Romney: Very conservative voters might not be with me now but they will be in November

posted at 7:47 pm on March 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, the key bit comes at around 3:40. This is his whole strategy in a nutshell and I still can’t decide whether to admire him or loathe him for it. He doesn’t care if you trust him. He doesn’t care if his rallies leave you flat. He doesn’t care if pulling the lever for him reduces you to dry heaves in the voting booth. He cares about two things: 1,144 and 270, and he’s likely to achieve at least the first thanks to hard work, careful planning, and the great good luck of having extraordinarily weak competition. Those qualities — high energy, fortitude, diligence, not needing to be liked — could be huge assets in a president if he applied them to enacting a worthy policy agenda, starting with entitlement reform. But I don’t think he’d use them to policy ends; he’d use them to position himself for re-election by pandering to centrists, which means no meaningful entitlement reform or anything else. He’s telling you right here why he’d be such a risk in office to the right. When push comes to shove, you’ll always hold your nose and vote against the Democrat, no matter how annoyed at him you might be. And he knows it — and he doesn’t care. He doesn’t need his base to like him. That’s a recipe for squishiness.

And yet:

Mitt Romney leads the pack in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. He’s also the second pick for enough Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich supporters that if one of them dropped out, Romney would remain the frontrunner.

Romney has the backing of 38 percent of Republican primary voters in a Fox News poll released Wednesday. He’s followed by Santorum at 32 percent, Gingrich at 13 percent and Paul at 12 percent…

In a straight two-way matchup, GOP primary voters prefer Romney to Santorum by 49-44 percent

Meanwhile, a 58-percent majority of primary voters would rather nominate a candidate who is more likely to beat President Obama, even if the candidate is not a true conservative. Less than a third — 31 percent — would pick the true conservative who might be less electable.

Romney actually leads Obama by nine points on the question of who’s best equipped to manage the economy, but head to head overall O leads by four. The key data point:

That’s a nice trend for Mitt, but again — he doesn’t care either way. The magic number is 270. If it all comes from column two instead of column one, hey.

Here’s his interview today with Megyn Kelly. Watch for the part where she asks him whether Newt should drop out; Romney, who I think is benefiting considerably from Gingrich’s perseverance notwithstanding the poll data above, conveniently has no opinion. There’s a fun exchange on the mandate at the very end too, but that’s because of the old clip Kelly chose to torment him with. In that same vein, via BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, watch the second one below on the vagaries of “ultimate conservatism.”



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 7 8 9 10 11

No true conservative can vote for a big government guy like Rick Santorum without searing their conscience yet a lot of them seem to be doing it. Most of the Romney supports I see here are at least aware of their man’s negatives.

alchemist19 on March 15, 2012 at 1:07 AM

I am fully aware of who all the candidates are and their baggage. Your contention that Rick is big government and Romney isn’t is laughable at best.

Putting their records side-by-side proves the complete opposite. Just name something that Romney has done in moving the conservative movement forward.

And on the other hand, Santorum is willing to admit errors when he made them. Yet, you still have Romney blind to the worst healthcare system of any 50 states in the US.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:26 AM

I suppose you mean that I am my own religion?

I’m a member of humanity, just like you, and the collective knowledge that humanity has amassed over the ages is what informs me on how I’m to be in life. That plus the brain I have between my ears when I evaluate the actions of others and look for the correct moral choice.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 1:24 AM

So far what you state is that humanism is your religion. No matter what, one does exactly what one believes.

So you put your faith in finite, mistake driven folks who constantly contradict and change their minds on things. You have all the right to believe in this and put your faith in it.

You are making my point: You always do what you believe!

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM

No matter what, one does exactly what one believes.

Should be: “No matter what, one will eventually always do what one truly believes”

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Boston Globe:

Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters (75%) of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.

Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.

WOW!!! What a dedicated conservative, I can’t wait for him to start appointing federal judges.

angryed on March 14, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Wow, all you got was crickets from this loathsome bunch. Not even a “it wasn’t his fault, he did a great job appointing 9 republicans given the constraints of dealing with a liberal Mass legislature.”

What’s clear to us “true conservatives” (funny, I never thought of myself that way) is the split is really over principled vs pragmatic. Actually, they also know this and it makes them crazy. They spew venom at right-minded posters, while subconsciously hating themselves for their conscienceless stances. Either this or there are many liberal plants posting on this board creating chaos.

noeastern on March 15, 2012 at 12:46 AM

The bad faith and bad reasoning flies thick and fast from the Mittbots.

ebrown2 on March 15, 2012 at 1:33 AM

So far what you state is that humanism is your religion. No matter what, one does exactly what one believes, and one suffers the consequences of those actions in THIS world, whether good or bad.

So you put your faith in finite, mistake driven folks who constantly contradict and change their minds on things. You have all the right to believe in this and put your faith in it.

You are making my point: You always do what you believe, and so do YOU! I just accept reality as it is, you play make believe!

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM

FIFY

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM

I ain’t missing anything, I am not proud of Romneycare, But as a resident from that state and knowing that the Democrats could have gone full socialism on us with Romney or without Romney since they controlled a veto proof majority i am glad that Romney didn’t die on that hill

Look at it this way, imagine the state where you live and plan to live for the rest of your life, would you want your governor to stand for conservative principles and let others destroy your state with one health care bill, Or would you want your governor to do everything in the world, including a much lighter version of government control in order for your state to survive?

You may choose option one, but that doesn’t mean that those who choose option 2 are bad or liberals it just means that they think option 2 is better for themself and for their state,

Again i understand that people who don’t live in MA are fully against Romney because of that bill, But those of us who do live there understand why he did it, which is why he got 75% of the vote on super tuesday

OrthodoxJew on March 15, 2012 at 1:14 AM

I’d prefer to see my R governor die on a socialist hill because it’s insidious – once it’s in you’ll never get rid of it.

Just because a majority of people don’t understand that and prefer to live on the slippery slope doesn’t mean it’s right. After all, a lot of people watch DWTS. Does that mean it’s good?

