Santorum: Maybe America’s better off with Obama than taking a risk on an “Etch-a-Sketch” candidate

posted at 5:50 pm on March 22, 2012 by Allahpundit

Faced with the reality that his chances have collapsed, the Sweater Vest begins to unravel:

“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA.

During a press avail following the event, Santorum, who carried the Etch A Sketch during his speech, argued that Romney knows he can’t win in the general election.

“All the things that allow Romney to win the primary are unavailable to him to win the general and that’s why you see these Etch A Sketch comments because he knows he can’t win,” said Santorum.

Romney issued a statement later saying he’s “disappointed to hear that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican.” Question for Team RS: What “risk” is there, exactly, that President Etch-a-Sketch would be worse than Obama? Even if his political instincts carry him towards the center, he knows he can’t stray too far from the base on big-ticket items like, oh, say, Supreme Court appointments. That’s a big difference, not a little difference, and a pro-life advocate as passionate as Santorum surely knows it. I’m no Romney fan, yet the only argument I can come up with in which The One is possibly maybe supposedly conceivably theoretically preferable to Romney is some sort of “only Nixon can go to China” reasoning. Only a Republican like Nixon could make nice with Mao because a Democrat would have been accused by the right of harboring secret communist sympathies. Nixon’s party ID immunized him from that; by the same token, you could argue that if an attack on Iran is inevitable it’s better that Obama gives the order than Romney because the anti-war left will roll over like puppies for him (again). You could, if you’re really daring, even argue that only a Democratic president can sign entitlement reform because partisan loyalty will help defang some of its many, many, many, many liberal opponents. I don’t buy the latter argument, though — I think it’s one of the few policy areas in which the left will be ferocious even in opposing a Democratic president, if not quite as ferocious as they’d be towards a Republican. (That’s one reason Obama hasn’t been aggressive about it despite his campaign promises about entitlements.) And as for Iran, are you willing to purchase relative liberal silence on an attack at the high price of trillions more in debt and a few new stridently liberal SCOTUS justices? I’ll pass.

I’m actually amazed he’s making this argument given the hard feelings it’ll engender among Republicans who’ll soon be rallying around Romney in an “anybody but Obama” fervor. Santorum’s sunk this time but he’s raised his profile significantly for 2016. Time to start thinking ahead strategically instead of letting bitterness run away with that yapper of his. Exit quotation from Byron York: “Asked what other plans Santorum had to call attention to the [Etch-a-Sketch] matter, [Santorum spokesman Alice] Stewart said, ‘Lots.’”


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 15 16 17

Hey, don’t kill the messenger – this is exactly what voters will say to themselves in November if Romney is the nominee. Santorum makes a very important point – the GOP establishment and Republican voters would be wise to listen.

Pork-Chop on March 23, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Rick – Game over.

With friends like this…

etc.

albill on March 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM

no wonder jeb bush gave his endorsement under a rock in the dead of night. the elites are shielding themselves from defeat in november.

renalin on March 23, 2012 at 8:25 AM

I find it amazing that AP is just now noticing how bitter and shrill Santorum is….I was completely open minded to all the candidates when the debates began. One of my first impressions was that of Ricky being a cry baby about not getting enough questions….waaaahhhhh…..that’s not fair….waaaaahhhh

essequam on March 23, 2012 at 7:08 AM

Those first debates when he was, (rightfully) way off to the side and would be rolling his eyes and shaking his head at whatever the other candidates were saying, and THEN when he did get a question, he could barely answer it because he was so bitter at having his “brilliance” ignored for so long.

Santorum leads with his ego even more so than Newt does, and that is really saying something. To be so invested in his hatred of Romney that he would publicly say such an idiotic thing, pounds the point home that he is in NO way stable enough to be in politics. In any capacity.

BettyRuth on March 23, 2012 at 8:25 AM

I’m sorry but it is getting late and I’m tired or I would dig out the link to the story I read where it discusses RonMe’s giving away ALL of his fathers wealth and his other actions that show his distain for his dad.

RonMe has videos out there of him both praising 0bamacare and dissing it. Which are we to believe? IMHO, Therin lays the main problem with RonMe. He just isn’t at all trustworthy.

