Angry Santorum: I never said I’d vote for Obama over Romney!

posted at 6:00 pm on March 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

Twelve minutes from today’s Cavuto. I agree, he never said he’d vote for Obama over Romney. What he said was that “we” the electorate might collectively conclude that there’s not enough difference between them to justify replacing the incumbent, the implication being that that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Right? Read his comments from yesterday again or watch the video; the clear impression I got was “I wouldn’t blame anyone who thought that way,” an impression apparently shared by Santorum supporter Ed Morrissey. There are a lot of ways to hit Mitt for being a squish, first and foremost that America can’t afford one when bold action on entitlements is desperately needed, but anything that legitimizes the idea that the differences between Romney and The One are too “little” to justify a strong preference for one or the other is poisonous to the larger Republican effort. What he said yesterday did that, and his spokesman doubled down on it this morning by calling Romney a “mirror image” of O before adding the perfunctory bit about supporting the nominee. They’re not mirror images; there are hugely compelling reasons to strongly prefer one to the other, as I’d expect any committed pro-lifer who pays attention to Supreme Court vacancies to understand. I don’t mean to begrudge a guy a line of attack when he’s desperate to get traction somehow, but the attack on Romney from the right should never go beyond arguing that America needs a strong conservative to achieve meaningful improvements in policy. If you’re a prominent Republican with a big soapbox and you’re comparing Romney to Obama generally — even in the context of how “we,” not you, might feel — you’re playing with matches. (The only exception I can think of is on the specific issue of “ObamneyCare” because it’s hugely relevant to the primary and, let’s face it, there’s really no way around the mirror-image conclusion. But even in that case, the more likely it is that Romney will be the nominee, the more counterproductive that argument is.)

Interestingly, it’s Gingrich who’s made a bigger deal about this today than Romney. Statement one from Team Newt:

Newt 2012 Campaign Chairman Rep. Bob Walker released the following statement today criticizing Sen. Santorum’s comments about the possibility of an Obama reelection:

“As a former Pennsylvania colleague of Rick Santorum in the Congress, I am stunned by his statement that if he is not the Republican nominee, we might be better off with the reelection of President Obama. An Obama reelection would assure full implementation of Obamacare, a continuation of the assault on American energy production, more economic policies that destroy American jobs and the appointment of more radically leftist judges including perhaps to the Supreme Court. Whatever our differences inside the Republican primaries, no candidate should be suggesting that Barack Obama is a reasonable alternative.”

And statement two, a letter to RNC chief Reince Priebus (slightly edited):

Republicans must not lose sight of our ultimate goal in 2012: defeating President Obama in November. While we may disagree on which candidate will be the strongest opponent to the President in the general election, we can agree that any of the current Republican candidates would be a better president than Barack Obama.

As chairman of the Republican National Committee, you are in a position to focus our candidates on this goal. I request that you issue a pledge asking all the Republican presidential candidates to support our eventual nominee. It is imperative that Republicans unite once the nomination process is complete in order to defeat President Obama. We cannot afford four more years of his leadership.

Newt’s angle here, I assume, is to paint Santorum as a traitor to the cause so that voters will turn away from Team Sweater Vest in disgust and back to Newt as the designated Not Romney for the eleventh or twelfth time in the race. (I’ve lost count.) Mitt’s angle is not to mention what Santorum said anymore lest he end up repeating the “Romney = Obama” message inadvertently.



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 4 5 10

Ah, yes, the coward’s way out — just have the balls & vote for Obama then, because that is exactly what voting 3rd party or not voting equates to.

And those who think Santorum is right, that the guy who founded Bain Capital is the “mirror image” of community organizer Obama obviously do not know the basic difference between capitalism and socialism. I just can’t with you.

Dark Star on March 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Wow. The Mittwits really have no idea how this voting thing works.

Once again, a vote for a third party increases the vote total of the third party while a vote for Obama increases the vote total of Obama. These are not identical.

Let’s see… I can have a guy who gets people fired via regulation, or a guy who gets people fired via vulture capitalism. WHAT A (non-existent) DIFFERENCE!

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Rick is nott a smarrt maan.

Rusty Allen on March 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Folks, the discussion is pretty much moot at this point. It doesn’t much matter what Santorum (or any of us, really) says from here on out.

Unless you are blowing off a little steam and frustration (which would be perfectly normal and understandable), there is little point trying to be persuasive for or against any candidates in a primary race. The race is now Romney/Obama. It has been for a couple of weeks, but I think understanding of that fact is now beginning to seep deeper into the support bases of the other candidates.

