicans of corruption, then run conservative challengers against them. Then those conservative Democrats voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, and were ignored by the Democrat Congress for the rest of their term.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 21, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Considering the dramatically different conclusions that can be drawn from the readings of your statement about 2006 (i.e.: either “supporting moderate candidates where you have to in unfriendly territory is a winning strategy for building a majority”, or “supporting the most conservative candidate possible is a winning strategy for building a majority”) I would say it’s worth the couple hours of your time. Figuring that out will inform us on the issues of whether we should primary Scott Brown or shrug and say “Well, it’s Massachusetts. The majority there is nuts.”

alchemist19 on February 21, 2012 at 2:42 AM

You didn’t fix anything. McCain was probably the worst possible choice but he was force-fed to the electorate by the RINO establishment the same way they’re trying to force-feed Romney. And it ain’t workin’ the second time around.

How was McCain force-fed exactly? He wasn’t my choice in 2008 but my memory of that year is there was a free and fair election in all 50 states where the Republican base got to select delegates pledged to support the candidate they liked. There was no one from “the establishment” in the booth threatening to empty their .45 into my chest if I didn’t vote for McCain. Warren G. Harding in 1920 was an example of the establishment forcing their choice on the Republican Party, 2008 was my guy losing the primaries. It happens. Rewriting history so that some big insidious establishment boogeyman did it all just makes you look silly.

alchemist19 on February 21, 2012 at 3:01 AM

Whhat kind of crap will the pass for DNC political ads when gas is $5 a gallon?

Roy Rogers on February 21, 2012 at 4:29 AM

So the DNC is going from wasting money and time putting out attacks on Romney, on topics he has been grilled over by others in the race, to going after Santorum, who is being grilled by others in the race… and each time the grilling is on the EXACT SAME topics as those the DNC is trying to push.

And those in the race do it more effectively than the DNC does.

Still the minions of Soros need their talking points to be spoon-fed them, I guess.

ajacksonian on February 21, 2012 at 6:32 AM

Obama must go!!!!

I just practicing for the chanting at the convention.

PappyD61 on February 21, 2012 at 7:38 AM

An historic question from Alchemist, I can give an anecdotal answer.

How was McCain force-fed exactly?

I was in NH, working on the Romney campaign as a volunteer, making the calls, so this is what I personally remember.

It had nothing to do with Rino’s, it had to do with Veterans in NH. A lot of veterans in NH especially feel marginalized, forgotten, and many are more populist, they are not wealthy.

We had been placing calls and getting good feed back, and McCain had not been participating for while, because he had run out of money in the summer.

Suddenly someone out there planted the question that Romney was going to be soft on defense. He had never been in the military. That theme spread like wildfire, so the guys you phoned would quote back mantras from the McCain ads saying we needed a Security president. The phone call, was something like: Such and such a paper says Romney can’t be trusted to run the military, he doesn’t believe in it. It was a sloppy ad, but when we were calling the men of a certain age they all had the message. A lot of people did not know why Romney had John McCain in NH, but this group is loyal to him. They don’t care someone calls him (McCain) a Rino, first and foremost he is their war hero, and they feel the Rino is name calling, the Vietnam vets in NH are more likely to think like blue collar dems.

It was not “Rino’s” pushing McCain. It was the worry over Terrorism. I am sure his supporters were as frustrated with him as everyone else when he wouldn’t attack Obama. Sarah Palin went to NH, and drew some crowds for McCain talking security. The crowds were larger than expected, and not everyone could get in in time to get a seat. (Salem, NH) Rino is a meaningless perjorative.

Fleuries on February 21, 2012 at 8:03 AM

I’m still a pessimist about Romney or Santorum’s chances in November, but I can’t help but snicker a little when I roll the words “President Santorum” around in my mouth a little.

The wages of hope and change. Good job, liberals. If it happens, it’ll be funnier than than the Prop 8 thing in California, when you spent every last dollar turning out the black vote and they voted against gay marriage.