DannoJyd on March 23, 2012 at 3:09 AM

Romney gave his inheritance to BYU to establish a business school in his father’s name. You think he did this to show his distain (sic) for his father? You will be rested when you wake up but you will still be stupid, In fact moronically stupid.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Ricky Santorum, the ultimate flip-flopper:

“In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party’s nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built.

Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear,” said Senator Santorum.

“Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party.”…

-Santorum in 2008

And now:

“I’m cool with Obama getting reelected.”

cicerone on March 23, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Hey, don’t kill the messenger – this is exactly what voters will say to themselves in November if Romney is the nominee. Santorum makes a very important point – the GOP establishment and Republican voters would be wise to listen.

Pork-Chop on March 23, 2012 at 8:22 AM

No, so-called Republicans would be wise to vote for the Republican nominee. Anything less would be to give tacit support to Obama. But then, Santy is okay with that, so…

cicerone on March 23, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Well crap ….. i worked all night … and this is what I find ….
well … is it time for bed … 2 hour nap and then up and at em ….
lots of things more important then RS ….
well once again it is over before I get to vote … same store different year ….
I would like to vote in a primary where it mattered …

conservative tarheel on March 23, 2012 at 8:35 AM

store = story … sorry

conservative tarheel on March 23, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Where is Ed Morrissey’s condemnation of Rick Santorum’s statement that voting for a Barack Obama second term is preferable to voting for our likely Republican nominee?

Michelle Malkin, whose work I used to enjoy until she began seeming like a perpetually sour scold, even gave an uncharacteristically muted response about it, simply saying she didn’t agree and restating why Obama needed to go. Had it been any of the other candidates who said what Santorum said, she would have been off the rails, hurling all kinds of names and hyperbole at the candidate.

bluegill on March 23, 2012 at 8:37 AM

bluegill on March 23, 2012 at 8:37 AM

She is harboring the foolish hope that a brokered/contested convention will launch someone who has not even participated in the primaries.

Bradky on March 23, 2012 at 8:40 AM

cicerone on March 23, 2012 at 8:33 AM

you must be a democrat in disguise.

renalin on March 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Rick, the poison pill that just can’t stop giving.

I’m still amazed that everyone thinks this guy is a man of principle and that he had a snowball chance in hell in the general.

aniptofar on March 23, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Well – Santorum just speed up his exit from this race with this idiotic statement.

kage on March 23, 2012 at 8:42 AM

It’s amazing.Yesterday I said the etch-a-sketch gaffe would be replaced by another gaffe as this campaign has been gaffe to gaffe to gaffe.

I did think it would take longer than 24 hours though.

Thank you Rick Santorum.

gerry-mittbot-planning the next gaffe

gerrym51 on March 23, 2012 at 8:44 AM

I’m no Romney fan,

Ya think?

Yet you and people like you have pushed Sweater Dude as some kind of sagacious candidate for President.

What’s been lost in conservatives attempt to somehow squeeze purity out of the Republican candidate is this. Every single Presidential candidate should by now have mastered the basic qualities required for the job. That would include proven temperament, measured decision making, quiet confidence, an ability to communicate, consistency and a healthy degree of wisdom. That’s not some lofty, idealist wish list. It is a plain, simple truth.

We can and will argue whether some candidates possess those qualities. But voters must at least believe (e.g Obama)the candidate is imbued with those characteristics. But the fact is no President, in my humble opinion, has ever won office without voters believing they have the basic personal traits to perform the job.

Unfortunately, Santorum supporters conveniently skipped this test. They also, in the midst of didactic political analysis, didn’t realize this was the ultimate reason he lost on Pennsylvania. Then to make matters worse doubled down, not by telling us about Rick, but by telling us (and still telling us) he is not Romney and then lamenting, ad nauseum, on Romney’s flaws. That’s not a strategy to win the Presidency. It’s a gadfly trying to poison the well because he doesn’t want anyone else to drink. It’s a selfish, destructive, churlish act of someone who does not even deserve to be dogcatcher.