It’s been a great race. Now it’s time to prepare for the next one. It’s time to beat Obama.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

If there are only two parties then one must represent small-gov, else America requires a 3rd party in order to save itself from the other two.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

So – why are you here? As opposed to Kos, DU or some other “vote-against the GOP” site?

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

tom, you stay right here. You have the same right as anyone else who’s registered to comment here. You say anything you want. It’s still a relatively free land.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Unglued is a kind way of putting it.
jan3 on March 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

As the Boss Emeritus is wont to say, “unhinged”.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

It’s time to beat Obama.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

THIS

*clink*

cmsinaz on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

that the guy who founded Bain Capital is the “mirror image” of community organizer Obama obviously do not know the basic difference between capitalism and socialism. I just can’t with you.

Dark Star on March 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Mitt never actually defended Bain with any specifics.

But no only on the most important issues does Romney = Obama.

Healthcare nearly identical.
Global Warming no real difference.
Government control of private business no difference.
Government control of Religion no difference.

No one is going to be voting on the things they are different on.

Minor differences hard to pin down of foreign policy except Israel.

Minor differences on business mostly just Obama favors different people than Romney. I mean Romney also wants to punish the top 1% just a bit differently.

Steveangell on March 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Ah, yes, the coward’s way out — just have the balls & vote for Obama then, because that is exactly what voting 3rd party or not voting equates to.
……

Dark Star on March 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

That is not strictly true. Actually voting for Obama is doubling down on stupid.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

It’s been a great race. Now it’s time to prepare for the next one. It’s time to beat Obama.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Which naturally invites the question, “But what will you beat him with?”

If it’s someone who’s as bad as Obama, it’s not worth it. Hence why I keep coming back to urging people to vote 3rd party: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

If a 3rd party is so terrible and impossible then all the more reason for small-gov supporters like me to stop big-gov people from hijacking the Party. I mean, if there are three parties and two of them are big-gov and one small-gov, then that’s one thing, but if there are only two big-gov parties then there is no party to represent people like me.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

divide 100% by 3 (without using decimals). Do you get an even number? A third party will rob votes from another party which will mean one party will always get the majority while the other two duke it out for what’s left.

I’ll give you two guesses as to which party would benefit from what you’re proposing. Here’s a hint: it starts with the letter “d.”

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

cmsinaz on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Hear!..Hear!..:)

Dire Straits on March 23, 2012 at 7:14 PM

It’s been a great race. Now it’s time to prepare for the next one. It’s time to beat Obama.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Here’s an e-drink. You’re celebrating early. Just don’t get the crowns out.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Oh, honey, you can spin it anyway you want to help you sleep at night. You’re still a coward though.

Dark Star on March 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM

divide 100% by 3 (without using decimals). Do you get an even number? A third party will rob votes from another party which will mean one party will always get the majority while the other two duke it out for what’s left.

I’ll give you two guesses as to which party would benefit from what you’re proposing. Here’s a hint: it starts with the letter “d.”

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

And if the GOP loses in the short-term, perhaps they’ll think that in the long-term it might be better to stop trying to become Democrats. Either that or they’ll double-down with “Republicans” of the Charlie Crist variety and work towards their own extinction.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM

The race is now Romney/Obama. It has been for a couple of weeks, but I think understanding of that fact is now beginning to seep deeper into the support bases of the other candidates.

It’s been a great race. Now it’s time to prepare for the next one. It’s time to beat Obama.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Yes why would anyone listen to the actual voters?

Give me a break loser Mitt does not have 1144.

Mitt has no chance in the General Period.

If you think he does please explain how he will win when only conservative Republicans have ever won the General.

Steveangell on March 23, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Oh, honey, you can spin it anyway you want to help you sleep at night. You’re still a coward though.

Dark Star on March 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Yet you would have me vote on the basis of nothing other than fear of Obama. You would have me, not vote for someone, but strictly against someone. Hmmmmmmm… when it comes to cowardice, have you looked in a mirror lately?

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Angry Santorum: I never said I’d vote for Obama over Romney!

And Romney’s campaign staffer never said that the etch-a-sketch would be applied to Romney’s positions on the issues, but that didn’t stop both Santorum and Newt from bringng their etch-a-sketch toys up on stage to bash Romney.

Politics ain’t bean bag, Boys.