HitNRun on February 21, 2012 at 8:34 AM

How was McCain force-fed exactly? He wasn’t my choice in 2008 but my memory of that year is there was a free and fair election in all 50 states where the Republican base got to select delegates pledged to support the candidate they liked. There was no one from “the establishment” in the booth threatening to empty their .45 into my chest if I didn’t vote for McCain. Warren G. Harding in 1920 was an example of the establishment forcing their choice on the Republican Party, 2008 was my guy losing the primaries. It happens. Rewriting history so that some big insidious establishment boogeyman did it all just makes you look silly.

alchemist19 on February 21, 2012 at 3:01 AM

It was not “Rino’s” pushing McCain. It was the worry over Terrorism. I am sure his supporters were as frustrated with him as everyone else when he wouldn’t attack Obama. Sarah Palin went to NH, and drew some crowds for McCain talking security. The crowds were larger than expected, and not everyone could get in in time to get a seat. (Salem, NH) Rino is a meaningless perjorative.

Fleuries on February 21, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Where do you people come from? The fact that the best candidate the GOP establishment could come up with was “reach across the aisle” McCain speaks volumes as to why the RINOs have got to go. It’s not some shadowy conspiracy or some meaningless label, it’s a term that represents everything wrong with the status quo in the Republican party. It’s calcified and lost its way, and Romney is the ultimate end of that trail:

Reagan – Bush I – Bush II – McCain – Romney

You can see the progression from Reagan Republicans through compassionate conservative to Democrat lite. Heck, on several big ticket items I can barely tell Romney apart from Big Government Democrats. Healthcare mandates? Cap and tax? Planned Parenthood? I’m not the only one out here who thinks it’s time to move the party in a different direction.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 8:41 AM

I just went back and watched every word from all the GOP debates and three things stood out very clearly when looked at “in total”….

Deep Timber on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 PM

You watched every word from all the GOP debates? How long did that take you? Two, three days? Because there have been something like 22 debates, including several that were two hours long.

When you begin with a statement like that that is clearly hyperbolic, it tends to lessen your credibility.

Santorum did fine in the debates I watched (probably 2/3 of them). But he was always at the margins, getting relatively few questions.

It’ll be interesting to see how he does tomorrow night, now that he’ll be getting more attention.

Syzygy on February 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM

To There goes the neighborhood, “TGTN,” who thinks that the democrats in 2006/2008 were more conservative than the republican field!

A lot of people confuse Pro American Populism with conservatism, because of the American-ness.

American populism has existed side by side with American Traditionalism, in the past, and was evident in the philosophies of many traditional, more conservative democrats.

Hillary Clinton pretended at those sentiments and was able to get the support of many blue collar workers, who would not have supported her on social values or Euro Style thinking. You still have a few dems who run as pro-life, one beat Santorum, it used to be more, there were people like the mayor of Boston, Ray Flynn. You get a little bit of it in the dem governor turned Senator, Joe Manchin from West Virginia, but they align to the left on so many issues, it is hard to say they are merely American populist.

Where I live in MA, a lot of hard working people view themselves as blue collar and populist and patriotic Americans, regardless of how much money they earn. They were “old time” democrats, who fought against communism. They believed in equality but not communism. People knew about the totalitarianism and suffering, perhaps first hand in their own family of what was meant by the Iron Curtain.

The “fair shake” and kind of equality Americans envisioned in the old days is being replaced by something entirely different. A lot of people who have worked for unions, and not paid attention, don’t even recognize the kind of philosophy that passes for the language of empowering the working man of yesterday. (They hate that man.)

But they trot out candidates with those platitudes to try to entrap them for votes. To some extent it is the language Santorum is using, actually, but he may be more genuinely like a very old time democrat, with his anti Right to Work votes in PA, and his insistence that Romney doesn’t like the poor.

Manchin should really become a Republican so he could be trusted to vote properly against liberal encroachment, that he doesn’t change parties means to me, that he believes in the liberal crap too. (At least go independant like Joe Leiberman.) In the next election cycle, TGTN, you have to work to expose the untruth in democrat candidates who talk this way, even if it is a Manchin, they cannot claim they are the conservatives in the race, and also, not let Obama “Claim the Center” which is what he did last time.