You elect a R politician to follow R principles.

kim roy on March 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Forgot to add, I don’t have a religion, I have reason.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 1:44 AM

alchemist19 on March 15, 2012 at 1:12 AM

About Ohio and the Democratic Votes. Santorum was leading in Ohio until about 11:30PM or later. Then the Democratic/Union strongholds (Counties) started reporting beyond the average of 45%. At that SAME time, Romney’s numbers for the first time all night, started increasing and then he took the lead. The final tally was Romney received 1% more of the votes than Santorum.

I followed the SOS site and monitored each of those Counties and watched the votes come in. I know the exit polls and the TV reports were saying Santorum got the Dem/Union votes, but that’s not what I saw from the SOS site. Just saying.

bluefox on March 15, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Romney derangement will do that to you.

Mormontheman on March 14, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Which you seem to have abundance of, that is why I FIFY.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:48 AM

So far what you state is that humanism is your religion. No matter what, one does exactly what one believes, and one suffers the consequences of those actions in THIS world, whether good or bad.

So you put your faith in finite, mistake driven folks who constantly contradict and change their minds on things. You have all the right to believe in this and put your faith in it.

You are making my point: You always do what you believe, and so do YOU! I just accept reality as it is, you play make believe!

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM

FIFY

The you do agree with me that your early statement was wrong. Thanks for the info.

I play make-believe…right! You are the one who puts his faith in “collective knowledge” that contradicts itself. Your moral relativism always will fail.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Forgot to add, I don’t have a religion, I have reason.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Your religion is faulty reason. You worship your own mind which is sad, but it is your right to believe in what you want.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:54 AM

About Ohio and the Democratic Votes. Santorum was leading in Ohio until about 11:30PM or later. Then the Democratic/Union strongholds (Counties) started reporting beyond the average of 45%. At that SAME time, Romney’s numbers for the first time all night, started increasing and then he took the lead. The final tally was Romney received 1% more of the votes than Santorum.

I followed the SOS site and monitored each of those Counties and watched the votes come in. I know the exit polls and the TV reports were saying Santorum got the Dem/Union votes, but that’s not what I saw from the SOS site. Just saying.

bluefox on March 15, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Do you have county-by-county breakdowns in the exit polling or just the overall exit polling as well as the final county-by-county numbers?

alchemist19 on March 15, 2012 at 2:13 AM

About Ohio and the Democratic Votes. Santorum was leading in Ohio until about 11:30PM or later. Then the Democratic/Union strongholds (Counties) started reporting beyond the average of 45%. At that SAME time, Romney’s numbers for the first time all night, started increasing and then he took the lead. The final tally was Romney received 1% more of the votes than Santorum.

I followed the SOS site and monitored each of those Counties and watched the votes come in. I know the exit polls and the TV reports were saying Santorum got the Dem/Union votes, but that’s not what I saw from the SOS site. Just saying.

bluefox on March 15, 2012 at 1:48 AM

On second thought I’m pretty sure you have the latter (overall exit polling and county by county results) and regardless you’re drawing a conclusion you can’t draw.

First off, watching results come in on the SOS website is nice and all but those same numbers get copied and pasted by every other major news outfit so we all know Romney won because of huge margins in places like Cuyahoga County. Are you arguing that because Cuyahoga is a Democrat stronghold that is was Democrats and unions who put him over the top there, and by extension in the state as a whole?

alchemist19 on March 15, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Ah Mitt…while some of us have accepted it and will actually vote for you, you’re an absolute idiot to start jabbing people in the eye and counting those electoral votes just yet.

Something to think about Mitt and Company: Mitt’s just a means to an end. Some of us will vote for him in November, for no other reason than to get Obama out of office and the collection of criminals and miscreants that make up his regime.

HOWEVER…that’s the only reason to vote for him.

I will vote for Mitt Romney in 2012.

I WILL NOT, under ANY circumstances vote for him in 2016.

I’m not convinced that the rest of the base is going to see it that way.

In other words, Mitt, you’ve still got A LOT of work to do.

SuperCool on March 15, 2012 at 2:42 AM

First off, watching results come in on the SOS website is nice and all but those same numbers get copied and pasted by every other major news outfit so we all know Romney won because of huge margins in places like Cuyahoga County. Are you arguing that because Cuyahoga is a Democrat stronghold that is was Democrats and unions who put him over the top there, and by extension in the state as a whole?

alchemist19 on March 15, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Keep in mind, I was not getting my info from any Network or News website. I was monitoring the 19 Dem/Union Counties and watching the votes being tallied on the SOS site. These were in real time. There is no way I can re-produce those votes now.

And yes, I believe that Romney won due to those votes in not only Cuyahoga County but others that vote Dem. What I found strange is that it had been reported in Michigan etc that the Dems (exit polls) voted for Santorum to help B.O. out. Well, they must have changed tactics in Ohio:-) If the Dems, especially in those Counties were going to vote for Santorum, then he and not Romney would have won. I didn’t believe they voted for Santorum in Michigan anyway. Not that much anyway. In Ohio, who ever heard of Dems voting for ANY Republican? LOL

bluefox on March 15, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Keep in mind, I was not getting my info from any Network or News website. I was monitoring the 19 Dem/Union Counties and watching the votes being tallied on the SOS site. These were in real time. There is no way I can re-produce those votes now.

And yes, I believe that Romney won due to those votes in not only Cuyahoga County but others that vote Dem. What I found strange is that it had been reported in Michigan etc that the Dems (exit polls) voted for Santorum to help B.O. out. Well, they must have changed tactics in Ohio:-) If the Dems, especially in those Counties were going to vote for Santorum, then he and not Romney would have won. I didn’t believe they voted for Santorum in Michigan anyway. Not that much anyway. In Ohio, who ever heard of Dems voting for ANY Republican? LOL

bluefox on March 15, 2012 at 2:50 AM

I watched the real-time vote tallies to and I know what came in when. It’s not all that important though.