I’m sure everybody on every campaign team is completely exhausted by now, so I hope they all get a chance to take a long, well deserved nap after the Louisiana Primary.

wren on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

“Neil, I’m happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but this is the hatchet job of all time. Of all time!”

Fabozz on March 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM

u sweatervest, bro?!

Jeddite on March 23, 2012 at 6:21 PM

LMFAO

I love this thread

1984 in real life on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Good night, Rick.

RedNewEnglander on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

So – why are you here? As opposed to Kos, DU or some other “vote-against the GOP” site?
whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

tom, you stay right here. You have the same right as anyone else who’s registered to comment here. You say anything you want. It’s still a relatively free land.
Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Setting aside your non-applicable “First Amendment! Free Speech! HELP, I’m being reppressed!1!!1!!!” argument, what logical sense does it make for anyone to be here telling commenters here to vote against the Republican nominee? (I mean, for other than the Mobys?)

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Mitt never actually defended Bain with any specifics.

Steveangell on March 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM

See what I mean, you think a venture capital company needs to be specifically explained to prove to you that the guy who founded it is a capitalist and not a socialist.

Like I said, the starting point is so low with that kind of thinking that I just can’t with you.

Dark Star on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

You would have me, not vote for someone, but strictly against someone.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Like the rest of us do?

John the Libertarian on March 23, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Once again, a vote for a third party increases the vote total of the third party while a vote for Obama increases the vote total of Obama. These are not identical.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Obviously, you’re good at math, but you know nothing about statistics and ratios.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

wren on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Don’t post lies. We know exactly what Romney’s adviser was asked, and what he said. Videos are an interesting piece of proof.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

It depends on what the meaning of is, is.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 6:18 PM

A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for a third-party candidate, not a vote for Obama. Idiot.
Stoic Patriot

Awesome how, out of nowhere you are calling me an idiot.
Want to know what is truly idiotic? Flushing your vote down the toilet by voting 3rd party. Now you know.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Like the rest of us do?

John the Libertarian on March 23, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Perhaps like the rest of you do. But the question was not about being in with the in-crowd, but a question about cowardice.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Like the rest of us do?

John the Libertarian on March 23, 2012 at 7:19 PM

+ 100..:)

PS..Happy TGIF to you..Good to see you..:)

Dire Straits on March 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Awesome how, out of nowhere you are calling me an idiot.
Want to know what is truly idiotic? Flushing your vote down the toilet by voting 3rd party. Now you know.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Well whaddya know, the man who’s one veggie short of a drink came back. A vote for a third-party goes into the ballot box, just like any other.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

This is an unfortunate situation where the President has taken a horrible tragedy, where someone did a heinous act, and that the authorities did not, did another horrible act in not following and prosecuting that to the fullest extent of the law. And then, his, again, politicizing it, this is again not what presidents of the United States do.

That as Sanct-orum. He’s right about the last part.

The rest shows he’s and idiot.

Ragspierre on March 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

It doesn’t have to make sense. They are registered and are free to comment, until they’re banned.

It’s that Voltaireian thingie :)

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

The goal is to defeat both of the corrupt parties. If we can’t stop them from destroying America’s future, turning our children into debt-slaves, then I don’t really care which gaggle of corrupt cronies takes over the government to impose their agenda on me.

What you’re arguing is that we give up trying to save the country and decide which flavor of doom we would like, vanilla or chocolate. You seem to have accepted your own doom, perhaps because of you are older and have the most to gain from generational theft, but I am younger, and even if I weren’t I like to think I would do the right thing regardless and vote 3rd party.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

And some say Ron Paul is whacky. Santorum is coco-for-cocopuffs.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Nobody owes their vote to someone else.
tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:05 PM

So – why are you here? As opposed to Kos, DU or some other “vote-against the GOP” site?

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Because I’m a conservative. Which is not necessarily the same thing as a Republican.

I know the argument for voting for any Republican nominee as better than the Democrat. I voted for McCain, and really hoped he would win, even though I knew he stunk on ice and would be regularly rolled by a Democratic Congress for his entire administration.

I voted for Bob Dole. I actually liked him, even though he was pretty squishy and would not have been a particularly good president.

If we get stuck with the thoroughly insipid and shifty Romney, then I’ll weigh the choice. We’re not there yet.