Fleuries on February 21, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Where do you people come from? A.J. daddy

I am a real person, I am telling you that no one forced McCain on us except the McCain campaign, and it was all about Iraq and Afganistan, it wasn’t a RINO choice like you put it in retrospective. Remember the debates, remember how every candidate deferred to McCain when he talked about the wars, and defense and terrorism? That is why he won it.

It is not how he ran his campaign after that, the media wouldn’t really let him, they wouldn’t vet Obama on any of the issues, they went with the McCain is the crazy old uncle view, AND, some helpful conservatives wouldn’t come out to vote because

they thought the pendulum swing would cure Americans and snap them out of their folly, they couldn’t vote for McCain because he was not perfect, and they wanted Obama to ravage the economy to punish someone, “whoever” that didn’t let them have their way and have Huckabee for President.

Fleuries on February 21, 2012 at 9:19 AM

It is not how he ran his campaign after that, the media wouldn’t really let him, they wouldn’t vet Obama on any of the issues, they went with the McCain is the crazy old uncle view, AND, some helpful conservatives wouldn’t come out to vote because they thought the pendulum swing would cure Americans and snap them out of their folly, they couldn’t vote for McCain because he was not perfect, and they wanted Obama to ravage the economy to punish someone, “whoever” that didn’t let them have their way and have Huckabee for President.

Fleuries on February 21, 2012 at 9:19 AM

You’re saying the Huckabee followers threw the election to Obama? Really? And people accuse me of believing in conspiracy theories just because I think the GOP establishment would rather have Romney over Santorum.

McCain shot himself repeatedly in the foot, with the master stroke being “suspending his campaign” to go facilitate the bailout. But that’s what you get from a get along go along reach across the aisle Republican. I don’t see Romney being any different.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

You tipped your hand.

Mimzey on February 20, 2012 at 10:54 PM

I have never pretended a vote for Santorum is anything other than idiotic and a vote for Obama.

Santorum is arguably the worst Republican candidate ever, when you factor in the opportunity to beat the Democrat, and his ability to win.

And it is both puzzling and sad how my fellow conservatives are gung ho about nominating him and losing this election.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 9:46 AM

I just went back and watched every word from all the GOP debates and three things stood out very clearly when looked at “in total”.

First, Governor Romney when attacked loses his cool and has his worst debate performances. Second, Rick Santorum has not had one gaffe during all the debates. Not one.

And finally, Santorum is the best debater of the all the candidates this GOP season for one simple reason that shines through the debates…he uses his opponent’s statements/record against what they happen to be saying during a debate (i.e, Bachmann got more press for attacking Paul on Iran as “dangerous” but Santorum had the stronger argument during the debate). Another example of this is when Santorum pointed out Romney’s current position vs. his record as governor.

Deep Timber on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 PM

1. Most people lose their cool when attacked.

2. No one took Rick Santorum seriously for most of the debates. Hence, he was placed near the exit, and asked 2 or 3 questions in most of the debates. So, it’s hard to have gaffes when you aren’t speaking, and when you are, you are making up a record that doesn’t exist. This is a man that claimed that he was one of the most important Republicans in the Senate.

3. All Santurom does is a few things:

A. Whines that he is not getting enough time.
B. Exaggerates his record.
C. Pretends he is an expert on Romneycare, and other things that he knows nothing about, and mistates the facts.

That is your definition of a great debater?

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I have never pretended a vote for Santorum is anything other than idiotic and a vote for Obama.

Santorum is arguably the worst Republican candidate ever, when you factor in the opportunity to beat the Democrat, and his ability to win.

And it is both puzzling and sad how my fellow conservatives are gung ho about nominating him and losing this election.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Would you rather a candidate who cancels the single biggest argument against the incumbent, Obamacare? Only by the most tortuous of logic can you position that Romneycare is not Obamacare. Add to that his support for cap and tax, his judicial appointments, his abortion support, and he ends up a Democrat lite.

