Quotes of the day

posted at 8:15 pm on February 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

“Whether Mitt Romney wins or loses the Michigan and Arizona primaries on Tuesday, his advisers are warning donors and other supporters to prepare for a longer, more bruising and more expensive fight for the Republican presidential nomination that may not be settled until at least May…

“Mr. Santorum is likewise preparing to fight on for weeks or months, enticed by new party rules that award delegates in early primaries and caucuses based on each candidate’s share of the votes. ‘The race is going to go a long time,’ he said as he left the stage, promising to ‘fight fire with fire.’…

“There is a growing sense among party leaders that the primary fight has gone on long enough and that continued attacks by the candidates and their allies have steered the conversation away from the economy and could damage the party’s prospects in the fall. But several Republicans said a diversion to social issues threatened to turn off independent voters, who will be needed to form a winning coalition in the fall…

“In Michigan, some Republican leaders expressed worries about the effect of an extended battle on the party’s prospects of winning the White House and suggested that the time had come for the party to rally around one candidate, however imperfect.”

***

“The most disturbing aspect of this election is that despite the parlous condition of the country and the profound vulnerability of the incumbent, the best Republican candidates — Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Haley Barbour — have sat it out. As I keep lamenting, in the terrible year 1968, with assassinations, riots, 550,000 draftees in Vietnam and 200 to 400 of them returning in body bags every week, at one time or another, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan were all running for president, and all of them were more impressive than the present contestants.

“Of the surviving Republican contenders, Ron Paul is a sound monetarist and a doughty libertarian, but he is a 76-year old kook who, like President Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, thinks 9/11 was the chickens coming home to roost. Newt Gingrich is a completely unfeasible flake. Rick Santorum is consistent, courageous, and believably argues for fiscal encouragement of families and the creation of jobs that add value to the economy and not just more lawyers and consultants and service-industry leeches. But he has his feet stuck in cement on abortion and same-sex marriage, and early in the campaign even criticized contraception. These shouldn’t be partisan issues at all, and any candidate who gets into them has self-detonating grenades strapped to his torso, front and back. Mitt Romney is more presentable and has a successful private-sector career behind him, but is afflicted by plasticity and has faced in all four directions on most issues…

“It is all as ludicrous as Fidel Castro, the world authority on misrule, claims. If Obama loses, it will be because the Republicans jump the rails on this corrupt, farcical nominating process and draft a serious candidate on a serious platform. If he wins, it will be a disaster to delight America’s critics, and will be repealed by a nation chastened back to its senses in 2016.”

***

“Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage told POLITICO Saturday he hopes to see a ‘floor fight’ at the GOP convention in Tampa this summer, giving the party an opportunity to nominate a ‘fresh face’ rather than one of the battered members of the 2012 field.

“‘I’m pushing for a floor fight … I’d like to see a good old-fashioned convention and a dark horse come out,’ LePage told my colleagues Dave Catanese and Alexander Trowbridge at the National Governors Association winter meeting. ‘I think the candidates, in my mind, have injured themselves and injured the party by not following Ronald Reagan’s ‘never speak badly of another Republican.”…

“‘It’s been too messy. I just believe we ought to go to the convention and pick a fresh face,’ LePage said. ‘They beat themselves up so badly that I’d think it’d be nice to have a fresh face.’”

***

“The most interesting [convention] scenario, however, is the case where the unpledged delegates would be sufficient to give a candidate a majority, but his claim to the nomination was somewhat tenuous. Suppose, for instance, that Mr. Romney had 43 percent of the delegates, Mr. Santorum 37 percent, and about 8 percent of delegates had not yet pledged to a candidate…

“If Mr. Romney’s plurality lead seemed to be built upon structural advantages in the delegate selection process rather than popular support — say, for instance, that Mr. Romney had the most delegates, but Mr. Santorum was 10 points ahead in national polls at he time — some delegates might conclude that it was not in the best interest of the party to give him a helping hand…

The aesthetics of how a candidate performs could be important in a case like this. If in addition to trailing in national polls, Mr. Romney had lost key states like Michigan and Ohio, it would be harder for him to claim that his nomination reflected the collective will of the Republican electorate.”

***

“By performing his aloofness from and contempt for the radical right, even as he fakes solidarity with it, Romney is doing exactly what he needs to do. He is keeping the radical right close to him for the general election by seeming to bow to its power, even as he is signaling to everyone else that he knows how miserably inadequate the support of the radical right will be in the general election.

