Video: Tough night for Santorum

posted at 10:23 pm on February 22, 2012 by Allahpundit

Three clips for you of RS on the defensive at the debate in lieu of a Quote of the Day. First, the obligatory earmark colloquy with Romney, then the attack on his support for Arlen Specter (via BuzzFeed), and finally his cringeworthy admission that he took one for the team in voting for No Child Left Behind (via Breitbart TV). Reaction on Twitter and on righty blogs that I read was that he lost some traction tonight from having to explain himself so often. Per Nate Silver, InTrade apparently agrees: Santorum started the day with 13 percent odds of winning the nomination, but as I write this, he’s down to just 6.2 percent — a 53.7 percent drop. The consensus is that Newt had a good night too, albeit without any spectacular moments, which magnifies Santorum’s problem by threatening to pull away some of the conservative votes he desperately needs to inch past Romney in Michigan.

Second look at SMOD?


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 6 7 8 9 10

Another point.

Romney has so far shown that he is a terrible campaigner. So, being tested in the primary is much better for him than going up against Obama after a walk in the primary. I would hate to see our candidate struggling the way Romney has been thus far and learning how to respond and campaign during the general election.

Moreover, to the extent all of this has forced Romney to the right and forced him to make more specific conservative pledges, so much the better. Like the tax plan he just announced. I have a feeling it would have been much weaker sauce (and closer to what Obama proposed) if Romney was not struggling in the primary and needing to prove some conservative bona fides.

So, everyone who is so angry that Romney isn’t winning this in a cake-walk should relax. This is what primaries are for.

Monkeytoe on February 23, 2012 at 7:49 AM

I think the last few debates “Mitt won”, he seems to always “win”, but then, expectantly, others surge in the polls…

right2bright on February 23, 2012 at 7:50 AM

FWIW, re: Fast and Furious as a debate topic, Erick Erickson defends CNN not bringing it up because there would be no disagreement between the candidates on the issue. His point is that the debate questions are intended to draw contrasts. Yes, he gets direct deposit from CNN, but there is some truth to his defense,

TedInATL on February 23, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Flora Duh
congratulations on the returning friend, been there, it hurts till they decide to come home, the little sh#ts!!!!!!

angrymike on February 23, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Number 1 It is not science
Terrye on February 23, 2012 at 7:12 AM

Intelligent design is not science.
bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 7:17 AM

Evolution is not science. Just theory.
.
The First Amendment was to keep Govt out of religion, and was NOT meant to keep religion out of the Govt., or Public School, or Public “anything else” for that matter.
The SCOTUS decisions (post WW II) abolishing Christianity on Public property should be overturned/overthrown NOW.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 7:51 AM

And kudos to Rick for forcing these debates back on topic, instead of the personal attacks…Mitt has finally grown up, and talked like a man…

right2bright on February 23, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Santorum and his people are out whining this morning that Romney is a big, mean, meany who’s been really mean to our Lord’s poor shepherd, Rick. They’re also accusing Romney of colluding with Paul. The man has an excuse for everything and an earmark to pay for it – a good earmark, not a bad one.

jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Science is never settled. We keep on finding that nature doesn’t work as we think it does and that challenges us to figure out how it does work.

This does not go anywhere near the question of WHY it works the way it does… science isn’t set up to answer that. These are different domains of questions that is left up to each of us to reconcile on our own. You have that liberty by being born as you are, science can’t tell you where that liberty comes from but it is self-evident that you do have it.

ajacksonian on February 23, 2012 at 7:52 AM

O/T: This is a hot one:

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 6:45 AM

Great blog post. Pretty much sums up how I feel about Coulter.

KickandSwimMom on February 23, 2012 at 7:52 AM

Kingsjester
nail on the head again, as I’ve said great blog!!!!

angrymike on February 23, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Wow! KJ, today is the first time I read that you have a blog! What a great article about AC. You are officially on my must read list : )

herm2416 on February 23, 2012 at 7:52 AM

Santorum confession: “I’m a Team Player” enabling the corruption of our constitutional governance.

Rick Santorum is emotionally unstable, and imploded last night becoming less and less coherent in his verbose responses. Even were policies not problematic as they most certainly are, Rick Santorum is not fit for the pressures applied against the POTUS. He caves.