On the other hand Santorum has a consistent, credible message, a long history of conservative votes and what is clearly a lot of support among the grass roots. He ain’t perfect, but he’s far from the worst candidate, even among the current candidates.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 10:15 AM

So the DNC pivots its attack machine to aim for the frontrunner? Good, good. My hope is that they end up spinning like a top as the GOP frontrunner rises and falls. “He’s over there…no, he’s over there!” It would be fun to watch if the end game weren’t so serious.

jakev on February 21, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Would you rather a candidate who cancels the single biggest argument against the incumbent, Obamacare? Only by the most tortuous of logic can you position that Romneycare is not Obamacare. Add to that his support for cap and tax, his judicial appointments, his abortion support, and he ends up a Democrat lite.

On the other hand Santorum has a consistent, credible message, a long history of conservative votes and what is clearly a lot of support among the grass roots. He ain’t perfect, but he’s far from the worst candidate, even among the current candidates.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Again, I just want to win the election. That is what I want. I dont want my taxes to go up. I want to have an opportunity to change jobs, if I so choose. That is what I want, and I assume what most Americans want, except for the changing jobs part, because many Americans just want a job. To have that happen, Obama cannot be President in a year.

As for Romneycare, I have addressed this many times before. If Republicans cant see the difference, they never will, and dont understand the Constitution they all so claim to want to uphold.

As for the other things, like I have said, there is a reason Romney’s record is what it is. But it is also that record that makes him appeal to moderates and even some Democrats.

And Santorum is just a bad candidate. He doesn’t look Presidential. He makes more gaffes than Newt. And quite frankly, his record is not very impressive.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM

As for Romneycare, I have addressed this many times before. If Republicans cant see the difference, they never will, and dont understand the Constitution they all so claim to want to uphold.

Heck, you just got here. At Hot Air we often have to repeat ourselves. (BTW, that’s not really a dig; I’ve only been posting here a year or so.) :) But really, feel free to explain the top three reasons why a mandate at the state level is better than a mandate at the federal level. It may be constitutional, but then again so is a ban on contraceptives, and that gets the anti-Santorum crowd all in a tizzy, even though he makes it clear that while such a ban is Constitutional he would oppose it. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD, and Santorum gets that. In fact, I would argue that Santorum has a better grasp of the Constitution than any of the candidates and most of the posters here.

As for the other things, like I have said, there is a reason Romney’s record is what it is. But it is also that record that makes him appeal to moderates and even some Democrats.

And Santorum is just a bad candidate. He doesn’t look Presidential. He makes more gaffes than Newt. And quite frankly, his record is not very impressive.

Wow. Your primary argument is that he doesn’t look Presidential and he’s not moderate enough. Guess what? Those are two monumentally horrible reasons to vote for Romney. Me, I go with Santorum’s ratings from the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste and Club for Growth, all of which rate him highly.

Romney? Not so much. Although it’s hard to compare apples to apples because Governor is a different job than Senator, there are a whole lot of holes in Romney’s conservative boat.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Heck, you just got here. At Hot Air we often have to repeat ourselves. (BTW, that’s not really a dig; I’ve only been posting here a year or so.) :) But really, feel free to explain the top three reasons why a mandate at the state level is better than a mandate at the federal level. It may be constitutional, but then again so is a ban on contraceptives, and that gets the anti-Santorum crowd all in a tizzy, even though he makes it clear that while such a ban is Constitutional he would oppose it. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD, and Santorum gets that. In fact, I would argue that Santorum has a better grasp of the Constitution than any of the candidates and most of the posters here.

I have been posting here for a few weeks only, but have read HA for years.

The top 3 reasons are easy:

1. It is constitutional for a state to do it, but not the federal government.
2. States are the ones that should be experimenting with solutions to complex issues. If it works, other states will follow the lead. If not, it sets an example for what other states should avoi.
3. The legislature, which is voted in by the people, approved the plan, and based on the election results after, the people have not sought to over-turn the mandate.