The mistake you’re making is assigning general election overall voting tendencies to the Republican primary. You can’t do that. Let’s stick with Cuyahoga because it’s what has been brought up so far. Anyone who knows anything about Ohio politics knows that Obama will win Cuyahoga County by a large margin. That said, if we look at things in terms of total votes a place can be counted on to deliver to the Republican nominee then Cuyahoga is among the most Republican places in the state. Romney has done well in the urban and suburban centers throughout the campaign so it was expected that he would do very well in Cuyahoga so the big win there wasn’t really a surprise, and the fact the place is overall Democrat does not discount the fact that well over 100,000 Republicans live there. Unless you’ve got exit poll data that shows Romney’s share of the Democrat vote grew substantially in Cuyahoga or any other Democrat/union town you can mention then your argument doesn’t hold water.

alchemist19 on March 15, 2012 at 3:24 AM

I think a lot of conservatives are not happy about the way that Sen. Sanctimonious Santorum, Gingrich and much of the conservative media are joining forces with the liberal media to forestall the launch of a national campaign to defeat Obama.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 4:51 AM

What Santorum gets you are arguments about religion and social issues. If he won the nomination, Obama and the MSM would make damn sure that’s what 2012 is all about because 1) they have nothing to run on, and 2) Santorum is such an easy target because he’s a big-mouthed bonehead who cares about the social stuff more than anything else. End result, a landslide for Obama.

Also, Santorum’s opposition to right-to-work, his spending record on entitlements and pork, and his opposition to the “libertarian strain” in the GOP make his assertion that he’s the “true conservate” in the race laughable at best. Not to mention his claim that he’s a “Democrat killer” – who lost his last race by 18 points primarily because of Terri Schaivo and Iraq.

I always laughed at the Mittbot elecability claim, but compared to Santorum, they’re right. Mitt is electable and Santorum is UNelectable. If you want Obama out of office, hold your nose and vote for Mitt. If you think it’s more important to beat Romney, vote for Santorum – but be aware you’re helping Obamao stay in office for another four years.

DRayRaven on March 15, 2012 at 4:53 AM

I think a lot of conservatives are not happy about the way that Sen. Sanctimonious Santorum, Gingrich and much of the conservative media are joining forces with the liberal media to forestall the launch of a national campaign to defeat Obama.
bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 4:51 AM

.
When is someone going to investigate all that voter fraud in Alabama and Mississippi?

listens2glenn on March 15, 2012 at 5:24 AM

If you want Obama out of office, hold your nose and vote for Mitt. If you think it’s more important to beat Romney, vote for Santorum – but be aware you’re helping Obamao stay in office for another four years.

DRayRaven on March 15, 2012 at 4:53 AM

That horse can’t get any more dead, yet you keep beating it. If that’s your only argument for voting for Slobama, keep it up. I’m sure it will influence tens of people.

swinia sutki on March 15, 2012 at 5:29 AM

DRayRaven on March 15, 2012 at 4:53 AM

.
Your second reason is wrong.
.
Rick Santorum lost 2006 because of his support for Specter in 2004, and the war in Iraq. I would defy you to put the Terri Schiavo situation up for a national referendum.
.
I reject outright everything in your last paragraph.
.
BUT . . . . . suit yourself.

listens2glenn on March 15, 2012 at 5:36 AM

I think a lot of conservatives are not happy about the way that Sen. Sanctimonious Santorum, Gingrich and much of the conservative media are joining forces with the liberal media to forestall the launch of a national campaign to defeat Obama.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 4:51 AM

Face it. The primary is now going to take a back seat for the next three weeks to the NCAA Tourney. The country won’t be tuning back in until after Easter.

BuckeyeSam on March 15, 2012 at 5:54 AM

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 4:51 AM

Face it. The primary is now going to take a back seat for the next three weeks to the NCAA Tourney. The country won’t be tuning back in until after Easter.

BuckeyeSam on March 15, 2012 at 5:54 AM

.
FINAL-FOUR, BABY . . . YEAH ! ! ! . . .

listens2glenn on March 15, 2012 at 6:10 AM

Romney just can’t help it.

tommy71 on March 15, 2012 at 6:12 AM

Hmmm. More hypocrisy from Sanctimonious Santo? More lies?

Fact:

Rick Santorum is a staunch advocate at capping civil awards at $250,000 per victim.

As a United States Senator, Rick Santorum has repeatedly supported limits on consumers’ rights to seek compensation in the courts. In 1994, Santorum sponsored the Comprehensive Family Health Access and Savings Act that would have capped non-economic damages at $250,000.

In a 1995 floor speech supporting damages caps, Santorum said, “We have a much too costly legal system. It is one that makes us uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole. While we may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be designed to do.”

Fact:

Rick Santorum’s wife, Karen, sought a $500,000 judgement from a Virginia court, claiming a Virginia chiropracter had caused her permanent back pain after his negligence.

Fact:

Rick Santorum testified on her behalf, citing her inability to campaign for him as a reason the family apparently deserved two times the judgement the Senator believes should serve as a cap for average Americans.

At trial, the Senator testified that his wife should be compensated for the pain and suffering caused by a botched spine adjustment, claiming that she had to “treat her back gingerly” and could no longer accompany him on the campaign trail.
Fact:

Rick Santorum’s wife was originally rewarded a $350,000 judgement by the Virginia court.

Hyporcrisy:

After the verdict, Santorum refused to answer phone calls asking what impact the case had on his views of “tort reform.”

According to his spokesman Robert Traynham, “Senator Santorum is of the belief that the verdict decided upon by the jury during last week’s court case of his wife is strictly a private matter. The legislative positions that Senator Santorum has taken on tort reform and health care have been consistent with the case involving Mrs. Santorum.”

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 6:36 AM

Hopefully, we won’t have to vote for you vs the ‘O’…

ChuckTX on March 15, 2012 at 6:37 AM

Screw you arrogant one-staying home this November!

redware on March 15, 2012 at 6:42 AM

listens2glenn on March 15, 2012 at 5:36 AM

You’re the one who’s wrong. Santorum lost in no small part because of his behavior in the Schiavo case the year prior to the campaign. Santorum’s behavior was bizarre and breathtakingly exploitative, since when he wasn’t praying with the Schindler’s outside of Terri Schiavo’s room, he was off fundraising for his campaign. Some reports are that he took in $100,000 in Florida off of his exploitation of Terri Schiavo. Whatever the amount, it had a huge impact on his loss in the Senate race in PA in 2006. The vast majority of polls show that Americans sided with Terri Schiavo’s husband and the courts supported his case. Rick Santorum–Sanctimonious Santo–is one of the most sleazy, corrupt hypocrites I’ve ever seen. The more I know about him–and I know a considerable amount these days because I am researching him–the more disgusted I am.