Romney wouldn’t be as bad a president as Obama, but Obama can’t destroy the Republican party.

tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Also, and I’m not fighting you, I like to be liberal, in the true sense of the word, as opposed to the lefties around here and everywhere, who are very iliberal and non-progressive. They want to shut everybody up…Soros, Media Matters and the other thugs…

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Santorum has the brain of a 2 year old and I’ll bet the 2 year old was glad to get rid of it.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM

A vote for a third-party goes into the ballot box, just like any other.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

You might as well throw it in the trash- the results will be the same.

redridinghood on March 23, 2012 at 7:25 PM

..and if Romney gets elected and performs as you suspect he might, then I will be right there beside you at the barricades with the torches and pitchforks.

The War Planner on March 23, 2012 at 7:01 PM

What are you going to do vote for a 3rd party? I thought that was stupid and should never be done. Are you going to vote for the Democrat? Think these things through, we need to save the country before it’s too late. These are dangerous times we live in, we could be embroiled in WWIII in 2016, should we wait until then before we finally balance our budget and start living within our means?

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Folks, the discussion is pretty much moot at this point. It doesn’t much matter what Santorum (or any of us, really) says from here on out.

Unless you are blowing off a little steam and frustration (which would be perfectly normal and understandable), there is little point trying to be persuasive for or against any candidates in a primary race. The race is now Romney/Obama. It has been for a couple of weeks, but I think understanding of that fact is now beginning to seep deeper into the support bases of the other candidates.

It’s been a great race. Now it’s time to prepare for the next one. It’s time to beat Obama.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Still trying to get everyone to surrender to Romney by telling them it’s hopeless, I see.

It’s not over yet.

tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Perhaps like the rest of you do. But the question was not about being in with the in-crowd, but a question about cowardice.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

There is no courage at all in voting for someone you know has no chance to actually get the power to disappoint you.

In fact, that is cowardice.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Has anyone seen Rick Santorum and Baghdad Bob at the same time? How about Rick Santorum and the Mad Hatter at the same time? Rick Santorum and Joe Isuzu at the same time?

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

And if the GOP loses in the short-term, perhaps they’ll think that in the long-term it might be better to stop trying to become Democrats. Either that or they’ll double-down with “Republicans” of the Charlie Crist variety and work towards their own extinction.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM

How does that ensure the conservative movement comes out ahead? Don’t you think that you would run the risk of marginalizing yourself to obscurity?

No third parties ran in 2010 and conservatives made their voices heard loud and clear.

When Dominos Pizza realized they sucked, did they start another franchise to deal with the problem? No, they rebuilt themselves from within.

Is any of this getting through to you or would illustrations help?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Let’s see… I can have a guy who gets people fired via regulation, or a guy who gets people fired via vulture capitalism. WHAT A (non-existent) DIFFERENCE!

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

The truth comes out. Constitution Party my a$$, Mr. Sock Puppet.

Go on back over to Kos or HuffPo or wherever it is that you live.

peski on March 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

There is no courage at all in voting for someone you know has no chance to actually get the power to disappoint you.

In fact, that is cowardice.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Futile, perhaps. Cowardly, no. Cowardice is throwing your principles to the wind and voting for someone you despise out of fear of someone else.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

The truth comes out. Constitution Party my a$$, Mr. Sock Puppet.

Go on back over to Kos or HuffPo or wherever it is that you live.

peski on March 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Yep. I’m as much one of the DailyKOS and HuffPo as Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.

Thanks for playing.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

And other than giving you a useless outlet for your frustrations, a third party would fix that how?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM

It doesn’t have to make sense. They are registered and are free to comment, until they’re banned.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

O sometimes after they are banned. It all depends.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Well whaddya know, the man who’s one veggie short of a drink came back. A vote for a third-party goes into the ballot box, just like any other.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

For a candidate that is probably not on the ballot in all sates, for a candidate that can’t afford to buy air time, or print space or even an internet ad at this point. A vote for 3rd party is at best a complete waste. At worst it splits the party and helps elect the exact thing that you CLAIM to be against.

Since you have shown yourself to be an obnoxious tool it frees me up to say that anyone advocating for this is either utterly clueless or a lying Moby who wants to split the GOP vote and help elect Obama. Either way, no thanks to you or what you are pimping.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I request that you issue a pledge asking all the Republican presidential candidates to support our eventual nominee.

No thanks.

joey24007 on March 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM

So – why are you here? As opposed to Kos, DU or some other “vote-against the GOP” site?
whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Because I’m a conservative.
tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Trust me – when you’re okay with (and/or look forward to) four more years of Obama running the show, you just may not be nearly quite as “conservative” as you may desperately attempt to rationalize yourself to be.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM

The GOP wins the 2010 midterms in a landslide based on repealing Obamacare. So what does the cesspool in washington do, they nominate the father of Obamacare, romneycare.

