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 5 6 7 8 9 10

Remember that when Obama’s a dictator and you start wishing that you had voted for Romney.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Obama’s not a dictator now?

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Santorum is could be an object of pity if he wasn’t so annoying. He should just slip quietly away and hope nobody notices.

captn2fat on March 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM

There have also been a small cadre of them here accusing southern evangelical voters of anti-Mormon bigotry, because they can’t stand the thought that the people of Louisiana might be smart enough to decide for themselves that they don’t want Romney.
JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:34 PM

You’re just making stuff up. There are a subset of evangelicals who won’t vote for a Mormon. Many of them live in the South. Those are indisputable facts. They have the right to vote for whom they want but to pretend they don’t exist and simply don’t like Romney because of policy positions or something is ignoring reality.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM

you’re not innocent either lady.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM

I have no idea what your talking about. However, I can honestly say that I have expressed my opinion on this site regarding why I do not support Romney this election cycle (I was a supporter of his in 2008). In expresssing my opinion, I have not demeaned others in the process. In fact, I have spent most of my time trying to correct fallacies told by others. I believe this site should be a place where we can all disagree–with integrity. There have been several posters here who do not play by those rules. Please don’t think I’m accusing you, I’m not.

KickandSwimMom on March 23, 2012 at 10:40 PM

There are a subset of evangelicals who won’t vote for a Mormon. Many of them live in the South. Those are indisputable facts. They have the right to vote for whom they want but to pretend they don’t exist and simply don’t like Romney because of policy positions or something is ignoring reality.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM

And don’t pretend that you won’t be howling that it’s the bigots who cost Romney the nomination if he doesn’t make it through a brokered convention.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM

However, the problem is actually the opposite – if you check, you’ll note that the only constant, angered “woe is the Republicans” complainers are almost invariably the most virulent anti-Romney types. You don’t have to go very far to confirm it – you see it on display just in this thread, correct?

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Sorry, but I think your perspective is somewhat skewed. Yes, there are those on this thread who refuse to vote for Romney, and are acting that way, but there are also those who are insulting them, telling them that they are stupid, moronic, unpatriotic, more loyal to their principles than their country, etc. The two factions seem to balance each other out, IMO.

It’s a blog. There’s all kinds of people here. Putting people in pigeon-holes is not usually a good practice.

I was attacked by some loser yesterday for criticizing Romneycare, with some of the worst vitriol I’ve seen in quite awhile. It all seems to be pretty equal on both sides, IMO. But YMMV…and I don’t find this discussion particularly interesting.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Nice creative re-editing of history. You’re supposed to wait till those of us who lived through that era die off before you start editing the narrative. Don’t worry though, after a few years of Romneycare Obamacare, most of us geezers will be quite dead, and you can go about altering history any way you’d like.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM

I’ve re-edited nothing. Dobson and his followers blocked Giuliani’s candidacy forcing an end-run around the early states–which was doomed to fail and never made sense. Yet Rudy was ahead of Obama in all the national polls and by double digits in the swing states with a vast untapped constituency in the NE and the central states, a lot of them Reagan democrats. When the economy went bust, Giuliani had exactly the right credentials to save America. But he never had a chance. The evangelicals had a hissy fit over Rudy which was reflected on most of the conservative blogs–just as they’re having one now over Romney. Same crowd, same objection–no northeastern politician need ever apply or be considered pure enough for these people–though both Rudy and Romney are fiscal conservatives with solid credentials as effective administrators. This same crowd casually discounts the fiscally moderate backgrounds of its own favorites–Huckabee’s back then (he was a big spending, high taxing, Democrat-lite governor), Santorum’s now.

writeblock on March 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM

We already have would-be dictators. They are the faceless bureaucracy that the liberals have been installing for the past fifty years. Obama may be the face, but when he’s gone, they will remain. Obama-lite will do nothing to restrain them; you need only look at his signature program: Romney-care. Romney is not the cure any more than bleeding was to remove the bad-humours.

FirelandsO3 on March 23, 2012 at 10:43 PM

You’re just making stuff up. There are a subset of evangelicals who won’t vote for a Mormon. Many of them live in the South. Those are indisputable facts. They have the right to vote for whom they want but to pretend they don’t exist and simply don’t like Romney because of policy positions or something is ignoring reality.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Making stuff up? No, that would be YOU.

I’m not pretending those people don’t exist. I dispute the idea that they are such a huge group of people that they could sway the election away from Romney. Do you make the claim that Romney is losing in Louisiana because of anti-Mormon bigotry? If so, please provide evidence of that, or take YOUR bigotry elsewhere.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

writeblock on March 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM

well said writeblock!

