Video: Romney says Santorum is at the “desperate end of his campaign”

posted at 1:20 pm on March 14, 2012 by Tina Korbe

When Allah mentioned this briefly yesterday, he pegged it exactly: “Right message, wrong target.” If Mitt Romney had said last night that Newt Gingrich is at the “desperate end of his campaign,” that would have made sense. But if Romney thinks a guy who just beat him in two major primaries is gasping for breath to stay alive, what does that say about Romney’s weakness as a frontrunner? If Santorum was really at the end of his campaign, wouldn’t Romney have been able to beat him in the South?

Much has already been said about how last night reshapes the race. It’s effectively a two-man race now. His twin wins in Alabama and Mississippi strengthen Santorum’s case that he is the official “not Romney.” If Santorum continues to beat Romney from here, he’ll be able to make the case at the convention that he lost to Mitt in the early primaries because he and Gingrich split the “true conservative” vote.

Still, Mitt Romney didn’t misspeak in any way when he said this minutes before Mississippi and Alabama were called for Santorum. He said it partially to cast doubt on Santorum’s ability to win the nomination and partly because it still is doubtful that Santorum will win the nomination. Even on Santorum’s best night, Mitt Romney still won the overall delegate count (expected). The math still favors him heavily. Maybe a brokered convention would favor Santorum, but it wouldn’t favor the GOP as it heads into the general. GOP voters haven’t done it yet, but they’re still probably going to have to make peace with Mitt.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Yes, math is hard–especially when you’re adding the wrong numbers.

Emperor Norton on March 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM

In what context are you allowing yourself to add all the 3 other candidates delegate totals ? Elections are mostly one on one contests. 3 on 1 is not an election- its a gang action.

C’mon- listen to yourself – Mitt is only human, for the moment- you take issue with him while he has to fight off 3 challengers and Santorum democrat voters?

Does he have to tie one hand behind his back next ??

FlaMurph on March 14, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Keep up the good work I’m sure you can alienate more of us if you try.

bbinfl on March 14, 2012 at 3:52 PM

they seem to be doing a pretty good job …. bluegill and jailbreak are needed to seal the deal though ….

conservative tarheel on March 14, 2012 at 4:01 PM

So just because we don’t like Romney, and don’t trust Romney that makes us Obama lovers? Really?

Nah, stupid. It is those of you who would rather die than vote for Romney that makes you sound like Obama groupies.

I love how you sheep think browbeating people is going to make them vote for your guy?

And I love how the ABR crowd likes to make themselves look stupid.

I know you can’t see it because your heads are buried so deep in the sand but you really aren’t much different than, or better than, the mindless Obama sheeple.

Right, so those that have actually looked a Romney’s record and support him because of that record are “sheeple”. And those that blindly accept what the leftwing media spoon feed them are not?

It is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the two of you.

bbinfl on March 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Yes, it is getting harder to tell the difference between the ABR crowd and the Obama groupies.

Gunlock Bill on March 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I just want to be sure that I’ve got this right …

Mitt Romney lost to John McCain in the Republican primaries of 2008.

John McCain lost to Barack Obama in the general election of 2008.

In 2012, Republicans are likely to vote for the guy who wasn’t electable enough to beat the guy who wasn’t electable enough to beat the guy who won the election.

Did I get that right?

JackieB on March 14, 2012 at 3:59 PM

And Reagan lost to the guy who lost to Carter.

Gelsomina on March 14, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Mr. Arkadin on March 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM

How about we shred that meme of the Southern Strategy?

The Dixiecrat Myth

Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma…

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were *integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Please, by all means, Santorum supporters and Mitt supporters should just b!tch at each other about who ought to quit the race (hmm, I remember a time when quitting was considered a bad thing…). Get set on your own team and focus your ire on the other team. Brilliant, brilliant strategy. With luck we can demoralize the entire party.