Romney certainly does have his flaws, as does every candidate. But those flaws, in sum total, are significantly less than our current President who is well beneath the job. That’s based on the facts which are fairly evident to almost everyone but Rick after the last three, destructive, depressing, freedom diminishing years.

Marcus Traianus on March 23, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Rick should fire the person who convinced him to register at HA as angryed and start following the threads….

Bradky on March 23, 2012 at 8:45 AM

It’s amazing.Yesterday I said the etch-a-sketch gaffe would be replaced by another gaffe as this campaign has been gaffe to gaffe to gaffe.

I did think it would take longer than 24 hours though.

Thank you Rick Santorum.

gerry-mittbot-planning the next gaffe

gerrym51 on March 23, 2012 at 8:44 AM

What gaffe?!? He’s only saying what a lot of us are thinking: which of the 4 candidates is the closest and similar to Obama? That’s rather obvious, and Sketchy will not entice independents or crossover democrats to switch boats midstream if they have the real thing already.

mozalf on March 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM

No, so-called Republicans would be wise to vote for the Republican nominee. Anything less would be to give tacit support to Obama. But then, Santy is okay with that, so…

cicerone on March 23, 2012 at 8:33 AM
———————————

I should clarify my thought a bit – Yes, Republicans should and will vote for the nominee, but, many (non-Republican) voters who are on the fence about obama (unbelievably, there are many) may just say that it is not worth the change. Santotrum is (clumsily) pointing out what many voters will ask themselves if Romney is the nominee. Romney changes with the wind – no one is sure what positions he will hold from day to day, and there is great danger in this. Santorum – whether one agrees with him or not – has been consistent – as has obama (although he is consistently dangerous and destructive).

Santorum is raising a valid point about consistency – I think Santorum understands voters much better than Romney or the GOP establishment.

Pork-Chop on March 23, 2012 at 8:48 AM

narcissistic personality disorder.

i don’t like willard all that much either but mister rogers here must really hate americans and america for wishing 4 more years of tyranny upon them- just because they aren’t behind Himself, chosen by god apparently.

obama is putin if he gets another term. then we’re toast. what a hateful troll to suggest such a thing come to pass.

mittens on March 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM

What gaffe?!?

mozalf on March 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Rick Santorum’s statement that a Barack Obama second term is preferable to electing our likely Republican nominee is the gaffe to end all gaffes. Republican voters want Barack Obama out of office and they don’t hold the same kind of embarrassing, irrational hatred for Romney that the few dozen delusional, ranting message board commenters on here have.

The fact that you and others support Santorum’s welcoming an Obama 2nd term only underscores how out-of-touch a lot of HotAir commenters are with Republican voters.

bluegill on March 23, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Gingrich was our best hope, but I’ll vote for Romney over Obama for sure. I never connected with Santorum because he always seems to be whining to me.

cajunpatriot on March 23, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Plus, when I get asked who I’m going to vote for for president and why, I’d like to be able to distinguish the democrat and republican with contrasting arguments and discussions. With Sketchy, it will be a big stretch and I’ll end up arguing with myself.

mozalf on March 23, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Santorum is raising a valid point about consistency – I think Santorum understands voters much better than Romney or the GOP establishment.

Pork-Chop on March 23, 2012 at 8:48 AM

The only thing consistent about Santorum is that he can’t beat ObaMao. And the only difference between Santorum’s endorsement of Romney four years ago and Santorum’s endorsement of ObaMao this year is that now Santorum is running against Romney for the nomination. So it’s not about “core principles” with Santorum, just winning. But a Santorum win now means an ObaMao win in November. Luckily for you, Santorum is okay with that.

cicerone on March 23, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Nobody wants to hear what Santorum just said, but some of us have been sort of thinking this way for a while. Some of us are thinking that all those independents and moderates who are so easily scared off by a real conservative, or by forthright talk, are still probably going to look at Romney, then look at Obama, and decide that they’re basically so similar that it’s kind of pointless to swap Obama for Romney just because Obama has been terribly disappointing.

I’ve been thinking for several months now that Romney will be the GOP nominee and will then lose to Obama. Good luck with Romney, GOP — you’ll need it.