“So let’s all calm down and stop getting so excited about a deadlocked convention, and a dark-horse nominee introduced at the last minute, and an imploded Republican opposition. Beyond Super Tuesday lie delegate-rich states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California that are not top heavy with Tea Partiers and evangelicals and that will almost certainly enable Romney to arrive at the convention with a strong hand. And beyond that are the party elites, who were content to use the radical right-wingers but who never liked them, and who tremble at the thought of Candidate Santorum. Finally there are the Tea Partiers and evangelicals who, though hostile to Romney at present, would rather vote for a golden retriever than give Obama another four years in the White House.

“What seems like a circus now is serious business, so let us look beyond the circus instead of exaggerating it.”

***

“Whatever risks it might pose in the general election, the controversy over contraceptives, the Catholic Church, and the Obama administration has been an unalloyed blessing for Santorum in the Republican-nomination fight. Popping up unexpectedly, it has shifted what the political sharpies call the ‘issue matrix’ in an awkward direction for Romney and a comfortable one for Santorum, and is likely to help the latter further solidify his already firm hold over a voting bloc with which his rival is notably weak…

“If Santorum can consolidate the support of these groups as Gingrich did momentarily in South Carolina, the battle between him and his amalgam of red-hots and Romney and his army of regulars will be pitched—and, depending on what happens on Tuesday in Michigan, maybe bloody and protracted

“The reality is that even winning Michigan (and Arizona the same day) may not be enough to rescue Romney from the rough. ‘Every money guy I know thinks Romney can’t win a general election,’ says a respected Washington player and presidential-campaign veteran. ‘Our guys on Capitol Hill are moving into survival-of-the-fittest, only-worrying-about-themselves mode. They think the damage to Romney may be done and may be irreversible—and now he might not even be the nominee. So Romney not only has to win Michigan and Arizona, but he has to have a resounding knockout on Super Tuesday or he’s gonna be in real, real trouble.’…

[I]f Obama prevails, precisely the opposite dynamic is likely to kick in: a period of bitter recriminations followed by a reformation (or counterreformation) of the GOP. This, please recall, was what many Republicans were counting on to happen in the wake of their party’s loss of the White House and seats in the House and Senate in 2008. Instead, Republicans seized on a strategy of relentless opposition to Obama, which proved politically effective in 2010 but left the party as bereft of new ideas, a constructive agenda, or a coherent governing philosophy as before. With Obama having looked beatable months ago, a botched bid to oust him—especially if coupled with a failure to take over the Senate—would usher in a full-blown Republican conflagration, followed by an effort to rise from the ashes by doing the opposite of what caused the meltdown of 2012.

***

Via Mediaite.

***

“‘Well, I think it is important to appeal to the independents, certainly as I’ve described, Ronald Reagan did,’ she said. ‘We will not win by getting only the people who voted for John McCain. So, yeah, we need moderates. We need my gender. We need independents. But I don’t even know what he is talking about — playing to fears, particularly. When I make that point I have specific criticisms. I don’t think we should be prattling nonstop about contraception in the middle of an economic meltdown. I don’t think we need a candidate who proposes child janitors and then turns around and opposes worker comp requirements in the welfare reform. That is Newt Gingrich. I think you need an appealing candidate. But conservative positions are appealing and the more conservative a candidate is, you know the better off you are, which is why I support Mitt Romney.’”

***

“GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said today that watching John F. Kennedy’s speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston in 1960 made him want to ‘throw up.’

“‘To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?’ Santorum said…

‘I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,’ said Santorum. ‘This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, ‘faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was foreign at the time of 1960,’ he said.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


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 4 5 6

unfortunately the Tea Party is now another SoCon mouthpiece.

they support Rick freakin’ Santorum for God’s sake!

earmarks, fed spending! hell yeah!

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 7:16 AM

gracie on February 27, 2012 at 7:07 AM

I guess we can be generous and throw a few crumbs to the bigot and his supporters. I kind of feel sorry for those people. How embarrassing it must be to have to admit publicly that you support an unelectable homophobic bigot like Rick Santorum. I sure wouldn’t want to go around advertising that fact.

Anyway, we all know that Santorum has peaked and will never be the nominee.

I almost feel like MAYBE it is a good thing that this is continuing on for a bit, since Rick Santorum is helping Romney look especially sane in comparison and in front of a general election audience.