But let’s get back to the debate. Even as Romney took his mittens off and suckerpunched Santorum for earmarks Mitt himself supported — Romney remains the smarmy apple polisher who likes to narc on his misbehaving classmates — one could almost see strings attached to the reinvented Republican’s back. Romney is the semi-reformed RINO dummy of high-priced ventriloquists — a dummy whose words and robotic jerks come from the pushing and pulling of scummy strategists and pollsters who crawl along a corrupt corridor from Boston to D.C. His “Fortune 500″ campaign makes me sick. Is the GOP really going to nominate this fraud?

The cheapness and inauthenticity of his campaign is too depressing for words. One small example of this dismal charade came early in the debate when Romney made an utterly random reference to “George Costanza.” Apparently, one of Romney’s oh-so-clever strategists told him to dispel his image as a nerd trapped in the 1950s by spicing up his answers with “hip” references. So what does Romney do? He cites, for no apparent reason, a character from a sitcom that went off NBC’s schedule over a decade ago.

Romney, at his most hypocritical, labored hard to present himself as more socially conservative than Santorum, noting that Rick had voted for Planned Parenthood funding. Astonishingly, Santorum missed his chance at a return upper cut. Why didn’t he mention that Romney once gave money to Planned Parenthood from his own pocket? Why didn’t he mention that Romneycare dollars go to Planned Parenthood?

Romney’s sudden social conservatism invites an obvious question: How stupid does he think primary voters are? Romney’s con job here depends upon the amnesia of his audience. Here’s a politician who pled fealty to Roe v. Wade, voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas, and competed with Ted Kennedy as a champion of “gay rights.” By the way, Romney’s social conservatism didn’t even last for the whole debate. In the second hour of it, he indicated his support for women in combat.

The Mittens Come Off in Mesa, Only to reveal the knuckles of a RINO turned “severely conservative” phony.

By George Neumayr on 2.23.12 @ 6:09AM

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 7:53 AM

They all lie, and mittens has no chance in the general. He’s a fake conservative.

angrymike on February 23, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Yeah. As I said, I have problems with all of them. Romney has been a very successful businessman with a knack for turning losing operations around.

I don’t know. Like I said, it doesn’t matter who I like in the primary because the GOP candidates will share the conservative votes and the unions will decide in MI.

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM

KickandSwimMom on February 23, 2012 at 7:52 AM
herm2416 on February 23, 2012 at 7:52 AM

Thank you, both! Much appreciated.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM

I haven’t been called stupid, brain-dead, or liberal, yet (please don’t call me liberal, I almost rather be called traitor) so I guess I’m lucky.
RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 7:45 AM


LIBERAL TRAITOR !

.
.
. Yes, that was sarcasm.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM

I think the last few debates “Mitt won”, he seems to always “win”, but then, expectantly, others surge in the polls…

right2bright on February 23, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Is that your coded way to say you are going back to Newt? IMO, there is no one left to run to.

rubberneck on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM

And kudos to Rick Newt for forcing these debates back on topic, instead of the personal attacks.

fify

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Weird. This is the earliest that I’ve seen you Mitt supporters on HA all week.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Santorum and his people are out whining this morning that Romney is a big, mean, meany who’s been really mean to our Lord’s poor shepherd, Rick. They’re also accusing Romney of colluding with Paul. The man has an excuse for everything and an earmark to pay for it – a good earmark, not a bad one.

jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 7:51 AM

There may something to this. Mark Levin was talking just last night on his radio show about an interview given by Paul within the last few days and comments made by his son, Rand, to the effect that Paul is not attacking Romney because Rand wants the vice-presidency. I guess Rand has even said as much. Don’t know if there is anything to it, but I would like to hear more.

KickandSwimMom on February 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM

By the way, Romney’s social conservatism didn’t even last for the whole debate. In the second hour of it, he indicated his support for women in combat.

By George Neumayr on 2.23.12 @ 6:09AM

I’m not certain that no women in combat is a well established and universally excepted social conservative tenet. I certainly see good arguments for keeping women out of combat, but again, is this considered settled so-con dogma? If so, I wasn’t aware of it.

Monkeytoe on February 23, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Listens2glenn

MEANIE
LMAO

angrymike on February 23, 2012 at 7:58 AM

There may something to this. Mark Levin was talking just last night on his radio show about an interview given by Paul within the last few days and comments made by his son, Rand, to the effect that Paul is not attacking Romney because Rand wants the vice-presidency. I guess Rand has even said as much. Don’t know if there is anything to it, but I would like to hear more.