Aitch748 on March 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM

cicerone on March 23, 2012 at 8:33 AM

you must be a democrat in disguise.

renalin on March 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Not at all. Unlike Santorum, I’m someone who actually wants ObaMao to be defeated in November. So if that makes me a “democrat in disguise” then what does that make Santorum?

cicerone on March 23, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Wow. Almost 1700 comments dedicated to these two fools.

This is exactly why I’m mad Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin never entered the race. Every single one of these remaining knuckleheads absolutely stink to high heaven. Mitt is The Political Windsock® and Santy is a religious nutbag who wants to take away everything thats ‘immoral’ in America.

At least Sarah and Paul would’ve kept their eye on the ball.

ManWithNoName on March 23, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Waaa Waaaaa Waaaa.
I’m gonna tell your mommie you won’t let me win.
I’m gonna take my Etch-a-Sketch and go home.
Waaaa Waaaaaa.

Buh Bye Rick.

WestTexasBirdDog on March 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Santorum is raising a valid point about consistency – I think Santorum understands voters much better than Romney or the GOP establishment. Pork-Chop on March 23, 2012 at 8:48 AM

A reading of this thread should have convinced you otherwise. The response of Santorum’s supporters to his intemperate, idiotic, moronic – and campaign ending – statement is revealing. Instead of trying to explain the statement as the unfortunate result of a punishing and exhausting campaign schedule, they have doubled down on stupid.

The question Santorum’s supporters should now ask themselves is this: “am I really so stupid that I can support a candidate who claims that a Romney Presidency may be worse than an Obama Presidency”.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Where is Ed Morrissey’s condemnation of Rick Santorum’s statement that voting for a Barack Obama second term is preferable to voting for our likely Republican nominee?

Michelle Malkin, whose work I used to enjoy until she began seeming like a perpetually sour scold, even gave an uncharacteristically muted response about it, simply saying she didn’t agree and restating why Obama needed to go. Had it been any of the other candidates who said what Santorum said,(Bluegill) “you” are always off the rails, hurling all kinds of names and hyperbole at the candidate.

bluegill on March 23, 2012 at 8:37 AM

…there is another thread ..just waiting for you!…has your name on it! /

KOOLAID2 on March 23, 2012 at 9:24 AM

A reading of this thread should have convinced you otherwise. The response of Santorum’s supporters to his intemperate, idiotic, moronic – and campaign ending – statement is revealing. Instead of trying to explain the statement as the unfortunate result of a punishing and exhausting campaign schedule, they have doubled down on stupid.

The question Santorum’s supporters should now ask themselves is this: “am I really so stupid that I can support a candidate who claims that a Romney Presidency may be worse than an Obama Presidency”.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Hon, we’re using your logic except that we’re substituting Romney’s name for Santorum. And it makes us more determined to beat Obama and not nominate Romney at all costs – we don’t want to give the democrats the advantage with Romney as a candidate. It’s that simple.

mozalf on March 23, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I can’t agree 100% with Santorum on this one… but Mittens is not going to be a good candidate vs. 0bam-bam.

cristof on March 23, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Basilsbest on March 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Good luck with that. Even after the Rominator goes over 1144, the game won’t be over for some.

FlaMurph on March 23, 2012 at 10:03 AM

What a boneheaded comment. Wait until the dems use this against Romney. I can hear it now, “Even former candidate for president, Rick Santorum, endorses Obama over Romney!” Updates and disclaimers notwithstanding. The left has never let anything like context and real meaning interrupt their narrative.

totherightofthem on March 23, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Rick,
Nice comment, now take your Etch-A-Sketch shove it up your a$$, and disappear. Geez and I thought McCain was a moron.

stormridercx4 on March 23, 2012 at 10:35 AM

This election is just all those that came before. I’ll vote for the lesser of two evils rather than who I really want in the White House. It will be easier to vote for Romney if he chooses Rubio as his VP. It is still anyone but Obama.

volsense on March 23, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I was concerned a out the focus on social issues from this camp when we are drowning in debt but, for him to say this and the shrillness and pettiness of the tone and carrying around the toy …so contrived.
But to say if he is the nominees vote for Obama!?!??
What bubble have you been in lately?

rebekahhuang on March 23, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Goldwater was socially liberal (Liberatarian) and lost.
Ford ran to the center and lost.
Dole ran to the center and lost.
GHW Bush ran conservative and won but.
GHW Bush ran to the center and lost.
McCain ran to the center and lost.