Wow. Your primary argument is that he doesn’t look Presidential and he’s not moderate enough. Guess what? Those are two monumentally horrible reasons to vote for Romney. Me, I go with Santorum’s ratings from the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste and Club for Growth, all of which rate him highly.

Romney? Not so much. Although it’s hard to compare apples to apples because Governor is a different job than Senator, there are a whole lot of holes in Romney’s conservative boat.

No, that was just how I started typing.

My vote for Romney is simple. He can beat Obama and Santorum can’t. I can’t be any more clear about it. A vote for Santorum is a waste of time and effort over the next 8 months to defeat Obama.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

The top 3 reasons are easy:

1. It is constitutional for a state to do it, but not the federal government.
2. States are the ones that should be experimenting with solutions to complex issues. If it works, other states will follow the lead. If not, it sets an example for what other states should avoi.
3. The legislature, which is voted in by the people, approved the plan, and based on the election results after, the people have not sought to over-turn the mandate.

These are all the same argument: it’s okay because the state can do it. And Constitutionally thast’s true. So I assume you’re good with Santorum’s statements that states can ban contraception as well. However, just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD. Forcing people to buy a product is a horrible idea. There’s no difference between making you buy health insurance because you’re a potential drain on the economy and making you buy a Chevy Volt because you’re endangering the environment. It’s none of the government’s business.

My vote for Romney is simple. He can beat Obama and Santorum can’t. I can’t be any more clear about it. A vote for Santorum is a waste of time and effort over the next 8 months to defeat Obama.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

And that’s because you say it’s so, and anything that’s not part of your world view will be ignored. And that’ll show us! Go circular reasoning!

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Where do you people come from? The fact that the best candidate the GOP establishment could come up with was “reach across the aisle” McCain speaks volumes as to why the RINOs have got to go. It’s not some shadowy conspiracy or some meaningless label, it’s a term that represents everything wrong with the status quo in the Republican party. It’s calcified and lost its way, and Romney is the ultimate end of that trail:

Reagan – Bush I – Bush II – McCain – Romney

You can see the progression from Reagan Republicans through compassionate conservative to Democrat lite. Heck, on several big ticket items I can barely tell Romney apart from Big Government Democrats. Healthcare mandates? Cap and tax? Planned Parenthood? I’m not the only one out here who thinks it’s time to move the party in a different direction.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 8:41 AM

The “GOP establishment” didn’t come up with McCain, the GOP electorate did. Look, I know a number of conservative TV and radio personalities have spent the last few years complaining about this mythical all-powerful establishment boogeyman who picks the GOP nominee every time but the fact a meme is being advanced by multiple conservative media personalities does not mean the meme is true. The days of the Boss Tweed-type political bosses who did have the power to pick nominees is long gone. There is no establishment anymore, at least not anything large and powerful enough to rig the outcome of a nationwide series of primary elections. That you and some other people on here have been bamboozled is sad for you personally and harmful for our side politically.

alchemist19 on February 21, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Would you rather a candidate who cancels the single biggest argument against the incumbent, Obamacare? Only by the most tortuous of logic can you position that Romneycare is not Obamacare. Add to that his support for cap and tax, his judicial appointments, his abortion support, and he ends up a Democrat lite.

On the other hand Santorum has a consistent, credible message, a long history of conservative votes and what is clearly a lot of support among the grass roots. He ain’t perfect, but he’s far from the worst candidate, even among the current candidates.

AJsDaddie on February 21, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I thought the single biggest argument against Obama was that he ruined the economy and is either unwilling or unable to do what’s necessary to fix it. Obamacare is an issue but if you want to talk about what motivates 50%+1 of the electorate to go to the polls and vote for you then Carville nailed that in 1992.

You need to do your homework on Mitt’s judicial appointments too. Look at what he did and why and it won’t seem half bad given his circumstances.

alchemist19 on February 21, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2