KickandSwimMom on February 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM

I find it hard to believe that even if true, they would talk about it and publicly admit it.

Monkeytoe on February 23, 2012 at 7:58 AM

They all lie, and mittens has no chance in the general. He’s a fake conservative.

angrymike on February 23, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Not according to Santorum in 2008, when he called Romney a “clear conservative candidate” who will “stand up for the conservative principles we hold dear.”

Dare I day, Flip-flopper?

jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 7:58 AM

MJBrutus on February 23, 2012 at 7:48 AM

Yeah. I agree.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Lol. I think I’ll go cry myself to sleep, now.

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 7:59 AM

There may something to this. Mark Levin was talking just last night on his radio show about an interview given by Paul within the last few days and comments made by his son, Rand, to the effect that Paul is not attacking Romney because Rand wants the vice-presidency. I guess Rand has even said as much. Don’t know if there is anything to it, but I would like to hear more.

KickandSwimMom on February 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Not a bad plan if it’s true.

jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Santorum and his people are out whining this morning that Romney is a big, mean, meany who’s been really mean to our Lord’s poor shepherd, Rick.
jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 7:51 AM

.
The line about about collusion between Romney and Paul, I get.
There’s been alot of that kinda talk here over the preceding weeks.
.
But where is the whining?

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:00 AM

I don’t take much stock with debates – it’s pretty much all gotcha moments anyway. A good debater does not necessarily translate into a good president. Obama and Clinton were both good debaters and look what we got. Newt is phenomenal but is that how he plans to govern? Debate with everyone? And Romney is such a phony! The thought of listening to him give a State of the Union speech makes me want to stick a fork in my forehead. I’m still a Santorum fan. He may have his flaws but he’s the best of the lot for me.

mozalf on February 23, 2012 at 8:01 AM

He can’t win, he won’t win, time for him to get out of the race and take Gingrich with him.

The goal is to beat Obama, not drive the ratings of talk show hosts.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2012 at 8:02 AM

MJBrutus on February 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM

I also like reading yours and csdeven’s comments. You guys are very witty. I wish I had that talent. I also think it’s hilarious how you and, especially, csdeven, get some of these people worked up into such a frenzy.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:03 AM

I wouldn’t say no to Rand being VP. Although, I don’t think they are colluding. Both are simply attacking the guy statistically in the lead right now. Even though Santorum has been sinking in the Michigan and Arizona polls, he still leading nationally. Newt simply took on Santorum’s role from the last debate. He coasted and is hoping for Santorum’s collapse. Romney is the one who has to put the work in every debate. He certainly has earned front runner status based on that work.

rubberneck on February 23, 2012 at 8:04 AM

And, now, for my final post (until later), I will demonstrate why the GOP has already lost…

From the debate open thread:

Romney is a smug smarmy skunk who will only add his name to the previous list of liberal republican losers – Dole & McCain. No way I vote for that jackass if he becomes the nominee.

insidiator on February 23, 2012 at 7:59 AM

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:04 AM

angrymike on February 23, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Not according to Santorum in 2008, when he called Romney a “clear conservative candidate” who will “stand up for the conservative principles we hold dear.”
Dare I day, Flip-flopper?
jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 7:58 AM

I can’t defend him calling Romney a “clear conservative candidate”, but I was a Mitt supporter during the last primary, because I thought he was clearly a “lesser evil” aside McCain.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:05 AM

it’s totally different being in house than on TV…
cmsinaz on February 23, 2012 at 6:17 AM

I am soooo jealous!

lynncgb on February 23, 2012 at 8:05 AM

MJBrutus on February 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM

I also like reading yours and csdeven’s comments. You guys are very witty. I wish I had that talent. I also think it’s hilarious how you and, especially, csdeven, get some of these people worked up into such a frenzy.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Ain’t love grand?