Steve, you still are not listening. You are spinning the wrong analogy.

Goldwater, Dole, McCain – all senators and all LOST the presidency. Had little to do with ideology — rather, they were saddled with a congressional voting record that the RATS and the MSM gleefully tore apart.

By contrast, governors (Reagan, Bush 43) and vice presidents (Nixon, Bush 41) all WON the presidency — some more conservative, some more moderate than others. The point: GOP nominees with executive experience get elected POTUS; those from Congress consistently lose.

Romney is a governor and will be elected. Santorum, a former senator, would be destroyed by David Axelrod in 72 hours.

matthew8787 on March 23, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The fact that you and others support Santorum’s welcoming an Obama 2nd term only underscores how out-of-touch a lot of HotAir commenters are with Republican voters.

bluegill on March 23, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Reveals how out of touch they are with the crisis facing the nation. We have 5 years, at best, before a debt crisis hits.

This is no ordinary election. Freedom is at stake.

matthew8787 on March 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Well – Santorum just speed up his exit from this race POLOTICS with this idiotic statement.

kage on March 23, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Unless of course he wants to team up with the dimocrats.

VegasRick on March 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I can’t agree 100% with Santorum on this one… but Mittens is not going to be a good candidate vs. 0bam-bam.

cristof on March 23, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Incorrect. Romney is the most politically attractive and shrewd candidate either party has nominated for the presidency in 20 years.

Romney attributes:

1. no gender gap
2. performs extremely well with seniors, those who hate Obama the most and who vote in disproportionate numbers
3. plays on Blue turf, costing the Dems a fortune to defend
4. strong crossover appeal to independents, moderates and discerning Dems
5. grass roots infrastructure in place in 50 states
6. can essentially match Obama dollar for dollar, even if he has to self-fund the race
7. able to run AGAINST DC (like Reagan) – Romney has never worked there — this is huge with independents
8. excellent debater
9. seen as a safe alternative to millions of voters in the middle disillusioned with Obama record
10. well-positioned and strong grasp of all public policy issues
11. will generate coattails in key states to expand House majority and reclaim Senate
12. Ann Romney

The list goes on…

matthew8787 on March 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Ech a Sketch 2012

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM

Dang , You really aren’t very good at this trolling business are you? Here let me fix it for you.

Etch/Sketch 2012 !

Bmore on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM

12. Ann Romney

The list goes on…

matthew8787 on March 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

You mean the woman who cut a check to Planned Parenthood for abortion? Nice gal, nice looking, but an abortion advocate? No thanks.

And please, do not place Romney’s name in the same sentence as Reagan with the word “like”…he stated emphatically, with force and determination, that he was not a Reagan Republican, he hated Reagan, Reagan is what stood between him and being a Mass Senator.
Being even compared to a conservative was reason for Mitt to fight to be an “Independent/progressive”…

right2bright on March 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Incorrect. Romney is the most politically attractive and shrewd candidate either party has nominated for the presidency in 20 years.

matthew8787 on March 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Now that may be true, now that we have found out about his policies and principles, he has none except what will get him elected.
He has studied this for over six years, and he knows exactly what he must be or say to win…and if you consider that “leadership”, that is your opinion.
A lot of people “win”, and winning does not define character…and Mitt’s character has been exposed by his most valued and trusted partner, he will say or do anything to get elected…your standards for President is different from mine.

right2bright on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

matthew8787 on March 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

MItt is OUR slick willy clinton

gerry-mittbot

gerrym51 on March 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

A lot of people “win”, and winning does not define character…and Mitt’s character has been exposed by his most valued and trusted partner, he will say or do anything to get elected…your standards for President is different from mine.

right2bright on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Your concerns are unfounded. You dance with those who brung ya in this business. Romney will also be pulled further to the right by a GOP House and Senate.