Then the mittbots have the unmitigated gall to blame conservatives for being against the socialist.

Obamacare = Romneycare no difference, both socialism!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

For a candidate that is probably not on the ballot in all sates, for a candidate that can’t afford to buy air time, or print space or even an internet ad at this point. A vote for 3rd party is at best a complete waste. At worst it splits the party and helps elect the exact thing that you CLAIM to be against.

I said that I’m against someone as bad as Romney, and I’m against someone as bad as Obama. A vote for Romney does not improve matters.

Since you have shown yourself to be an obnoxious tool it frees me up to say that anyone advocating for this is either utterly clueless or a lying Moby who wants to split the GOP vote and help elect Obama. Either way, no thanks to you or what you are pimping.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I’m happy to see the GOP vote split if it gets the GOP to stop trying to put up the furthest-to-the-left candidate they can get every election cycle. I’m happy to see the GOP vote split if the party can reconsolidate itself after a humiliating loss and return to a question of what is right rather than what is easy.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

It sometimes seems to me that you’re right about that, the Republican Party is chock full of cowards that can be lead around like sheep with fear, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think the issue is age. The Republican Party is comprised mainly of older Americans, a lot of them boomers, and they don’t want to give up gravy-train even though they didn’t have enough children to sustain it, but they want the train anyway so they’re just going to spend the money anyway and stick the bill with people who aren’t even born yet.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM

+ 100..:)

Dire Straits on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I request that you issue a pledge asking all the Republican presidential candidates to support our eventual nominee.

No thanks.
joey24007 on March 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Actually, all of the candidates have done so in the debates. Santorum is the only one to flip-flop waffle on the it, though.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Santorum is cracking up under the pressure. Not presidential material at all.

RedRedRice on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

There was a raccoon rustling around in a dumpster outside my work and I was convinced it was Rabid Rick just off his Cavuto interview trying to find porn magazines.

Rusty Allen on March 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Keep ‘em coming, this is quality entertainment.

Bonus points seeing all the rabid ABR’s head’s spinning like that scene from The Exorcist as their boy goes down in flames.

1984 in real life on March 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Futile, perhaps. Cowardly, no. Cowardice is throwing your principles to the wind and voting for someone you despise out of fear of someone else.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

The only ones proposing throwing their principles to the wind here are you and the other third party/won’t vote crowd. The rest of us are determined to defend them the best we can, however weak that attempt may appear to be.

But your vote is all about you and your feelings, not about actually defending the principles you claim to be defending.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Heh. Angry Santorum. Isn’t that a little redundant?
Voting for a loser is the ultimate cowardice & sorry, but Obama, Mitt, Rick, Paul are all losers.

Santorum has the brain of a 2 year old and I’ll bet the 2 year old was glad to get rid of it.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM

I don’t care who you’re pushing for, that is funny.

Almost time to start selling tickets…

sandollar_sa on March 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

whatcat, thanks for the clip. Those are always funny.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

i’m so sick of the mittbot’s saying going third party or staying home not voting gives obama a second term. Show me one freakin poll where romneycare beats Obama. their isn’t one.

Further, you can make the case having a staunch conservative, like a Gov. palin would increase turnout and help GOP senators, congressman and governors get elected.

God, you mittbott, lefties are pitiful!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM

+ 100..:)

Dire Straits on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Eh, well, there’s just no excusing those who attempt to rationalize and excuse their anti-Republican nominee rantings. I mean, think of how anti-re-elect Obama screeds would go over at Dem sites.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

It sometimes seems to me that you’re right about that, the Republican Party is chock full of cowards that can be lead around like sheep with fear, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think the issue is age. The Republican Party is comprised mainly of older Americans, a lot of them boomers, and they don’t want to give up gravy-train even though they didn’t have enough children to sustain it, but they want the train anyway so they’re just going to spend the money anyway and stick the bill with people who aren’t even born yet.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Yeah, why follow the lemmings off the cliff when it makes more sens to jump off one by yourself.

except, in both cases, you still jumped off a cliff. Other than dying alone, you really didn’t do anything differently, did you?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

God, you mittbott, lefties are pitiful!
Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

cough::: Moby :::cough, cough:::

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

If Santorum is coming this unglued and unhinged simply in a Republican Primary, how can he possibly handle the responsibilities of actually being president? Can you imagine the pressure on the man in the Oval Office?