Santorum is nothing but a crook, a con. His religiosity is a front, a mask, to cover up the real low-life he is. There’s no way this guy should be in the WH. He’s dangerously corrupt.

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 6:46 AM

But I don’t think he’d use them to policy ends; he’d use them to position himself for re-election by pandering to centrists, which means no meaningful entitlement reform or anything else. He’s telling you right here why he’d be such a risk in office to the right.

This is the most wrong statement I have seen AP write in over five years here at Hotair. Romney will work to put the government budget into balance. It’s what Romney has done his entire life.

thuja on March 14, 2012 at 10:39 PM

It may not be the worst, but it is among the worst. And you’re spot-on when you say putting budgets into balance is what he’s done his entire life. Indeed, it’s absurd to think that once he was elected to do what he’s promised to do he would, he would suddenly shrink from this responsibility and become the unRomney.

Buy Danish on March 15, 2012 at 6:47 AM

To Romney’s comment about very conservative voters being with him in November, the answer is maybe not.

If Romney secures the nomination and then moves to the center, conservatives will be quickly be alienated.

In my own view, Romney is not a real conservative, and that will become apparent and disappointing.

Phil Byler on March 15, 2012 at 6:50 AM

The vast majority of polls show that Americans sided with Terri Schiavo’s husband and the courts supported his case.
mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 6:46 AM

.
I’m not trying to “sell” Santorum to you, but I absolutely reject any poll that arrives at the conclusion that a majority of Americans supported Michael Schiavo’s decision.

listens2glenn on March 15, 2012 at 6:53 AM

“I’m a PROGRESSIVE.”—–Mitt Romney

Translation: Eat it Conservatives.

NO MITT!!!

PappyD61 on March 15, 2012 at 6:56 AM

Sanctimonious Santo:

Who cares about jobs, the debt, or the economy!?

I’m going to shut down the internet, so I can stop porn!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 7:00 AM

Mitt is the man! He will make a great President. Time for Santorum and Gingrich to hang it up.

lhuffman34 on March 15, 2012 at 7:05 AM

listens2glenn on March 15, 2012 at 6:53 AM

Bwahahaha. Oh, so you

absolutely reject any poll that arrives at the conclusion that a majority of Americans supported Michael Schiavo’s decision.

Well, then, I guess that makes you stupid AND stubbornly resistant to facts at the same time.

And here’s a reminder from ABC (Mar 21 2005) of how that played out with the public:

Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain.

Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS.

The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.

That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more — 70 percent — call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

This ABC News poll also finds that the Schiavo case has prompted an enormous level of personal discussion: Half of Americans say that as a direct result of hearing about this case, they’ve spoken with friends or family members about what they’d want done if they were in a similar condition. Nearly eight in 10 would not want to be kept alive.

In addition to the majority, the intensity of public sentiment is also on the side of Schiavo’s husband, who has fought successfully in the Florida courts to remove her feeding tube. And intensity runs especially strongly against congressional involvement.

Included among the 63 percent who support removing the feeding tube are 42 percent who “strongly” support it — twice as many as strongly oppose it. And among the 70 percent who call congressional intervention inappropriate are 58 percent who hold that view strongly — an especially high level of strong opinion.

And who was one of the politicians most involved with the attempt to ‘federalize’ the Schiavo tragedy?

Why, none other than Santorum, crushed a year later in a senatorial contest in which his role in the Schiavo case is thought to have played no small part in his humiliating defeat. The idea that this rigidly dogmatic ideologue is in any way electable is ludicrous. There is also every danger for the Republicans that his candidacy would be so polarizing that it would trigger a surge in voters interested only in voting against Santorum, and while they were at it, his parties’ candidates for the Senate and House, something that would present additional dangers for the GOP.

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 7:06 AM

Sanctimonious Santo:

Who cares about jobs, the debt, or the economy!?

I’m going to shut down the internet, so I can stop porn!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 7:00 AM

This is just incredible to me. Is Santorum for real? Is he going out of his way now to give SNL and liberal news shows more material with which to mock him and, by association, Republicans, thereby given the news media yet another way to make this election about anything but a referendum on Obama’s record?

The unelectable Rick Santorum wants to make internet porn an issue in the campaign now? So much for focusing like a laser beam on jobs and Obama’s economic failures.

The unapologetic social conservative, currently in second place behind Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, has promised to crack down on the distribution of pornography if elected.

Santorum says in a statement posted to his website, “The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”

If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”

ARTICLE: ‘Vigorous’ Santorum crackdown may catch Internet porn viewers with pants down

With every day, it becomes clearer and clearer that Santorum needs to go. This man is not helping our chances in November.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 7:15 AM

BuckeyeSam on March 15, 2012 at 5:54 AM

tru dat

cmsinaz on March 15, 2012 at 7:20 AM

“Obama is great”—–MATT Romney

That statement in Hawaii this week is all you need to know.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2012 at 7:27 AM

Dear Mitt: Conservatives can vote for whomever we want to. It’s America.

Dear MittBots: It’s getting old. Try Decaf.

kingsjester on March 15, 2012 at 7:39 AM

In my own view, Romney is not a real conservative, and that will become apparent and disappointing.

Phil Byler on March 15, 2012 at 6:50 AM

It will be far more deadly than just “disappointing.” The GOP made this meatloaf a long time ago. They picked, and protected, the same old RINO ingredients, and have force-fed us a loser -even if he wins.

We, and America, are over the precipice- a crisis, if you haven’t noticed- and the remedy is not another unprincipled stuffed-shirt phoney.

Make no mistake people -This is not about jobs -it’s about our very freedom now, and the response of the opposition GOP can be seen as little more than complience with the socialist takeover.

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Any so-called “conservative” who does not do eveything in their power to eject Obama from the Whitehouse (including voting for Romney) is NOT A CONSERVATIVE or a PATRIOT. I am not a big fan of either Rick or Newt but I would surely make it a mission to vote for either over Obama. Romney-haters, do you despise this great nation enough to hand it over to Obama for another 4 years? Apparently you do – if it’s Romney versus Obama and you stay home or vote 3rd party – you might as well give your vote to Obama.