A family member (who has voted for Repubs and Dems for president) recently expressed SHOCK to me that Ann Coulter was supporting Mitt Romney. To him, Ann Coulter is the epitome of the hard right, and he was surprised because he had gotten the clear message that Romney was the sanest and least fringey of the bunch.

Voters outside the small subset of Republican primary voters are getting the message that Mitt Romney isn’t extreme enough for the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc. This is a very good thing for Romney, especially with regard to independent voters, who will decide the election.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 7:19 AM

Operation Demoralize is in full swing mode, full credit to Ezra.

herm2416 on February 27, 2012 at 7:30 AM

I hate to tell you this blugill, but Ann Coulter isn’t hard right and mittens might be inevitable but he’s a Fox News righty – AKA slight democrat. therefore you and you’re family are misinformed fools

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 7:30 AM

“Whether Mitt Romney wins or loses the Michigan and Arizona primaries on Tuesday, his advisers are warning donors and other supporters to prepare for a longer, more bruising and more expensive fight for the Republican presidential nomination that may not be settled until at least May…
=======================================

Heres the Movie theme,

It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963) Official Theatrical Trailer
***************************************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sla845GW9YM

canopfor on February 27, 2012 at 7:31 AM

O/T,oh this ought to be interesting!

Bill Clinton, Helmut Kohl and WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning among 231 nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Submitted 37 mins ago from news.asiaone.com
http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

canopfor on February 27, 2012 at 7:36 AM

Every money guy I know thinks Romney can’t win a general election,’ says a respected Washington player and presidential-campaign veteran.

And Rick Santorum CAN ? Please.

deadrody on February 27, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Tina Korbe for president? At least we’d have something nice to look at, plus she’s smarter than a Harvard Law Review Editor.

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 7:37 AM

1,789,438th look at Chris Christie?

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 7:39 AM

What an odd group Canopfor to say the least

cmsinaz on February 27, 2012 at 8:03 AM

what do you get when Mittens crosses the aisle?

a Republican

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Anyway, we all know that Santorum has peaked and will never be the nominee.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 7:19 AM

We do? At this point in the race I wouldn’t presume to say who will and will not be the nominee, so don’t think your “we all” includes me.

You know what gilled one? I put no credence whatsoever in anything you say, because you’ve shown time after time what a hypocrite you are.

IMO, the way you go off on your pro-Romney/anti-everyone else partisan rants, not just against the other commenters here, but also against Ed, Tina, and Allah, and twist and distort facts to make them fit your narrative, qualifies you as the Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Hot Air.

Flora Duh on February 27, 2012 at 8:12 AM

I can respect your opinion!…and you are not telling people they are stupid…or they can rub some knob…or smoke their dope…or take their meds…or threaten some butt…etc.
….
KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Thank you. I believe that in supporting one candidate, it’s not necessary to throw insults at the others, or their supporters. It’s not even helpful.

Confutus on February 27, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Barack Obama is emerging as not so much the incompetent he has appeared for most of his term, but as purposeful, radical in fact, and even possibly sinister.

Emphasis mine, but that’s the message I’d really like to see out there a little more. How can we not help but wonder about O’s true motives when practically every action this administration has taken seems to have done more harm than good?

lynncgb on February 27, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Emphasis mine, but that’s the message I’d really like to see out there a little more. How can we not help but wonder about O’s true motives when practically every action this administration has taken seems to have done more harm than good?

lynncgb on February 27, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Lame. No one’s going to buy that except for the people already committed to voting against Obama.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:22 AM

bluegill just called someone else lame!

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM

aren’t we missing the point here folks?

dredge algae baby dredge!

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:25 AM

bluegill just called someone else lame!

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Well, to be honest I’d have to see the context. What is that from?

I read it quickly and thought it meant purposefully harm the country, but now that I look again I see that’s not necessarily the point.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:29 AM

I don’t know blugill…sounds like Rush speak. He says that crap all the time

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Flora Duh on February 27, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Just as long as you remember what you’re going to do in November and how much you WILL like doing it, I’ll be fine.

(note to others: that’s just a little inside thing between me and the Duh Lady)

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:31 AM

IMO, the way you go off on your pro-Romney/anti-everyone else partisan rants, not just against the other commenters here, but also against Ed, Tina, and Allah, and twist and distort facts to make them fit your narrative, qualifies you as the Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Hot Air.