Newt 2012: The candidate everybody can settle for.

alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Yes, it is getting harder to tell the difference between the ABR Mitt crowd and the Obama Mitt groupies.

Gunlock Bill on March 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM

At least the ABR crowd fights for conservatism. Mittbots and Obamabots could care less.

alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Here are two historians who considered the shift to be a matter of economics:

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Well guys I gotta go …. time to cook dinner …..CinC house will be home soon …. and on my days off I like to have dinner waiting for her ….

conservative tarheel on March 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I follow the Buckley rule. I support Mitt Romney because, compared to his three remaining primary opponents, I think he has the best chance to defeat President Obama in the general election. I’m a Party of Lincoln Republican and I want to win. That’s it, that’s all.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 3:59 PM

And therein lies the difference. I follow my rule which states that if I think that someone is lying to me and promising things to me that I feel pretty certain they are promising them just to get elected, and that their history dictates they are a liar or weaselly then I don’t vote for them. You feel obligated to your party I feel obligated to my conscience. We’ll just agree to disgree when it comes to Romney.

If you guys think that browbeating people to vote for your guy works then more power to you it just doesn’t look to me like that is working too well at the moment.

bbinfl on March 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Keep the spinning and the insulting going on it’s really working, it’s getting more people to want to vote for Mutt every day. Do you need some of us here to pitch in and get some cheese to go with that whine?

I’m sorry but no matter how much perfume you spray on the Romney turd it still smells like a turd. It’s not my fault, it’s his.

bbinfl on March 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM


In 2012, Republicans are likely to vote for the guy who wasn’t electable enough to beat the guy who wasn’t electable enough to beat the guy who won the election.

Did I get that right?

Well, at least for the next four years you can console yourselves with Rush ’n’ Huck. And then, doubtless, massive doses of Rush ’n’ Huck will have to be prescribed to get you through the quadrennium (very probably two quadrennia – anyone know the single word for that? An octavium?) of President Clinton.

JackieB on March 14, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Yes. We have heard this before. The normal retort is

1980 Why nominate Reagan the man who lost to the man who lost to Carter

Natebo on March 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 3:59 PM
bbinfl on March 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

There are rules, and then there are principles.

Oh, the irony!!!

From Rush.

Buckley ran against a RINO Republican for mayor of New York knowing full well he had no chance of winning. He violated his own rule then! “Buckley says you vote for the Republican most likely to win.”

Well, he didn’t win when he ran for mayor of New York, and I’m sure that he knew he wasn’t gonna win but he did it anyway.

(Scroll about halfway down).

INC on March 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I support Mitt Romney because, compared to his three remaining primary opponents, I think he has the best chance to defeat President Obama in the general election. I’m a Party of Lincoln Republican and I want to win.

Pragmatism does not win elections. Romney is not the best candidate unless you love conventional wisdom. If you want to win, you do not want the candidate that most reflects the person you want defeated.

PuritanD71 on March 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM


If you guys think that browbeating people to vote for your guy works then more power to you it just doesn’t look to me like that is working too well at the moment.

bbinfl on March 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Scoreboard! Scoreboard! Scoreboard!

Natebo on March 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Natebo on March 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Not exactly.

Ford had more delegates, but not enough to win the nomination.

Ford & Reagan both went early, but as Reagan tried to win delegates things backfired for him.

Reagan ended up giving the memorable speech of the convention, and from what I’ve read, there was a sense among the delegates that they’d just nominated the wrong guy.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

If you guys think that browbeating people to vote for your guy works then more power to you it just doesn’t look to me like that is working too well at the moment.

bbinfl on March 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Browbeating you? No. And insofar as your statement about me following party rather than conscience, then you’re wrong again. The whole idea of a political party is based upon a gathering of individuals interested in promoting a shared interest, in this case a less-is-better form of governance, the primacy of individual self-determination, and an economic model based upon free market principles. Is the two-party system in our country ideal? No, but it’s the best game going.