BabysCatz on March 15, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Personally I don’t care if other people consider me a conservative or not. I don’t care if Romney supporters consider me patriotic. Hell, at this point I don’t care if half of them are convinced I’m an out-and-out Marxist troll.

I’m tired of the GOP following the Democrats leftward by always presenting us with a candidate only slightly better than the Democrat and then telling us with a straight face that we HAVE to vote for the GOP candidate because the Democrat will destroy the country. The result of this Hobson’s-choice policy is that the GOP has moved away from conservatism to the point where a lot of us can no longer stomach holding our noses and voting for the half-assed pol that the GOP has foisted on us. We’re almost at the point where we might as well start voting for Democrats.

Romney will (most likely) be the nominee. He will lose to Obama, because his record is too similar to Obama’s. We’ll get blamed, despite the fact that Romney was intended to capture the independents and moderates at the expense of conservatives. The GOP will learn nothing from this, shriek at us conservatives about loyalty and patriotism — and hopefully break up.

We’ve got the worst president in history and the GOP is responding by handing us the candidate most similar to him. Don’t expect us to listen to you if you blame us after the GOP’s strategy backfires.

Aitch748 on March 15, 2012 at 7:44 AM

I won’t vote for mitt, so he’s wrong on at least one count. I suspect he’s wrong on a lot of others.

Vancomycin on March 15, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Santorum has Specter and No Child Left Behind.

Romney has RomneyCare.

No one can know who is more electable.

They both have baggage conservatives hate, but I tend to believe Mitt turns off less Independents (re:Losers with no opinions until Nov 2nd) than Rick will.

Metal Head on March 15, 2012 at 7:47 AM

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 6:36 AM

Bechtel was found guilty of negligence in the death of a woman during the “big dig”.
Mitt did not fine them or criticize them, until the court ordered him to fine Bechtel for negligence, Mitt fined them the minimum the court required…who is Bechtel? One of Mitt’s most staunch and long lasting supporters.
The next year, Bechtel was awarded a multi-million dollar contract…they paid thousands for killing a women, and received millions in compensation from Mitt.
You will never find anything so revealing or egregious in Rick’s records.
Mitt will protect his investors…at the cost of a woman’s life.
So go ahead, pull out little examples from Rick’s 12 years of leadership,and 8,000 votes…in just 4 years Mitt proved who he was.

right2bright on March 15, 2012 at 7:50 AM

And anyone who says “I won’t vote for Mitt/Rick/Newt over Obama, I’ll just stay home” is a whiny cry-baby b!tch in my book.

Politics is all about the lesser of two evils, deal with it.

Life is not fair, get over yourselves!

Metal Head on March 15, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Aitch748 on March 15, 2012 at 7:44 AM

Romney would win, as would Newt or Rick…but why have a liberal replacing a liberal?
Why not put the most conservative person in office..we tried it with McCain, Bush, Dole, the RNC chooses the least conservative and it ends up being a disaster.
Rick, using unbiased analysis like the Taxpayers Union, is the most conservative of either Newt or Mitt…that is a fact that is only disputed by anonymous posters that have a “feeling”.

right2bright on March 15, 2012 at 7:53 AM

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 7:06 AM

Gosh the old “democracy makes it right” foolishness. Too many years in America we’ve been fed this infantile and self-destructive moral relativism, and it reeks in far too many comments in consevative websites.

Look, right or wrong are not determined by a majority, no matter how large, no matter how powerful. Perhaps those minions cheering for Hitler failed to send the message, perhaps that crowd screaming to “give us Barabbas” failed to educate us, perhaps those morally vacant folks in the majority that voted in Obama and stand ready to re-elect the most anti-American president in history, don’t impress those of us who reject natural law and God, but there is a great cost to such.

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 7:56 AM

right2bright on March 15, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Obama is not going to be easy to beat. I can’t believe people here have seriously advocated nominating an incompetent like Sarah Palin or an unelectable bigot like Rick Santorum.

I have to believe that many of you posters are simply paid Obama shills, promoting candidates who would be easy-pickings for Obama in a general election.

A Vote for Rick Santorum in the Primary = A Vote for Obama’s Reelection

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 7:58 AM

Decades ago, the RNC got behind Ford, and denied Reagan, because Reagan was too conservative, that Ford appealed to more people, to the independents, and Reagan was despised for being too “soft”, or so the RNC stated…and so Ford was trounced by Carter.
So it may be with Mitt, the RNC pick because he is less conservative, and Rick is too conservative.
The RNC is not the best at choosing who to be president material…and they are wrong this time.
Mitt will win, as would Rick or Newt, because Obama is such damaged goods…but why have another RINO, just another big gov. guy, and a “wimp”…

right2bright on March 15, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Starting at about page 209, of this report, you can read about Santorum’s ethics [he doesn't have any]:

It’s instructive to read–well-documented–examples of why Rick Santorum should not be the GOP nominee, and why he was thrown out of his Senate seat in PA by the biggest margin in history–nearly 800,000 votes:

This man is a walking disaster for Republicans:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/santorum-named-one-of-three-most-corrupt-senators-in-2006/politics/2012/01/07/32863

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Romney would win, as would Newt or Rick…but why have a liberal replacing a liberal?
Why not put the most conservative person in office..we tried it with McCain, Bush, Dole, the RNC chooses the least conservative and it ends up being a disaster.
Rick, using unbiased analysis like the Taxpayers Union, is the most conservative of either Newt or Mitt…that is a fact that is only disputed by anonymous posters that have a “feeling”.

right2bright on March 15, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Bingo! Of course conservatives will vote for what’s good for the country and will still be blamed when they won’t be able to pull this dead weight across the finish line in the general. Rmoney’s looking a little frazzled in that Fox News interview, too. The arrogant rich CEO who hates being questioned. No wonder the media is plugging for this loose cannon. Santorum at least offers a solid contrast to Obama. Why would the electorate want to exchange leadership with a republican democrat wannabe like Rmoney when they already have that in the White House. They won’t give republicans control of the Congress and White House unless we have a strong contrasting (conservative) candidate. But the conservatives will get blamed again as usual.

mozalf on March 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM

I’ll give Romney one point for being honest enough to refer to conservatives in the third person. I take away one point for assuming that conservatives like me are going to vote in November, let alone vote for him.