slickwillie2001 on March 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

It sometimes seems to me that you’re right about that, the Republican Party is chock full of cowards that can be lead around like sheep with fear, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think the issue is age. The Republican Party is comprised mainly of older Americans, a lot of them boomers, and they don’t want to give up gravy-train even though they didn’t have enough children to sustain it, but they want the train anyway so they’re just going to spend the money anyway and stick the bill with people who aren’t even born yet.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I think there’s a fair amount of truth to what you say. I wouldn’t be so quick to discount the fear bit, though, but it’s less about the party’s voters and more about the party’s elders. I’m sure you’ve seen numerous articles, either through RealClearPolitics, DailyCaller, or linked to via HotAir about how party elders have wanted Romney because they think it helps them “down ticket.”

The GOP’s party elders are like dogs chasing a car. For them, it’s all a matter of strategy for hanging onto power rather than asking what they’re going to do with it when they get it.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Let’s see… I can have a guy who gets people fired via regulation, or a guy who gets people fired via vulture capitalism. WHAT A (non-existent) DIFFERENCE!

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

What kind of “constitution” party did you say you were part of again?

Sounds like the Democrat Party to me.

Concern troll uncovered.

Swerve22 on March 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

God, you mittbott, lefties are pitiful!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Pot, meet Kettle.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:40 PM

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Using a quote from the movie Up in the Air..”Sometimes they just need to vent”..:)

Dire Straits on March 23, 2012 at 7:40 PM

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Romneycare stained his shorts, he needs you to lick up the mess!

Cough, cough…

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 7:40 PM

People, you’ve been played. This whole firestorm was created by Romney partisans to try to bury the disastrous “Reset like an etch-a-sketch” gaffe.

And it worked.

Santorum’s been saying variants of this for a long time. But when the big story was “etch-a-sketch,” they seized on this phrase to claim Santorum was endorsing Obama over Romney.

tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Stoic Patriot

I’m happy to see the GOP vote split if it gets the GOP to stop trying to put up the furthest-to-the-left candidate they can get every election cycle.”

No one stopped anyone from running. The candidates we have are the ones who decided to run. The candidates we have left are the ones who didn’t drop out. When Romney gets the nomination he will have been the last one standing ad the one with the most votes.

I’m happy to see the GOP vote split if the party can reconsolidate itself after a humiliating loss and return to a question of what is right rather than what is easy.

We had a loss the last time and it didn’t get us where you thought it would, did it? Here: YOU DON’T GAIN INFLUENCE BY LOSING ELECTIONS
A really high concept, I know!
If the GOP vote splits that elects Obama. If you are “happy” with that you need to take the “patriot” out of your user name.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

The only ones proposing throwing their principles to the wind here are you and the other third party/won’t vote crowd. The rest of us are determined to defend them the best we can, however weak that attempt may appear to be.

But your vote is all about you and your feelings, not about actually defending the principles you claim to be defending.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

So let’s see… I refuse to vote for someone who called himself a progressive, who has demonstrated through his repeat flip-flops an unquenchable thirst for power, and who has enacted progressive policies as governor of Massachusetts… and that makes me the one who’s throwing principles to the wind? You are aware that there is a difference between “principles” and “convenience”, yes?

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Show me one poll that has Romneycare beating obama. Unlike you I want to win, romneycare is a sure LOSER!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM

People, you’ve been played. This whole firestorm was created by Romney partisans to try to bury the disastrous “Reset like an etch-a-sketch” gaffe.

tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Grassy Knoll! Grassy Knoll!
It was the NWO bilderburgers who used HAARP to make Santorum plant his foot in his mouth, again. You were played!

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:43 PM

And other than giving you a useless outlet for your frustrations, a third party would fix that how?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM

What, are you saying, it doesn’t matter who the president is? That may be true in the past—it doesn’t seem to matter which party is in charge, they both are about the same on the core problems facing this nation like monetary policy, spending and debt—but the idea is to choose a new, fiscally responsible path, not just another corrupt D or R.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

You are wasting your vote. There is no conservative patriotic case to be made for voting for Obama.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Anti-Romney paranoia strikes again. See what it does to people… Another of the afflicted for ObaMao.

cicerone on March 23, 2012 at 6:19 PM

zzzzzz

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Can anyone of you Mittbots defend Romneycare. Further,you do realize Romneycare’s advisors crafted Obamacare.

You can make a case Romneycare, Ted Kennedy, John kerry and Obama crafted Obamacare together.