Another thing: many of you Not Romney types seem to think our job is to gently woo and persuade you. Speaking for myself, I don’t have the patience for boosting the self-importance of a group of people who should know better. Right now, the greatest nation in the history of humanity is being destroyed from within by a pack of hardcore Marxists and machine politicians, and you and yours want to wreck the primary process and take it to a wasteful and pointless brokered convention because you don’t think enough attention is being paid to your particular hobbyhorses, whatever those might be. My take on it? There’s no time for intercine squabbling. We’re on the precipice. Either help or get out of the way.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Gently wooed?

Um, no.

Persuasion? It’s reasonable to expect this.

Instead there’s been bludgeoning with lies and half-truths and orders to get in line.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

This isn’t wrecking the primary process. It’s implementing it, instead of providing a rubber stamp.

The primary process is one in which party members get to choose whomever they individually want to vote for.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Right now, the greatest nation in the history of humanity is being destroyed from within by a pack of hardcore Marxists and machine politicians, and you and yours want to wreck the primary process and take it to a wasteful and pointless brokered convention because you don’t think enough attention is being paid to your particular hobbyhorses, whatever those might be. My take on it? There’s no time for intercine squabbling. We’re on the precipice. Either help or get out of the way.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

And a top-down government guy like Romney is the answer? Come on! Romney will not change the path this country is on; he will only slow it down a bit if we are fortunate. Sadly, I do not think he can slow it down enough in four years to get a better replacement.

PuritanD71 on March 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

If you want to win, you do not want the candidate that most reflects the person you want defeated.

PuritanD71 on March 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM

The candidate most reflective of Obama would be Gingrich. I can’t imagine Romney referring to Ryan’s plan as ‘right-wing social engineering’ or doing a spot on national television with Nancy Pelosi to promote AGW-motivated cap-and-trade legislation. Also note that Gingrich’s views on immigration are to the left of Mitt Romney.

You Not Romneys keep trying to portray both Santorum and Gingrich as bedrock conservatives and Washington outsiders. They aren’t. Both are lobbyists. Santorum’s a social conservative, a devout Catholic who also happens to be a big government Republican. Gingrich flits around from one big idea to another, some conservative, some liberal. He’s the mayfly of American politics.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Mitt never met a principle he couldn’t deny or compromise.

As I’ve said, whatever Gingrich or Santorum may have done, they both have some record of fighting for conservative principles.

I agree that on paper, Mitt’s immigration policy is better than Gingrich.

However, Mitt’s a paper candidate of piecrust promises.

He’s been making and breaking promises as needed according to his political path.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

How is it that Romney unleashed his millions $ attacks on Newt and now is letting Santorum go free in winning States, is there any explanation ? He seems to be timid in criticizing Santorum.

evergreenland on March 14, 2012 at 4:45 PM

He’s been making and breaking promises as needed according to his political path.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I honestly don’t believe one could successfully, provably impugn Romney’s character on that score. All I’ve heard, read, and seen about the man indicates decency and principle. True enough, the same could be said of Santorum. Gingrich? Not so much.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

How is it that Romney unleashed his millions $ attacks on Newt and now is letting Santorum go free in winning States, is there any explanation ? He seems to be timid in criticizing Santorum.

evergreenland on March 14, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Wrong. He and his PACs went heavily against Santorum, to keep Newt in the race.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I honestly don’t believe one could successfully, provably impugn Romney’s character on that score. All I’ve heard, read, and seen about the man indicates decency and principle. True enough, the same could be said of Santorum. Gingrich? Not so much.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

So, so wrong. In what way had Gingrich shown he lacks principles and decency?

alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Go back to 2002 and when Mitt started running for governor. Then go forward.

There are dozens of articles and columns available on the internet. Literally. And I’ve used many of them here.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM

I am not understanding your point. Santorum did not fund this group to do what they did….so how is Santorum’s campaign desperate again?
PuritanD71 on March 14, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Ah, so why is Newt conducting a scorched earth policy against Mitt because of “baggage” ads run in Iowa by PACS which Romney did not fund? Anyhoo, more of my response to this topic can be found here.