Crusty on March 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM

A Vote for Rick Santorum in the Primary = A Vote for Obama’s Reelection

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 7:58 AM

That is a fact.

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM

And anyone who says “I won’t vote for Mitt/Rick/Newt over Obama, I’ll just stay home” is a whiny cry-baby b!tch in my book.

Politics is all about the lesser of two evils, deal with it.

Life is not fair, get over yourselves!

Metal Head on March 15, 2012 at 7:50 AM

There are worse things in life than having some stranger on the Internet consider you a “whiny cry-baby b!tch” because you’re sick of eating the swill your party feeds you and getting nothing for it.

Aitch748 on March 15, 2012 at 8:14 AM

A Vote for Rick Santorum in the Primary = A Vote for Obama’s Reelection

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 7:58 AM

That is a fact.

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Liberals and trolls always show you who they’re afraid of.

swinia sutki on March 15, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Awww, poor little metal head. Doesn’t like it when people won’t vote for his buddy Mittens.

Look, idiot, politics *is* about the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately there’s little, if any daylight between what we’ve got now, and what you want to shove down our throats. No thanks.

As for being a whiny bitch. Call me what you want…it’s really influencing me to go out and vote for your guy.

Vancomycin on March 15, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Leave it to the hapless GOP to try to save our nation from the vicious and aggressive marching Marxists with a good, but neutered, bean counter.

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 8:22 AM

I have now moved into the phase where I start rationalizing another 4 years of Obama as a way to give the electorate all it can stand of the libs, in the hopes they’ll kick them to the curb — FOR GOOD — in 2016. Yeah, I know: judges.

Another rationalization: if Mitt’s the nominee and he loses, will it put a stake thru the heart of this despicable and perilous tendency of the GOP to nominate “centrists” or “moderates”?

This attitude of Romney toward the base is just amazingly toxic and I wonder if he has any grasp at all of how he’s really playing with fire here.

Purple Fury on March 15, 2012 at 8:23 AM

An unsung hero of this primary season has been Ron Paul. I also applaud the enthusiasm and dedication of the Ron Paul supporters. At least they are driven by principle, unlike Rick Santorum promoters who engage in tactics like this and who are often just zombie-like followers of radio talk show host loud mouths.

Ron Paul will not stand for an unelectable, anti-freedom bigot like Rick “Bedroom Policeman” Santorum getting the nomination. Paul is too much of a patriot and defender of freedom to sit by and allow Sanctimonious Santorum hand the election to Obama.

Paul has the power to bring down the bigot Santorum, and I don’t doubt for one second that he would do it, if needed.

GO RON PAUL!

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 8:23 AM

I think both statements are true and that the GOP will have to split into two parties sooner or later.

Aitch748 on March 14, 2012 at 11:10 PM

I believe you are correct …..

conservative tarheel on March 15, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Romney: Very conservative voters might not be with me now but they will be in November

You’re right Mitt. Just like I was for McCain last time out. And look what happen. We ended up with obama.

jpmotu on March 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Liberals and trolls always show you who they’re afraid of.

swinia sutki on March 15, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Idiots and morons never fail to prove that even with 2 brains they’d still be half-wits.

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Leave it to the hapless GOP to try to save our nation from the vicious and aggressive marching Marxists with a good, but neutered, bean counter.

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Been there, done that….

mozalf on March 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM

That was quite a change from his earlier

Mitt “No Really I Am A Conservative” Romney

to now

“The Base Will Fall In Line Cause They Have Nowhere Else To Go” Rotten Romney.

Sir Napsalot on March 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Although I support Romney, I admire the principled stances of Ron Paul. Over the course of the campaign, I’ve found myself warming more and more to Paul, while becoming repulsed by the whiny, judgemental Rick Santorum.

It’s always worth reminding ourselves what Rick Santorum, who has vowed to go after internet porn as president, is all about:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

-Rick Santorum defending government bans on private, consensual homosexual activity between adults.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

-Rick Santorum

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.”

-Anti-birth control Rick Santorum, happily asserting that states can ban birth control

“The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.”

-Rick Santorum

Santorum Quote:

“This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do,” Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, “that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues … that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Smug sob, or honest politician? You make the choice. I think Mitt was told to drop out in ’08 in favor of McLame, and he would be the next in line. That seems to be the GOP method of candidate selection.

Kissmygrits on March 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Forgot to add, I don’t have a religion, I have reason.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Gosh, Thomas Aquinas chose both. Too bad he isn’t still around so you could debate him about God with your religion of Godless reason.

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Smug sob, or honest politician? You make the choice. I think Mitt was told to drop out in ’08 in favor of McLame, and he would be the next in line. That seems to be the GOP method of candidate selection.

Kissmygrits on March 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Oh you can bet on it. The country club- good old boy set of the republican party do not want to lose their power or club membership. And Jeb Bush is already primed and waiting in the wings with the wink, wink nudge, nudge agreement that he’s the next Florida republican nominee and not Marco Rubio to succeed Rmoney. It’s a vicious cycle that we need to break sooner rather than later.

mozalf on March 15, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Hostile takeover. Romney is being shoved down the throats of all you right wingers by the establishment.

liberal4life on March 15, 2012 at 8:34 AM

That was quite a different tune from his earlier

Mitt “No Really I Am A Conservative” Romney

to the current version

“The Base Will Fall In Line Because They Have Nowhere Else To GO” Rotten Romney.

Think any other change might be coming once he gets the nomination or the presidency?

Sir Napsalot on March 15, 2012 at 8:35 AM

“….in order to stop an outright Romney win, Gingrich, Paul, and Snatorum need to pull in 713 of the 1,308 delegates that remain after today (and after Utah and D.C.). That is, they need 55% of the remaining delegates in order to block Romney.

Fifty-five percent may not sound like a ton, especially among three candidates, but compared to past performance, it is. So far, as the chart above shows, Non-Romneys have brought in 44%. To go from 44% to 55% of delegates involves increasing your delegate performance by more than 17% (44% X 1.17 = 55%).

Let me put it this way: take the upcoming Louisiana, Maryland, and Wisconsin primaries. They allocate 93 delegates through their primaries. Judging by past performance, the non-Romneys should combine for 41 of those 93 delegates. In order to get on pace to block Romney, though, the non-Romneys need to get 52 of those delegates.”