I rest my case.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Flora Duh
congratulations on the returning friend, been there, it hurts till they decide to come home, the little sh#ts!!!!!!

angrymike on February 23, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Thanks, actually she’s my husband’s cat and I just tolerate her for his sake. But I must admit, I was a little happy to see that she had returned. Ahem, for my husband’s sake of course. ;-)

She’s 2 years old and has been an indoor cat since she was born. We had house guests last week so I guess she must have slipped out the door during the upheaval. We had one doozy of a thunder and lightning storm last night, so I’m assuming she realized the great outdoors isn’t everything she thought it would be. lol

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 8:06 AM

KickandSwimMom on February 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM

I like Rand Paul! That would be exciting.

I wonder how he would help Romney in the general election. I honestly have no idea.

I’m to the point where I want the most politically helpful running mate for Romney, even if it’s someone like Mike Huckabee, who I despised in 2008. I almost don’t care who it is as long as he/she helps Romney beat Obama. Though, I’m not prepared to go so far as to say I’d be ok with Rick Santorum. I think his views are too toxic for a general election, even if he’s not at the top of the ticket.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:07 AM

And, now, for my final post (until later), I will demonstrate why the GOP has already lost…

I bet many die hard Clinton supporters were stating the same thing. They sucked it up and pulled the lever for Obama. That was a fiercely contested primary, yet the democrats consolidated their votes. The majority tends to vote people out….not in. Obama has 3+ horrible years with the economy. Hence, this infighting ends, Obama will be front and center.

rubberneck on February 23, 2012 at 8:08 AM

He can’t win, he won’t win, time for him to get out of the race and take Gingrich with him.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2012 at 8:02 AM

If he can’t win and won’t win, why does he have to get out of the race? It’s not like Romney doesn’t need the practice/experience. IMHO Romney is a pretty terrible candidate who needs the practice/experience before going head-to-head with team Obama.

Monkeytoe on February 23, 2012 at 8:09 AM

There must be a black wreath hanging on the doors of the Hot Air Offices. First, it was Drudge who was the culprit to show some actual video of Santorum’s statements. Now, CNN asked him unfair questions about his voting record, I guess they didn’t get the memo that they weren’t suppose to mention that Rick is an Anti-Establishment True Conservative candidate that just so happen to be in DC for 20 years voting for bills he didn’t really want to, but he did so, to take one for the team!

The one word he used to describe himself, “Courage?”

uh, yeah, right.

mark cantu on February 23, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Dear Ms. Coulter: Regarding Mitt Romney…

Kingjester!

The apparent inability of most people to listen and understand is the bane of our civilization.

Coulter’s Co. should consider well the advice of General Honore.

“Don’t Stay Stuck on Stupid.”

Right now we need to get good clean information out to the people that they can use.

Kudos, Kingjester!

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 8:13 AM

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Thank you, my friend!

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I can’t defend him calling Romney a “clear conservative candidate”, but I was a Mitt supporter during the last primary, because I thought he was clearly a “lesser evil” aside McCain.
listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:05 AM

.
Richard should have argued that he also endorsed and supported Arlen Specter- and look how well that worked out. Or not.

FlaMurph on February 23, 2012 at 8:15 AM

(So I lied about the final post thing.)

rubberneck on February 23, 2012 at 8:08 AM

I hope you’re right, but there are an awful lot of folks here who say what the guy I quoted say. “I won’t vote for Romney no matter what.”

It’s a little bit different a situation, but remember 1992, with good ol’ Ross Perot? (Lol. I kinda miss slick Billy, that old horn dog. At least he wasn’t set on the destruction of the country, he just wanted a little oral lovin’.)

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Brilliant new column by Ann Coulter about Romney. I didn’t see it until just now.

I recommend you all read it:
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-02-22.html

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM

I just sent Ann a tweet with a link to your blog post.

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM

…Coulter epitomizes the C-word. And she’s certainly not alone, only one of the painted ladies whom Savage criticizes.

Whoever takes the likes of Ann Coulter to heart is seduced by political prostitution. That there are a lot of Johns does not legitimize rationalization of the illicit.

Nor does “being a team player” legitimize the exercise of poor judgment by our nation’s President. Birds of a feather…

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Kingsjester,

COULTER: Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.

Here’s a contradiction of one of Romney’s little fibs about Romneycare being foisted on him by the Democrats in Massachusetts:

Gov. Mitt Romney has brought about a monumental shift in the state’s health care debate with a proposal for mandatory health insurance, but concedes it would only work if new discounted and subsidized low-cost insurance plans not available today are created to make it affordable to low-wage earners.