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Wrong. He and his PACs went heavily against Santorum, to keep Newt in the race.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I don’t understand , he destroyed Newt and now he wants to keep him in the race?

evergreenland on March 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Romney is a man of integrity in regard to his family.

Politics? No. Then it’s whatever it takes.

I’ll give you one link. This column I read after I’d read many others, and of all I’ve read, William Saletan nails Romney’s personality. Saletan only discusses one issue, but as his opening words indicate, this issue is a microcosm of who Mitt Romney is.

To understand Mitt Romney, you have to understand the most difficult passage of his political life: how he changed his position on abortion. Not the story he tells about it, but the real story.

Romney began his political career as a pro-choicer. In the story he tells, he had an epiphany, a flash of insight, and committed himself thereafter to protecting life. But that isn’t what happened. The real story of Romney’s conversion—a series of tentative, equivocal, and confused shifts, accompanied by a constant rewriting of his past—paints a more accurate picture of who he is. Romney has complex views and a talent for framing them either way, depending on his audience. He values truth, so he makes sure there’s an element of it in everything he says. He can’t stand to break his promises, so he reinterprets them.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM

why is Newt conducting a scorched earth policy against Mitt

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

You’re delusional. What “scorched-earth” policy? And how does it compare to the lies Mitt put on every FL and IA television?

alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM

he destroyed Newt and now he wants to keep him in the race?

evergreenland on March 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Karma’s a b!tch, ain’t it.

alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM

1980 Why nominate Reagan the man who lost to the man who lost to Carter

Natebo on March 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Absolutely. And that’s important.

But … do you actually know the Latin-root word for an eight-year period?

And is there even a single Latin-root word for a sixteen-year period? “Generation” doesn’t count, obviously.

JackieB on March 14, 2012 at 5:06 PM

So, so wrong. In what way had Gingrich shown he lacks principles and decency?

alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM

You’re kidding, right? We are talking about the same Newt Gingrich, right? The Newt Gingrich who dumped his first wife for another woman because, according to Newt, she ‘wasn’t attractive enough to be a First Lady’? Or how about the Newt Gingrich who asked his second wife for an open marriage arrangement so he could spend equal time with his eventual third wife, Calista? Or how about the Newt Gingrich who lied outright in a televised debate about the nature of his consulting arrangement with Freddie Mac, as well as the money he was paid for doing it? Or how about the Newt Gingrich who publicly compared himself to Reagan, Thatcher, and Churchill, respectively? Or how about the Newt Gingrich who was so committed to the climate change issue he shared a couch with Nancy Pelosi on national television yet walked it back later when asked directly about his support for AGW? Please note, too, that Gingrich, then married to Marianne, was fooling around with Calista while Speaker of the House, leading the charge against Bill Clinton for doing pretty much the same thing? Newt is also the guy who told one of his more casual mistresses that he preferred oral sex because then he could claim he didn’t have intercourse if held under oath.

Yeah, Newt Gingrich: paragon of principle and decency. Please.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

evergreenland on March 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

IMO because he now sees Santorum as the one to beat, and Romney wants to prevent the possibility that if Gingrich were gone, then Gingrich voters might coalesce around Santorum.

Romney thought if he got rid of Gingrich via FL, then he could coast.

Voters in other states have had different ideas.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

As usual, a mix of lies and truth.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 5:11 PM

JackieB on March 14, 2012 at 5:06 PM

This.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Yes. We have heard this before. The normal retort is

1980 Why nominate Reagan the man who lost to the man who lost to Carter

Natebo on March 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Easy Ford was liberal. Regan was Conservative. Conservatives win liberals lose.

But Mitt is more liberal than McCain. Thus Mitt will definitely lose to Obama probably worse so than McCain.