Tim Carney at Washington Examiner gently trying to tell you Santo-Bots to take a reality pill and give up the delusion.

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Obama is not going to be easy to beat.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 7:58 AM

What do you mean? The Obama camp has admitted if the elections were held Romney would win…

liberal4life on March 15, 2012 at 8:39 AM

So is a “very conservative voter” the same as a “severely conservative voter”?

Buckshot Bill on March 15, 2012 at 8:40 AM

THE GREATEST LOVE OF ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL IS HAPPENING TO ME…..LEARNING TO LOVE MITT ROMNEY, IS THE GREATEST LOVE OF ALL!!!!

GhoulAid on March 15, 2012 at 8:41 AM

If Romney’s gonna keep daring the base not to vote for him, he’s got another thing coming. There is a limit.

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Second case: He betrays us. As a result, he will face a primary challenge in 2016 (possibly by the next Reagan), and he will be defeated for reelection by somebody who isn’t Obama either in the primary or in the general election. Either way, we stop Obama, and drag the country back to the right somewhat.

This idea that conservatives can advance their agenda by losing elections is just plain crazy.

ghostwriter on March 14, 2012 at 11:21 PM

I understand your position …. and in Nov. I am voting for ABO …. I think you understand my position … we have had this discussion before …. in the Primary I can not vote for mittens … there is a trust factor and he doesn’t have mine ….
but in Nov …. it is ABO ….. can not help it …. I will not vote 3rd party …. if we lose we lose … it very well may destroy the GOP but a more conservative party will emerge …. another concern of mine is … even if mittens has a GOP house and senate … they will go along with whatever the he wants … he is the party’s leader … h*ll Weepy boner will not fight Obama how the h*ll will he fight mittens ….

With all due respect, none of the others were able to win the nominatin on their merits. The fact is that there wasn’t a compelling conservative in the race this year.

ghostwriter on March 14, 2012 at 11:52 PM

you got that right …. I really had high hopes for this year …. I really did ….

conservative tarheel on March 15, 2012 at 8:45 AM

What do you mean? The Obama camp has admitted if the elections were held Romney would win…

liberal4life on March 15, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Yep, and this thing is going to be close. The Obama campaign doesn’t want their side to get complacent.

When I hear people on here say ridiculous things like, “anyone could beat Obama, even Sarah Palin,” I have to wonder if these people even go outside their little blog bubbles to see the real world around us.

I’m sure you can admit that Rick Santorum and, certainly, Sarah Palin would be much easier opponents for Obama.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I doubt he cares if he wins or loses. He seems very much like McCain in that respect. He just wants the Nomination. Gets him in the history books. Who would want to be president these days, anyway?

This way, if the base doesn’t show up, he can blame them for his loss instead of admitting that he was a democrat running as a republican. You can tell his campaign and his supporters in the media are planning to blame his loss to Obama on the base being too bigoted to vote for a Mormon. They’ll never admit that a genuinely conservative candidate would win, probably in a landslide. If they admitted that now, they’d have to support a conservative in 2016, and Jeb Bush isn’t a conservative.

Buckshot Bill on March 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM

I’m sure you can admit that Rick Santorum and, certainly, Sarah Palin would be much easier opponents for Obama.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 8:45 AM

In my opinion non of these candidates will win against Obama. Mitt Romney will put Nevada and Colorado in play because of the Mormons but I do not see how he wins Ohio, VA and even FL based on the abysmal numbers in these primaries. He is not motivating anyone to show up at the polls.

liberal4life on March 15, 2012 at 8:53 AM

If Romney’s gonna keep daring the base not to vote for him, he’s got another thing coming. There is a limit.

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM

It’s the arrogance that comes from having a lot of money and the ugly side of capitalism. The thing is, conservatives will do what’s best for the country and he just may not be the best thing for the country if he’s just going to put a republican face on democrat policies and SCOTUS nominees. Because if it begins to look as if we won’t get a solid republican majority in Congress, then a Rmoney presidency would be a disaster. It will be a difficult decision for a lot of us but we will do what’s best for the country not what’s best for Rmoney.

mozalf on March 15, 2012 at 8:53 AM

I doubt he cares if he wins or loses.[...]Who would want to be president these days, anyway?

Buckshot Bill on March 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Um, no offense, Bill, but I think some of that buckshot might have landed in your noggin.

Mitt Romney and his whole family have spent millions of dollars of their own money, years of their lives and endured all this national media scrutiny and vicious pettiness (including laughably idiotic insults from know-nothing nobodies on message boards like this one) because he doesn’t care if he wins?!

Mitt Romney wants this and wants it bad. I am VERY happy that Romney has stepped up to the plate to run for president. America needs Mitt, and he will be an EXCELLENT president.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM

” He doesn’t care if you trust him. He doesn’t care if his rallies leave you flat. He doesn’t care if pulling the lever for him reduces you to dry heaves in the voting booth. “

That’s just total BS Allah.

V7_Sport on March 15, 2012 at 8:56 AM

I’ve had enough of Nanny Statists telling me what to do. Santorum is just the other side of Obama’s coin. And to folks who aren’t getting a thrill up their leg from Mitt, at least he knows how to work a balance sheet. If he can do to our bloated federal government what he did for himself… great.

Murf76 on March 15, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I think it’s a smart move by Romney.

Many conservatives have alienated themselves from Romney by their own hand. They have dogged his candidacy with emotional appeals that are laced with supposition and prognostication about what he will do as President- even when those outcomes conflict with what Romney has stated are his policies. They have tried to make myth reality by using dated quotes, video, etc. and over time that works to their detriment.

People want someone with tangible policies they can articulate- especially on economic issues. The candidates using tactics of trying to deny Romney the nomination therefore ultimately alienates those people from the voters. They appear bereft of any good ideas and people are figuring that out. Especially when they endorsed Mr. Romney four years ago.

In addition, simply labeling someone the “true” conservative isn’t going to be an enduring impression that lasts over time with many demographics. Nor will silly populist appeals, which are frankly insulting. Will it win you a few primaries? Sure, but not a General election against Obama, which is the real goal here.