Moreover, conservatives will OWN Romney, as NRO has pointed out. If he strays too far, he invites a fatal primary challenge in 2016.

But there is a larger point. This is no ordinary election. We have, at best, 5 years to avert a debt crisis. A continuation of the status quo will not help the economy, and we are headed for a cliff. Romney, Boehner, McConnell – every Republican in Congress – gets this. 2013 is going to be the most consequential legislative year since 1981.

And the midterms in 2014 are likely to be very unpleasant for the GOP, but the debt crisis will have been averted and entitlement reform enacted, putting the nation back on a path to fiscal sanity.

matthew8787 on March 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM

IndeCon on March 23, 2012 at 7:55 AM

yep, if we fly under the romneybama banner, then conservatism is dead. close shop. go gault.

time to go rogue.

renalin on March 23, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Ha, you betcha!

IndeCon on March 23, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I am one of many harboring the foolish hope that a brokered/contested convention will launch someone who has not even participated in the primaries.

I HATE the fact that mitt is buying his way to the presidency!

mrks on March 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM

What “risk” is there, exactly, that President Etch-a-Sketch would be worse than Obama?

The risk is that the Republicans will feel obligated to fall in line behind a Republican President doing stupid things. Obama doing the same stupid things might have some push back from the Republicans.

RJL on March 23, 2012 at 2:02 PM

go gault Galt.

time to go rogue invest in a spell checker.

renalin on March 23, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Bradky on March 23, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Perhaps you should take a closer look into what Romney did, why and how.

alchemist19 on March 23, 2012 at 3:42 AM

Why don’t YOU come to his defence. Excuses for creating uber liberal programs really don’t cut it with me.

When done you can explain Ann Ccoulter’s defense of RonMecare and why using it to keep 0bamacare in place is also a good thing.

DannoJyd on March 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I’m about to piss off a whole hell of a lot of people, but I finally get it. I finally get what this whole debate that has spanned three articles on Hot Air is about.

I know why there are people who say they won’t ever vote for Romney

This isn’t about the country with them, it’s about conservatism.

It’s wrong to sell out conservative principles if what you’re doing is something the people in your state want and is Constitutionally fine to do but a Democrat can follow you and say “I used that as a template.”

It is okay to sell out your conservative principles as long as it is politically expedient for the Republican party.

It is okay to sell out conservative principles as long as your getting paid for it, like Newt did with Fannie Mae.

Let’s face it, if Romneycare was never implemented, we would’ve be having these discussions. But it did, and a Democrat used the “same” idea, let burn him at the stake.

The problem is, that there isn’t a single person here that hasn’t once acknowledged the threat posed by Obama and his radical views. We all know what is happening, and while many are ready to rally behind who ever to fight the same common threat we all face.

But the rest are perfectly fine letting the country rot because that person doesn’t fit their definition of a conservative.

BTW, those same people would gladly trade everything they are living through today for another four years of George W. Bush.

We all have the same problem. And by “we” I mean conservatives, republicans, libertarians, moderates, independents, even some democrats. That problems is called Barack Obama. He is trying to overhaul the American we all know and turn it into some grand Saul Alinsky vision of “fairness.”

There are people here willing to put ideology above country. They’re fine letting the country burn, if they can’t get a true conservative.

That’s why i’m saying it. It needs to be said. All of you who are screaming against Mitt are putting conservatism first, country second.

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Romneycare Becomes Obamacare, Then Coultercare

From the article:

Ann Coulter has now written an unqualified defense of Romneycare. What she doesn’t appear to realize is how useful her column will be to defenders of Obamacare.

I really would like to know why RonMeBots all support 0bamacare. Honestly, are they all useless socialists that need to suck away at the public teat?

DannoJyd on March 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I HATE the fact that mitt is buying his way to the presidency!

mrks on March 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM

romney isnt going to be able to buy the presidency …
he may buy the nomination … with the negative ads
selling that he isn’t as bad as someone else …
however he will NOT be able to outspend Obama …
if he trys to outspend Obama he is going to have a bad day …

conservative tarheel on March 24, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Wow, only 1673, bluegill, bread ball? Palin!

Bmore on March 24, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 15 16 17