The Democrats fear Santorum. They would love to run against Mitt they actually feel Mitt is acceptable as President. Actually Matt (41) Mitts son thinks Obama is doing a great job telling me Mitt would be just about the same as Obama. But also telling me Mitt will have no chance against Obama.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

As usual, a mix of lies and truth.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Some rejoinder. So which ones are the lies? When calling someone a liar, it’s always good practice to point out the falsehoods to, you know, prove someone’s a liar.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

You’re delusional. What “scorched-earth” policy? And how does it compare to the lies Mitt put on every FL and IA television?
alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Ha! I’m not delusional in the least. You are shockingly clueless. What the hell do you think he’s doing with his promise to take it all the way to Tampa? Google Newt scorched earth and you’ll mine the motherlode. Like this, just to pick one random example.

As for your allegation about “lies” what, er, on earth does that have to do with a scorched earth policy? Do you even know what the term means?

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Browbeating you? No.

Another thing: many of you Not Romney types seem to think our job is to gently woo and persuade you. Speaking for myself, I don’t have the patience for boosting the self-importance of a group of people who should know better. troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Uh I hate to break it to you that there are those that if you dare speak against Mitt they just go bats**t crazy and start flinging insults out. By any definition that would be browbeating.

Where exactly have we ever asked you to stroke us or whatever? I thought the idea is if you have a candidate running you want to convince people to vote for your guy not give us reasons such as “my guy sucks less than theirs does” or “your guy is the anti-Christ” or act like punks, which a lot of people do. If you think that we are looking askance to you personally for boosting, who is self important?

Oh well, I guess you guys just won’t get it. Don’t you know that how people that support your guy act in touting your guy while taunting and demeaning people that don’t just turns people off of your guy before you even get a chance to sell him. Not everyone does it but there are some that are pretty bad. I’m by no means saying that the Santorum, Paul or Gingrich people don’t do the same it just seems at times yours kind of get a little worse about it.

You get more flies with honey than vinegar but if you want to keep using vinegar good luck.

bbinfl on March 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Please note, too, that Gingrich, then married to Marianne, was fooling around with Calista while Speaker of the House, leading the charge against Bill Clinton for doing pretty much the same thing? Newt is also the guy who told one of his more casual mistresses that he preferred oral sex because then he could claim he didn’t have intercourse if held under oath.

Yeah, Newt Gingrich: paragon of principle and decency. Please.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If you have followed the news Newt had repented , he admitted he did wrong and asked for forgiveness several times during the debates and elsewhere.
We all are sinners in different ways ,even the Apostle Paul considers himself “the worst of the sinners” 1Tim.1:15, and he wrote 2 thirds of the New Testament.

evergreenland on March 14, 2012 at 5:39 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Don’t like Newt but facts are facts.

His first wife raped Mitt when he was 16 and she 24 and eventually married him when he was 19. Thus IMHO she got what she deserved. His second wife cheated on Mitts first wife for some time all the time knowing he was married. That open marriage bit is a lie only the ex claims that.

Now sure Newt was also very much in the wrong but these women were hardly innocent victims. Divorce is ugly most of the time. Newt treated second wife badly moving her into a house with no furniture in it and then not supporting her till forced to. But once ordered to pay support he faithfully did to this day he pays spousal support. But I still hold the first wife 95% responsible I detest teachers that have sex with underage students believing prison is the best place for them.

Now he did become a somewhat devoted Catholic with the last wife and attends weekly at her insistence. But I still question his religious bonafides. He does not speak of it much at all unless pressed.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 5:43 PM

If you have followed the news Newt had repented , he admitted he did wrong and asked for forgiveness several times during the debates and elsewhere.
We all are sinners in different ways ,even the Apostle Paul considers himself “the worst of the sinners” 1Tim.1:15, and he wrote 2 thirds of the New Testament.

evergreenland on March 14, 2012 at 5:39 PM

I can’t speak to Gingrich’s relationship to the Almighty. I was directly responding to the question, “In what way had Gingrich shown he lacks principles and decency?”