The proposal, still short on many specifics, would create a whole new environment for insurance salesmen in the Bay State by forcing an estimated 500,000 uninsured to begin buying insurance.

It also differs significantly from democratic proposals that so far envision discounted no-frills health insurance for low- and middle-income workers without an individual mandate, along with “pay or play” mechanisms that would pressure larger employers to offer health insurance benefits to lower wage workers, or face the cost of unpaid medical bills from their employees.

But even U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass, who has a very different idea how to provide health care to lower wage workers and the poor – expanding Medicare “to cover all Americans from birth to the end of life” – saw the governor’s proposal as opening the door to universal coverage in the state.

Mr. Romney said he began developing the plan for universal health care that relies on an individual mandate two years ago …

Health care effort turns heads; Romney concedes mandatory coverage must be affordable: [ALL Edition] Monahan, John. Telegram & Gazette [Worcester, Mass] 27 June 2005: A1.

JonBGood on February 23, 2012 at 8:21 AM

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Lol. I was gonna quote from your blog, then realized I be quoting the whole emboldened four paragraphs at the end.

Talk about “both barrels blazing”.
Bookmarked for later.

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Savage is a complete lunatic, you have to get off that stuff.

Like drinking gasoline.

Talk show hosts are about one thing – driving their own ratings. They don’t have real lives and they have no real idea what’s going on in this country.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM

…Coulter epitomizes the C-word. And she’s certainly not alone, only one of the painted ladies whom Savage criticizes.

Whoever takes the likes of Ann Coulter to heart is seduced by political prostitution. That there are a lot of Johns does not legitimize rationalization of the illicit.

Nor does “being a team player” legitimize the exercise of poor judgment by our nation’s President. Birds of a feather…

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Try a little harder next time in working in more sexist language. Don’t think you got enough in that time.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Guy Benson’s take.

Arizona GOP Debate: Santorum Slips, Newt Rallies, Romney Benefits

[...]

Newt Gingrich won the debate, vindicating his team’s “let Newt be Newt” strategy. Gone was the angry, embittered former Speaker. Sneering Newt was repealed and replaced by supportive, “cheerful” Newt — eager to agree with his opponents when they were right, politely pushing back only when necessary, and tenacious in his determination to steer most discussions into critiques of President Obama. His first crack at John King’s contraception question was the best offering of anyone on the subject…

Mitt Romney was, as ever, steady and serious throughout the evening; he didn’t piece together his finest debate of the cycle, but he did just fine. As expected, he made many appeals to executive leadership, regularly listing his accomplishments in the private sector, his leadership in turning around the 2002 Olympics, and his tenure in the Massachusetts governorship. At times, his answers seemed rote and forced, but they delivered the messages he wanted to convey…

Rick Santorum was tonight’s clear loser. Although he offered a few flashes of excellence, Santorum’s stumbling illustrated the perils of running for president with decades of Congressional votes hanging around your neck. The former Senator was forced to explain and defend his support for earmarks (Paul and Gingrich did a better job of this), his decision to endorse Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 (his justification delved into a discussion of the intricacies of Senate Judicial Committee power structures — which, while plausible, reeked of insiderdom), and most damagingly, No Child Left Behind…

Ron Paul was a devastatingly effective Romney surrogate tonight, pummelling Santorum on his go-along big-government conservatism during the Bush years. Although Romney landed a few big blows (pointing out that Arlen Specter was the 60th vote for Obama was one of them), Paul bloodied Santorum up more than anyone else…

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Flora Duh
“For my husband’s sake”
Ya right, I’ve got 3 ,they are my best friends.
hubby will be very happy!

angrymike on February 23, 2012 at 8:27 AM

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:16 AM

I just refuse to believe that anyone on this board would prefer Obama to Romney. They should burn in fires of hell and be damned for eternity…and no, I’m not a Santorum supporter.

rubberneck on February 23, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Ok, I will try to be nice. By the way, I don’t remember saying anything bad last night.

Are you saying I can’t state the fact that Santorum is a bigot? I’m not going to be gagged and prevented from speaking the obvious facts like that one.

Oh, and did you see what some people said to me? Not that it bothers me, but there was one comments in particular that was ban-worthy, sexist and obscene.