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

zzzzzz

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Par for your contributions here.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Santorum’s been saying variants of this for a long time. But when the big story was “etch-a-sketch,” they seized on this phrase to claim Santorum was endorsing Obama over Romney.

tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:40 PM

They seized on it, cause that’s exactly how it sounded. It was taken out of context at all.

rubberneck on March 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM

No one stopped anyone from running. The candidates we have are the ones who decided to run.

True, but let’s not pretend that there weren’t efforts by both party insiders (politicians, fundraisers, etc) and pundits to try and gloss over Romney’s many, many flaws and discount the efforts of anybody else. The people who run the party weren’t individually making decisions about who to endorse (with a scant few exceptions, e.g. Jindal for Perry), but had coordinated ahead of time to try and make the primaries a coronation rather than a contest solely between the candidates — and they did so on the behalf of a guy who has a liberal record of governance.

We had a loss the last time and it didn’t get us where you thought it would, did it? Here: YOU DON’T GAIN INFLUENCE BY LOSING ELECTIONS

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Actually, you do. Why do you think the right-wing has been pandering to the libertarians incessantly? Because reason.com and other libertarian outfits went so far as not to simply vote third-party, but actually vote for Obama. I’m not going to vote for Obama, but if the GOP crumbles, a party which rests upon a corrupt foundation, I won’t be weeping.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM

This has really been fun. But I am ready to spend some time flogging Obama. On behalf of Romney.

Marcus Traianus on March 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM

So – why are you here? As opposed to Kos, DU or some other “vote-against the GOP” site?
whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

tom, you stay right here. You have the same right as anyone else who’s registered to comment here. You say anything you want. It’s still a relatively free land.
Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Setting aside your non-applicable “First Amendment! Free Speech! HELP, I’m being reppressed!1!!1!!!” argument, what logical sense does it make for anyone to be here telling commenters here to vote against the Republican nominee? (I mean, for other than the Mobys?)

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

For the record, I’m not offended by the question you asked. Yes, there are mobys just trying to stir everyone up against voting Republican.

But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of people have loyally voted Republican because the Democrat was so bad, and are getting sick of it. Saying, “you’re voting for Obama” is not true, though.

For one thing, it’s not Romney vs. Obama. Right now it’s Obama vs. a Republican to be named later, and the whole debate is who that Republican will be.

Trying to browbeat people into voting for a bad candidate does a lot more damage in the long run to the Republican’s chances. I think Romney is a pretty weak candidate, but you can still make a better case for him than “if you don’t vote for Romney, you’re voting for Obama.”

tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

It sometimes seems to me that you’re right about that, the Republican Party is chock full of cowards that can be lead around like sheep with fear, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think the issue is age. The Republican Party is comprised mainly of older Americans, a lot of them boomers, and they don’t want to give up gravy-train even though they didn’t have enough children to sustain it, but they want the train anyway so they’re just going to spend the money anyway and stick the bill with people who aren’t even born yet.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

True but “republican” is a dirty word when I’m around my friends. It’s hard to get young people interested in GOP politics because they’ve been so badly brainwashed by their silver pony tail teachers. The evangelical rhetoric hurts the cause as well.

Ron Paul has it figured out. Stick with freedom, small government, lower taxes and personal responsibility. Ignore porn, and teh gays.

1984 in real life on March 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Hypothetical situation: let’s say a third party candidate runs for president and wins. Then that person faces a house and senate where members of the Democrat and Republican parties outnumber him greatly. This person will have to go to one side or another in order to get any smidgen of what they want to do accomplished or else be rendered as useless as a bottle of viagra in a room full of lesbians, which alone would negate the need for this person to refer to themselves as a third party because the label won’t mean anything.

in short, you wasted your vote. You should have stayed home.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I see 2008 repeating itself right in front of my very eyes.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM

..I know this will probably draw fire, but we might just be seeing 1980 repeating itself. By that I mean there’s a lot of unaccounted for anger over Obama, his shenanigans, and the slime that oozes from his regime. I feel a tremor in the force just like I did in 1980 (oh, I can just feel all of those ctrl-C’s and ctrl-Vs being clicked on out there as I type) and 7 November might be a more massive repudiation than November 2010 (or 1980).

Back in 1980, a lot of folks — the MSM mainly — had Carter getting re-elected, by the way; at least up until that debate.

I refuse to be a pessimist.

The War Planner on March 23, 2012 at 7:48 PM

So let’s see… I refuse to vote for someone who called himself a progressive, who has demonstrated through his repeat flip-flops an unquenchable thirst for power, and who has enacted progressive policies as governor of Massachusetts… and that makes me the one who’s throwing principles to the wind? You are aware that there is a difference between “principles” and “convenience”, yes?