Sexual shennanigans and Clinton-era hypocrisy aside–which many would consider old news–Gingrich lied recently in re Freddie Mac, AGW, and his take on Ryan’s plan for entitlement reform. He also compared himself to Reagan, Churchill and Thatcher comparatively recently, as well. So much for humility.

I realize we’re trying to elect a president not a pope, but it would be nice to have a GOP nominee who isn’t a pathological liar with delusions of greatness and grandeur.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

When was Newt testifying falsely in court?

I hate how this lie is repeated. Cliton LIED under OATH. That was the only reason he was impeached. Period.

Please do not repeat garbage lies. It makes you a filthy liar too.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Another lie what gives today.

You may disagree with the legal definition of lobbying but so what. You have no right to call someone a liar when you have to make up special rules to make them a liar.

Gingrich carefully followed the law making sure he was never a lobbyist. He could have made a lot more money had he actually lobbied but he chose not to.

I guess you think a lobbiest account is a lobbiest. Makes about as much sense.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 5:53 PM

When was Newt testifying falsely in court?

I hate how this lie is repeated. Cliton LIED under OATH. That was the only reason he was impeached. Period.

Please do not repeat garbage lies. It makes you a filthy liar too.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM

You’re being disingenuous. That wasn’t the ‘only’ reason Clinton was impeached. The whole impeachment deal was a grasping at straws from the beginning, and the reason Clinton’s impeachment wouldn’t and couldn’t succeed is that the bulk of the American voting public thought of it as a wildly exaggerated personal affair and knew most husbands is forced to confess to adultery, even under oath, he’ll lie about it if he can. Congress couldn’t get enough votes because negating the results of a presidential election over a tawdry affair–which is what the whole thing was about–wasn’t going to work.

Meanwhile, Newt was exercising rank hypocrisy, engaging in adultery while railing against Clinton over Lewinsky.

From a legal standpoint, you’re right: Clinton committed a crime, one for which he was disbarred and nearly driven from office. However, from a moral, Christian perspective–which is the one that really matters–Newt Gingrich committed the greater sin.

Calling me a ‘filthy liar’ is idiotic, by the way, and more than a little cowardly.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM

I don’t like Santorum, find him dull-witted, not very conservative, ill-mannered, poorly qualified (actually…not qualified), and unlikable. I have been backing Romney with great reservation.

But this comment is just stupid. Dude, he just beat you twice. Sure, they are deep south states, but they are full of Christian conservatives and you took third place in both of them. Calling him “desperate” doesn’t quite fit the moment.

I suspect that this word does not mean what you think it means.

Jaibones on March 14, 2012 at 6:11 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Don’t like Newt but facts are facts.

His first wife raped Mitt when he was 16 and she 24 and eventually married him

Wait! Stop!

This is actual NEWS!

Gingrich’s wife raped Romney?

I find it hard to believe, but I’m listening, dude, We’re all listening. Is there more?

JackieB on March 14, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I find it hard to believe, but I’m listening, dude, We’re all listening. Is there more?

JackieB on March 14, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Sorry wrote that wrong.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM

No you are just plain wrong.

Clinton under oath in front of a Judge in the Whitehouse. Lied through his teeth to try to avoid paying out in a civil lawsuit. That is why he was impeached and what started the impeachment. That alone.

Starr worked hand and hand with Democrats to derail the impeachment and made his investigation all about sex. But that is not why it was started and the Republicans only cared about the Perjury.

Did you know a Judge was impeached for cussing in Court one day. Another for ruling against the constitution just barely. Originally Judges were impeached all the time it was very common it still should be. Another impeached for Drinking on the job not drunk either.