I don’t recall you ever criticizing that. One person (I think the name was MelonCollie or something), who doesn’t even agree with me, had the guts to condemn it. Credit to that person, whoever they are.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Hi,

Yes I don’t like that you state that Rick Santorum is a bigot as you like to call him. There are other words or other ways where you can get your point across. We agree that he’s too preachy-even for me as I am a Catholic too-he’s way too hardcore. BUT I respect that he has not gone off-message or that he has not gone back to a hole and he hasn’t apologized for anything. He stands for what he says and yesterday was one night that whereas it may cost him votes, he admitted some mistakes from back in the 90′s and got booed for them. These days, on election time, people have a knack to hold you up to the standard on how fast you learned to ride a bicycle. I mean, c’mon! That’s what makes people less interested in joining the fray because it’s a rat hole.

On the sexist comments or ban-worthy, what you can do is write Ed or Allahpundit and call people on it. Yesterday it was my birthday so I was back-and-forth, reading as fast as I could, watching TV with a tablet where I kept jumping from Twitter to HA. It was harder than other debates, so my apologies. You can stand on your own two feet but if it gets to be too hot, do what you gotta do.

From the newbies yes, there is a poster with a name similar like that-but it’s not CyberCipher (sp?) who’s from the original gang and does have a collie speak up.

Hope that was informative. I like Dr. Tesla and some people don’t. Just write, read, HIT PREVIEW, reconsider, then SUBMIT. Not fun to type when angry.

-PPF

ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM

I also like reading yours and csdeven’s comments. You guys are very witty. I wish I had that talent. I also think it’s hilarious how you and, especially, csdeven, get some of these people worked up into such a frenzy.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Everyone knows you and csdeven are the same person now. Are you trying for some damage control after last night?

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Neither Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum EVER supported the agenda from the anti-corruption voting protest movement known as the Tea Party.

Yet after their separate participation in the corruption of our Constitutional Governance, regardless of intent good or bad, both of these candidates presume to enjoy the support of the Tea Party movement, relying on the premise that we voters suffer from battered wife syndrome.

As Jeb Bush stated, the Republican establishment will usurp the Tea Party, taking for granted how stupid people are generally.

In Mitt Romney’s own words, “Promise them anything; just get their votes!”

So who are you going to believe, the abusive cheater or your lying eyes?

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 8:31 AM

So the “conservative” party stops the socialists and Obama by running with a flip-flopping(i.e.unprincipled-can’t trust him) man who created the very socialist Obamacare program for the left and has now shifted to playing Obama’s “tax the evil 1%” card, in what has to be the world’s best imitation of Obama ever done (well, I’ll ignore the small ears)

The only “opposition” that must save America (the elite GOP) fixes it so that no real conservative is electable.

Anyone who doubts we need a third party at any cost, can no longer say no, because it will help elect Obama. The major choice of who to vote for, is no longer about principles or the content of one’s character, but only ne of the color of the candidates skin.

I wonder if Mitt will start living in tanning salons for the general, as his next,”I”m just like him folks” move?

Don L on February 23, 2012 at 8:35 AM

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:05 AM

.
Richard should have argued that he also endorsed and supported Arlen Specter- and look how well that worked out. Or not.
FlaMurph on February 23, 2012 at 8:15 AM

.
Rick gave his explanation for endorsing Spectre.
And it makes total logical sense to me.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:35 AM

It was fun seeing Chris Christie on F&F this morning looking and sounding a little leary defending Romney’s performance last night. Buyer’s remorse, perhaps? Same with McDonnell in Virginia who’s in the hot seat and changing his views on issues there now. I think being associated with a flip flopper is taking its toll on these 2. And as for the Donald Trump/Ann Coulter freak show, it’s fun watching them bluster and implode all over the place. Especially if we go through the same scenario with Michigan and Arizon being their bell weathers and then Super Tuesday is a total smash against Romney as it looks like it may be.

mozalf on February 23, 2012 at 8:36 AM

rubberneck on February 23, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Well, I don’t know what to tell you.
Like I said, plenty are writing it.
If it’s some attempt to persuade people to switch to their candidate it’s moronic. (I really can’t believe that’s it.)
I can’t explain it, but I’ve read it from at least twenty commenters.

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:36 AM

ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM

And posting as csdeven last night on the Ash Wednesday thread it was bashing religion something fierce. Some nerve that one.