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Yes, that is precisely what you are doing when the alternative is a alinskyite, racist anti-American about to bury the country.

I wish we had better than Romney. But the choice is coming down to Romney or Obama. The real choice. Not the choice you want. Not the choice I want. And if we reach that point and Romney is the only one left who can actually stop Obama, failing to stop Obama under those circumstance is a blatant, cowardly betrayal of conservative principles.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

He said he would sign the repeal and I believe him. Other than that, I have no defense for Romneycare. IMO, states may do how they please though, but I would rather want to put it to a vote. The people in Mass. overwhelmingly support it from what I understand.

rubberneck on March 23, 2012 at 7:49 PM

I, for one, will not vote for Romney. But I could be persuaded to vote for his VP pick…just like I had to do in 2008.

Kinda sad that I can’t vote for the highest office in the land anymore.

Left Coast Right Mind on March 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I see 2008 repeating itself right in front of my very eyes.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Wrong…Obama owns the economy.

rubberneck on March 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Yes, that is precisely what you are doing when the alternative is a alinskyite, racist anti-American about to bury the country.

I wish we had better than Romney. But the choice is coming down to Romney or Obama. The real choice. Not the choice you want. Not the choice I want. And if we reach that point and Romney is the only one left who can actually stop Obama, failing to stop Obama under those circumstance is a blatant, cowardly betrayal of conservative principles.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 7:48 PM

This is precisely why I find your claim of cowardice laughable. You admit that Romney’s not a choice you want. Great, he’s not a choice I want either. So why the devil would you vote for someone who’s lousy?

To paraphrase Jerry Falwell, “The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that you’re still voting for evil.”

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM

So why the devil would you vote for someone who’s lousy?

Because the alternative is even worse. Not voting for Romney is EXACTLY like voting FOR Obama. It basically give Obama an extra vote. One doesn’t have to so much vote for Romney as they can vote against Obama.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Gosh, that interview with Cavuto was so…presidential.

Why oh why is everyone ganging up on poor widdle Ricky? He’s so…misunderstood.

I’ve met grade schoolers with more composure and dignity than the sweater vest.

Meredith on March 23, 2012 at 7:53 PM

i’m so sick of the mittbot’s saying going third party or staying home not voting gives obama a second term. Show me one freakin poll where romneycare beats Obama. their isn’t one.

Further, you can make the case having a staunch conservative, like a Gov. palin would increase turnout and help GOP senators, congressman and governors get elected.

God, you mittbott, lefties are pitiful!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Not so fast I’ll be voting for Newt in the Texas primary (if he’s till in the race.)

Third Party is a vote for Obama-do the math.

redridinghood on March 23, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Writing in a candidate of voting a third party is like not voting. It is also another vote for Obama.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

RE.Stoic Patriot

let’s not pretend that there weren’t efforts by both party insiders (politicians, fundraisers, etc) and pundits to try and gloss over Romney’s many, many flaws and discount the efforts of anybody else.

He’s had such an easy time, huh? No one has been censored and there is no cabal of insiders keeping you n the dark. All the info is out there at this point.

The people who run the party….

Stop right there. Who are these people? Name some.

“but had coordinated ahead of time to try and make the primaries a coronation rather than a contest solely between the candidates”

Bull. Prove it.

YOU DON’T GAIN INFLUENCE BY LOSING ELECTIONS

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Actually, you do.

No, you do not. Unbelievable. No, you do not gain influence by losing elections.

Because reason.com and other libertarian outfits went so far as not to simply vote third-party, but actually vote for Obama. “

Provide a link that confirms that. If they did it was incredibly stupid.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I see 2008 repeating itself right in front of my very eyes.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Me too. Allah was very objective in this analysis though. Plus he coined the term “unraveling of the sweater vest.”

Ed and AP are becoming very influential.

SparkPlug on March 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Okay, hypothetical situation here: Let’s say a third party candidate runs and gets elected president. He now has to work with a house and senate where both Democrats and Republicans outnumber him greatly. He will need to move to one side or the other in order to even accomplish any smidgen of what he wants to do. If not, he’ll be as useless as a bottle of viagra in a house full of lesbians.

It defeats the purpose of a third party. you might as well just stayed home on election day.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Ed and AP are miles above Ace and Erik Ericsonson

SparkPlug on March 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 10