In any sane World Clinton would have lost the Senate Impeachment trial.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Starr worked hand and hand with Democrats to derail the impeachment and made his investigation all about sex. But that is not why it was started and the Republicans only cared about the Perjury.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 6:50 PM

You’re telling me, in all seriousness, that you believe Kenneth Starr, arch-nemesis of the Clinton Administration, former Solicitor General, Reagan-appointed jurist, investigator of the Vince Foster and Whitewater investigations, and author of the Starr Report that opened the door to Clinton’s impeachment, was in reality a kind of double-agent working secretly with the Democrats to frame the entire Lewinsky scandal as ‘all about sex’?

Wow.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 7:14 PM

You’re telling me, in all seriousness, that you believe Kenneth Starr, arch-nemesis of the Clinton Administration, former Solicitor General, Reagan-appointed jurist, investigator of the Vince Foster and Whitewater investigations, and author of the Starr Report that opened the door to Clinton’s impeachment, was in reality a kind of double-agent working secretly with the Democrats to frame the entire Lewinsky scandal as ‘all about sex’?

Wow.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Yes.

The Democrats wanted it all about sex. Kenneth Starr made it all about sex.

He never really investigated most of the perjury and even got Judge Susan Wright to delay her Perjury charge until after the impeachment was over. The only thing worth investigating.

Starr could have not been more helpful to Clinton.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Starr could have not been more helpful to Clinton.

Steveangell on March 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Wow. Just…wow.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

@Tina: “GOP voters haven’t done it yet, but they’re still probably going to have to make peace with Mitt.”

IHmmm! So – it’s NOT Mitt Romney who needs to REACH OUT to Conservative Voters – it’s Conservatives who HAVE TO “Reach Out” to Mitt Romney, Tina? REALLY?!!!

Here is another Tradition that I am sure Tina supports, given her position on this one:

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/14/200577.html

“Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to Marry her rapist”

A 16-year-old Moroccan girl has committed suicide after a judge ordered her to marry her rapist, according to Moroccan media reports.

Last year Amina’s parents filed charges against their daughter’s rapist, a man 10 years older than her but it was only recently that a judge in the northern city of Tangier decided that instead of punishing him, the two must be married.

The court’s decision to forcibly marry Amina to her rapist was supposed to “resolve” the damage of sexual violation against her, but it led to more suffering in the unwelcoming home of her rapist/husband’s family.

Traumatized by the painful experience of rape, Amina decided to end her life by consuming rat poison in the house of her husband’s family, according to the Moroccan daily al-Massae.

According to the newspaper, this type of forced marriage is rooted in local rural traditions to safeguard the honor of girls who are raped.

Moroccan penal code exempts a rapist from punishment if he agrees to marry his victim.

williamg on March 14, 2012 at 9:48 PM

All his money and upbringing can’t save Romney from being a low-life, scum-sucking turd. Won’t…can’t vote for him…ever.
Mittbots interpret this as me not loving my country enough to save it from Obama. Wrong. I love it too much to turn it over to that vile POS.

swinia sutki on March 15, 2012 at 5:40 AM

RINO Romney is at least as arogant as the Jackass-In-Chief!?! Must be a Harvard thing. They even actually have the same halting speech pattern. No wonder the evil George Soros says “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them.” Nice goin’ America!?! You are nominating the (R) version of the Jackass-In-Chief!?!

Colatteral Damage on March 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I don’t care who you vote for. What is the deal with people voting for romney cause he’s the best chance of beating obama. That is the absolute WRONG reason to vote for someone. Your supposed to vote for the best CANDIDATE and leave the rest up to God. Whoever you choose, should be the best candidate, not the best chance to beat obama. Choose the best candidate, then let God take it from there. This country is in the position it is today because Christ has been removed from it, from everything. Now, during the most important election of our lives, ya want to leave God out of it. We won’t get rid of obama or get the president God wants for us(at least to start with), unless we leave it up to God. Until we learn and understand that, we aren’t gonna get anywhere! Anyways, I’ll stop my rant and step off the soapbox….

momof5shortstuff on March 16, 2012 at 3:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3