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Ain’t love grand?

I rest my case.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 8:06 AM

*laughing, coughing, laughing*

Enjoy it! I am here green with blog envy!

ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:37 AM

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Nailed the csdevin-smeagol latest “other”.

Perhaps you missed the many persona’s csd claimed to be here during the pathetic ’08 Mitten “Bigot” campaign.

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Neither Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum EVER supported the agenda from the anti-corruption voting protest movement known as the Tea Party.

The thing is, if endorsing and campaigning for conservative candidates who promised to pursue the tea party agenda is what you mean (and I assume it is, since that is what Palin did), then Romney, in fact did support the movement. He just hasn’t run around calling himself a “tea party guy” as Santorum has. Santorum spent the 2010 election as a Fox News analyst.

Priscilla on February 23, 2012 at 8:38 AM

ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Pretty sure CyberCipher is the one with the collie.

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:38 AM

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:16 AM

I just refuse to believe that anyone on this board would prefer Obama to Romney. They should burn in fires of hell and be damned for eternity…and no, I’m not a Santorum supporter.
rubberneck on February 23, 2012 at 8:29 AM

.
Well rubber’, that’s one of the things I agree with you on.

I don’t understand it, either.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM

ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Oops, sorry. That is what you said.

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM

ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Ok, I appreciate your comments. You seem like a nice person.

As for calling Rick Santorum a bigot, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I feel strongly about his disgusting support for bans on homosexuality and his willingness to use government to impose his moral views on others. I also feel very strongly that he would never be able to win a general election.

I’m sure there are positive qualities to recommend him (I actually thought well of him until I learned more about him), but I think he would be a terrible candidate and, even though he would never win, would not be the kind of president I would want.

I understand that you feel differently, and I can respect your opinion.

P.S. – you like Dr. Tesla??? No comment. hehe

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:42 AM

And posting as csdeven last night on the Ash Wednesday thread it was bashing religion something fierce. Some nerve that one.

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 8:36 AM

I don’t like to read anti-Catholic stuff. We get enough insulting from the rest of the bunch. I like Baptists and Methodists so I am not blind to other faith beliefs.

My morning Catholic news is http://spiritdaily.com-looks like Drudge-and they post other interesting Christian news, angels etc. that every one should go read. It’s by Michael H. Brown(?).

ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:42 AM

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM

They’re what I call the “taking-my-ball-and-going-home” crowd.
As if there’s such a thing as a perfect candidate.

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Everyone knows you and csdeven are the same person now. Are you trying for some damage control after last night?

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Sigh. I wish I had csdeven’s wit.

Seriously, you are just making yourself look foolish. You guys really ARE obsessed with csdeven!

By the way, I think csdeven is a HotAir legend at this point. I remember reading her comments before I got an account.

As I read the comments, I would think, “yes, you tell ‘em!”

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 8:38 AM

That was before my Hot Air time. I didn’t start reading it till my last deployment and I just got in with the last registration.

Who all does csdeven and bluegill post as?

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 8:48 AM

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM

.
Right on. It will always come down to a “lesser evil”, but this GOP Presidential field seems especially lacking this time, and as such had folks unhappy before they even started “choosing sides”.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:50 AM

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Your other sock puppet seems to like to lie to get it’s points across. Do you admire that?

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Moreover, to the extent all of this has forced Romney to the right and forced him to make more specific conservative pledges, so much the better. Like the tax plan he just announced. I have a feeling it would have been much weaker sauce (and closer to what Obama proposed) if Romney was not struggling in the primary and needing to prove some conservative bona fides.

So, everyone who is so angry that Romney isn’t winning this in a cake-walk should relax. This is what primaries are for.

Monkeytoe on February 23, 2012 at 7:49 AM

I think you are absolutely right on this.

Priscilla on February 23, 2012 at 8:50 AM

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Did you ever publicly apologize for calling Santorum “stupid”?

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM

The dogs just won’t eat it.

It would one thing for Willard devotees to explain his plans and intended policies. But they don’t. They argue like publicists. The whole Willard campaign–and it’s an unsavory one–is that he’s winning or he’s inevitable or he’s electable.

But he’s not. I’m tired of Willard shills trying to use peer pressure to make Republicans conform. It’s like an election for class president.