Flora Duh on February 27, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Thread Winner!

Good Morning, Flora Duh!

JonBGood on February 27, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Barack Obama is emerging as not so much the incompetent he has appeared for most of his term, but as purposeful, radical in fact, and even possibly sinister.

Emphasis mine, but that’s the message I’d really like to see out there a little more. How can we not help but wonder about O’s true motives when practically every action this administration has taken seems to have done more harm than good?

lynncgb on February 27, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Emphasis mine, but that’s the message I’d really like to see out there a little more. How can we not help but wonder about O’s true motives when practically every action this administration has taken seems to have done more harm than good?

lynncgb on February 27, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Lame. No one’s going to buy that except for the people already committed to voting against Obama.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Hmm, maybe I was more spot-on with the Debbie Wasserman Schultz comparison than I thought.

Flora Duh on February 27, 2012 at 8:34 AM

what do you get when Mittens crosses the aisle?

a Republican

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM

LOL! Good one!

Good Morning, DHChron!

JonBGood on February 27, 2012 at 8:35 AM

what up Jon! nice to see ya

if you like that thread winner, check this out!

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:40 AM

DHChron,

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday:
Romney 2012: Road to Serfdom

I don’t think the car’s owner is a Romney fan. ;-)

JonBGood on February 27, 2012 at 8:40 AM

JonBGood on February 27, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Good morning Jon.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:31 AM

That straw on the camel’s back? It’s really heavy.

Keep adding to the weight. IYKWIMAITYD

Flora Duh on February 27, 2012 at 8:41 AM

what up Jon! nice to see ya

if you like that thread winner, check this out!

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Heya DHChron,

I’m great, thanks! Hope you’re doing well this fine morning!

Poor Debbie. LOL!

JonBGood on February 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM

I’d have to see the context. What is that from?

I read it quickly and thought it meant purposefully harm the country, but now that I look again I see that’s not necessarily the point.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:29 AM

It’s from the link to the National Post article. And I did take it also to mean intentional harm. But I think I would have to agree with you that it would be like touching the third rail. No one would want to buy the idea that a president would be purposefully hurting his own country. Heck, I don’t even like to believe that it’s possible…but with this guy…I do wonder….

lynncgb on February 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Jon, doesn’t he know Romney owns four American cars?!?!?!

(and fifty foreign ones)

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:44 AM

That straw on the camel’s back? It’s really heavy.

Keep adding to the weight. IYKWIMAITYD

Flora Duh on February 27, 2012 at 8:41 AM

I have no idea what that means.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:45 AM

No one would want to buy the idea that a president would be purposefully hurting his own country. Heck, I don’t even like to believe that it’s possible…but with this guy…I do wonder….

lynncgb on February 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM

I don’t. And here is why

Flora Duh on February 27, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Jon, doesn’t he know Romney owns four American cars?!?!?!

(and fifty foreign ones)

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 8:44 AM

What would Thorstein Veblen say? ;-) Conspicuous consumption in an Age of Austerity? ;-)

I doubt Hayek would be a Mitt fan. He understood the corrosive power of the state over the individual.

JonBGood on February 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM

I don’t think mittens fans exist :) unless we’re talking baseball mitts or bluegill

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I don’t think mittens fans exist :) unless we’re talking baseball mitts or bluegill

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 9:02 AM

LOL! Oh my! Poor Mitt.

JonBGood on February 27, 2012 at 9:06 AM

O.K., I’m off. Have a good day everyone! :-)

Happy Day, DHChron! Flora Duh!

JonBGood on February 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM

later Jon

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Flora Duh on February 27, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Well, that article certainly seems to describe O pretty accurately.

Perhaps it is time to require each candidate to high office in the USA to submit to a rigorous physical and mental checkup with the results made public.

And I think it is time for this. More and more private companies are doing psychological profiling evaluations for managerial positions. So why not one for POTUS…

lynncgb on February 27, 2012 at 9:09 AM

But, before I go, I leave you with the Mittism of the Day:

Are we … going to be a nation governed by the government?
– Mitt Romney

JonBGood on February 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM

let’s be a nation governed by Rep. Hank Johnson :)

just kidding! we might tip over into the ocean

DHChron on February 27, 2012 at 9:13 AM

lynncgb on February 27, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I agree and would have no problem with that at all.

Flora Duh on February 27, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Bigots are always gilled.

Bmore on February 27, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6