There are certainly legitimate, intellectual questions about all the candidates. This was previously the primary domain of conservatives- contrasting and comparing actual policies based on facts. But taking sides and simply pushing a candidate because they are not Romney has created many questions about their judgement. Especially when you consider the numerous denizens of the conservative movement supporting Romney.

The more many people see of Romney, the more they like him. In that regard, I believe some conservatives have lost a grand opportunity to influence his positions and gain access to his policy makers. They have also lost considerable credibility with many voters IMHO, based on what I am starting to here from friends and acquaintances.

Marcus Traianus on March 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM

It’s a primary. Disregard the noise from the ankle biters.

Vote for any of the Fantastic Four that you want to be your president. Just remember to vote. Local primaries are extremely important.

Fallon on March 15, 2012 at 9:02 AM

”He doesn’t care if you trust him. He doesn’t care if his rallies leave you flat. He doesn’t care if pulling the lever for him reduces you to dry heaves in the voting booth.“ – anti-Romney blogger Allahpundit of HotAir.com

That’s just total BS Allah.

V7_Sport on March 15, 2012 at 8:56 AM

I thought the same thing when I read Allahpundit’s post. I wonder if he was tired when he wrote it? We don’t usually see Allahpundit taking strong, assertive stands on anything. Now maybe we can see why he doesn’t. He’s just not very convincing. Allahpundit’s limp, passive writing style is better suited to analyzing and guessing at candidates’ motivations for doing things, as well as to expressing perpetual despair about everything. I say Allahpundit should stick to his strongsuits.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Marcus Traianus on March 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM

More of this Marcus! Well said!

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Bluegill? Please shut up.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Bluegill? Please shut up.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM

No can do.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Look at it this way, imagine the state where you live and plan to live for the rest of your life, would you want your governor to stand for conservative principles and let others destroy your state with one health care bill, Or would you want your governor to do everything in the world, including a much lighter version of government control in order for your state to survive?
OrthodoxJew on March 15, 2012 at 1:14 AM

I understand your position … however you can leave a state …. alot harder to leave a country ….

conservative tarheel on March 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM

No can do.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM

I didn’t expect you’d do so but please keep the rhetoric and hyperbole to a minimum please… Allahpundit is the type of writer that makes you think instead of telling you what to think. That’s a good thing.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 9:10 AM

The more many people see of Romney, the more they like him. In that regard, I believe some conservatives have lost a grand opportunity to influence his positions and gain access to his policy makers. They have also lost considerable credibility with many voters IMHO, based on what I am starting to here from friends and acquaintances.

Marcus Traianus on March 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Oh, man, is this ever the truth.

I’ve heard from many people I know who like Romney that they have been shocked at the way he was been treated by certain conservative talk show hosts and others in conservative media.

I actually think this may play to Romney’s advantage in the general election.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 9:10 AM

The more many people see of Romney, the more they like him. In that regard, I believe some conservatives have lost a grand opportunity to influence his positions and gain access to his policy makers. They have also lost considerable credibility with many voters IMHO, based on what I am starting to here from friends and acquaintances.

Marcus Traianus on March 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Exactly right. Here’s an example of the immaturity that afflicts the ABR crowd:

He doesn’t care if you trust him. He doesn’t care if his rallies leave you flat.

The problem with this is that his rallies don’t have that effect on those GOP voters with open minds and even a little bit of intellectual honesty. So the characterization is way off in presuming that this is how “everybody” reacts to Romney.

There is nothing that Romney can do to satisfy the haters. And if there was then he would be accused of “pandering.” Any excuse will do. So all that’s left for Romney to do is to conduct a competent, straightforward campaign and those who get “dry heaves” at the mention of his name or his religious beliefs will have to decide: Romney or ObaMao in November. As Romny has indicated, true Conservatives will choose Romney.

cicerone on March 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Allahpundit’s limp, passive writing style is better suited to analyzing and guessing at candidates’ motivations for doing things, as well as to expressing perpetual despair about everything. I say Allahpundit should stick to his strongsuits.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Allah’s allright, but he screwed the pooch on this one. It was cynical; red meat to the those who are willing to shoot themselves in the foot so they can thump their chests here.

The goal is to get rid of Obama. I wish people would remember that. Red meat gets the blog hits but it’s just going to further alienate everyone who didn’t get the candidate that they wanted. Lets face it, in the end it’s going to alienate Santorum supporters.

V7_Sport on March 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Seriously, everyone who runs for president spends a fortune. Its all for ego. How much time and money, and personal insults has Paul endured. Do you really think he believes he’s going to win? Romney is spending money now to get the Nom. He isn’t doing anything to help himself in the General. If I said that Newt was running to satisfy his ego, and spending a fortune to do it, you wouldn’t be arguing my point. Just replace Newt with Mitt. Mitt has an ego, and money, and spends his money and time to satisfy that ego. Most people who run for office are like that.

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time with you, since your obviously being paid to write here. I’ve yet to meet a single person in real life that supports Romney. Everyone else, even Huntsman, but never anyone pro-Romney. Not since ’08, at least. You simply can’t exist outside of the internet. You are either being paid to pretend to like Romney, or you are a sophisticated computer program trolling the blogosphere.

Buckshot Bill on March 15, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Good luck, Mittbots. I’ll be out cleaning the garage. Let me know how it turns out.

SurferDoc on March 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM

And then there is this:

That’s a nice trend for Mitt, but again — he doesn’t care either way. The magic number is 270. If it all comes from column two instead of column one, hey.

Meanwhile Santorum teams up with Kos to get democrat voters in Michigan because they know he is the weaker candidate.
Didn’t see Allah calling that a “recipe for squishiness”…

V7_Sport on March 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

didn’t expect you’d do so but please keep the rhetoric and hyperbole to a minimum please… Allahpundit is the type of writer that makes you think instead of telling you what to think. That’s a good thing.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Then he needs to stop relying so heavily on Perez Hilton Andrew Kaczynski for his pointless little snark attacks. What’s next? Drawling silly little doodles on Romney’s photograph?

cicerone on March 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Good luck, Mittbots. I’ll be out cleaning the garage. Let me know how it turns out.

SurferDoc on March 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Sadly it will be more like “wake me in 2016″.

mozalf on March 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10 11