Earlier in this thread, someone said:

Romney is the nominee. Time to start fighting for him
Zetterson on February 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM

My reaction, like in the famous cartoon from The New Yorker, is

I say it’s spinach, and I say the hell with it.

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Rick gave his explanation for endorsing Spectre.
And it makes total logical sense to me.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Whoa!

As if Specter would have nominated constitutional conservatives for the SCOTUS. Never.

His opposition to Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987 is seen as an important factor in the nomination’s failure.

2002:

When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think [confirmation] is unlikely. The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster. … And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.

Specter misrepresented himself in order to gain his position. He met with many conservative Republican senators, and based on assurances he gave them, he was recommended for the Judiciary Committee’s chairmanship in late 2004.

On March 9, 2006, the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law. It amended the process for interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys, a clause which Specter wrote during his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The change allowed the POTUS to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without term limits, and without confirmation by the Senate.

In October 2009, Specter called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which he supported in 1996.

btw, Specter has a higher approval rating among Democrats in Pennsylvania than Republicans, 62–55 respectively.

In 1988 Specter co-sponsored an amendment to the Fair Housing Act that led to the banking/mortgage meltdown of our nation’s economy 2008.

In 1998 and 1999, Specter criticized the Republican Party for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

maverick muse on February 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM

P.S. – you like Dr. Tesla??? No comment. hehe

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Hehehe. Dr. Tesla reminds me of this. My son and I watched almost all of them. Yep. And got the cars and race tracks too.

ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Mitt Romney does not age. Every birthday is just another year added to his existence, which stinks for his opponents.

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 8:55 AM

listens2glenn on February 23, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Yeah, I agree with you completely.

I was pretty mad at a few of them when they decided not to run. All of them said, at one time or another, “This is the most important election in my lifetime,” and subsequently refused to run.

Perhaps some of them are looking forward to 2016. Maybe they didn’t want to run against Obama (and the media). I don’t know, but I think 2016 is gonna be too late.

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:58 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 23, 2012 at 2:53 AM

I have no idea what or who you’re arguing against. Go back and read the last line in my post to Tesla, and understand that there is a difference in supporting states rights and supporting legislation a state passes.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Santorum looked defensive and taken aback by the hard hits coming from all directions, including the audience.

HotAir already decided they are Mormons though, so their opinion doesn’t count.

antisense on February 23, 2012 at 8:59 AM

KickandSwimMom on February 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM

The proof is found on this website!

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I just sent Ann a tweet with a link to your blog post.

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Gee…ummm…thanks. LOL.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:00 AM

RedCrow on February 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Thank you!

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Did you ever publicly apologize for calling Santorum “stupid”?

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM

No, I just sent the Senator a private text. Didn’t think a public apology was necessary.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Romney is a smarmy RINO who doesn’t seem to be able to win much except in locations where there are more liberals than conservatives.

This should tell you something…no?

Sporty1946 on February 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Gee…ummm…thanks. LOL.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:00 AM

She knows I’m a Gingrich supporter, so she won’t my tweet anyway. LOL

She never responds to people unless they’re gushing about Romney, or, bashing one of the other candidates.

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 9:06 AM

No, I just sent the Senator a private text. Didn’t think a public apology was necessary.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Yeah, right. My wife…Morgan Fairchild…yeah…that’s the ticket.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:06 AM

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Kingjester. Do you just register to comment on your blog?

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 9:06 AM

That does not surprise me, at all. She has really let a lot of people down.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:07 AM

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Just comment. I’ll activate it.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:07 AM

No, I just sent the Senator a private text. Didn’t think a public apology was necessary.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Since you made the accusation on a public forum, wouldn’t the polite thing to do is apologize on a public forum and admit that you were wrong?

Flora Duh on February 23, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Lol at the signing off signing on by bluegill/csdeven to post as two people.

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Hahahahah!! I gather the debate went very badly for Sanctorum.

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 9:12 AM

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Subtle, huh?/

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM

There is safety in numbers, but no number can protect Sanctorum from the wrath of Mitt Romney!

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Thanks Kingjester. The Ann Coulter article was great.

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 9:14 AM

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Subtle, huh?/

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM

They’re lifetime members of the Mutual Admiration Society but never exchange comments. LOL

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM

smoothsailing on February 23, 2012 at 9:14 AM

No, thank you for reading it. Much appreciated.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9 10