SauerKraut537 on March 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

writeblock on March 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM

well said writeblock!

SauerKraut537 on March 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

You fools wanna talk about hyperbole and conjecture? LOLOL

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 10:45 PM

And don’t pretend that you won’t be howling that it’s the bigots who cost Romney the nomination if he doesn’t make it through a brokered convention.
gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM

If they allow their religious prejudices to stand in the way of electing a Republican and think it’s preferable to have 5 more years of Obama because he’s not a Mormon, I’ll be stunned by their stupidity. Especially if abortion is way up at the top of their priorities list…

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:46 PM

anyone notice Rick is a crybaby jerk face?

DHChron on March 23, 2012 at 10:46 PM

If they allow their religious prejudices to stand in the way of electing a Republican and think it’s preferable to have 5 more years of Obama because he’s not a Mormon, I’ll be stunned by their stupidity. Especially if abortion is way up at the top of their priorities list…

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:46 PM

I’m not voting for him in the primary either. And it has precisely ZILCH to do with his religious persuasion. I’m hoping he does go down in flames in LA, but that’s because the guy is a fundamentally dishonest political hack-opportunist. I really couldn’t care less what individual voters are thinking when they pull the lever down there.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

However, the problem is actually the opposite – if you check, you’ll note that the only constant, angered “woe is the Republicans” complainers are almost invariably the most virulent anti-Romney types. You don’t have to go very far to confirm it – you see it on display just in this thread, correct?

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Sorry, but I think your perspective is somewhat skewed. Yes, there are those on this thread who refuse to vote for Romney, and are acting that way,
JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM

But you were complaining about the “doom and gloom”, end-of-America, end-of-the-world sayers. Again, just by going over this thread alone, you’ll find such to be overwhelmingly anti-Romney types. Is that not correct? (Although, certainly you’d have zero trouble finding it a constant M.O. & refrain in other threads – I’m just trying to save you time.)

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

If this isn’t a joke, then you need a valium real bad.

KickandSwimMom on March 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM

I don’t “need” a valium….and if I did – it would appear than Santorum has probably taken them all before he made his self-destructive remark.

What Rick said was not a joke – it was a really destructive error.

williamg on March 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

priceless :-) like you have principles, unless you call that your delusional obsessions/fixations…you are just a pathetic self-obsessed moby who trolls hot gas to get the attention that you wouldn’t otherwise get anywhere else…if your off springs are so good as you say they are, why do they keep you attention-starved like this?…

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Wait… am I an irrelevant outlier to be ignored, an insolent serf that needs to get in line and vote for the party apparatchik, or am I a liberal plant…

I am getting confused with all the false narratives you folks are trying to paint me with.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Since the race is over, and Santorum is just hanging around to drag down the nominee, Louisiana will be the last place to have some fun with Rick.

During his incoherent rambling victory speech, please will somebody put on a full body condom and dance in front of the podium to that Enigma song with the Gregorian chants?

EddieC on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 9:50 PM

I appreciate the sentiments but boomers aren’t all bad. It’s possible to provide a reasonable safety net if we cut down on nation-building our enemies but they won’t do that, either, and the whatever benefits we’ve accomplished from nation building will stand on their own, and if not it’s only because Bush and Obama used far too strict rules of engagement and we failed to defeat our enemies before we began to rebuild their nations.

The only way to have won the War on Terror, IMO, was if we had swept through the entire region including Pakistan and Iran, similar to WWII but different, defeating our enemies virtually everywhere until they no longer posed a threat. Stick with what we know historically works. But that would have entailed killing far more of our enemies than we did, so instead our PC elites decided they were going to sell-out the future of our nation and dash our own progeny’s aspirations against the rocks, burying them under trillions of debt rebuilding our enemies nations—and we can’t even quit when we’re tired of it without losing all of our gains because we never even bothered to defeat our enemies first.

The Republican Party; Romney, Santorum and Newt, would just have us keep draining away our future fighting our enemy the slow, expensive way that we can’t afford anymore… and the truth is that Ron Paul actually does make a lot of good points about foreign policy, while a lot of “mainstream” Republicans have made a lot of bad points, like McCain and Rubio supporting the Arab Spring and the campaign in Libya and supporting Obama on Egypt.

But not all baby boomers are the problem, a lot of them don’t even realize they are part of a demographic bubble and that there aren’t going to be enough people paying in to sustain the ever-expanding big-gov and in fact we must cut it way back if we’re going to pay them their entitlements. And if they want to spend trillions nation building and stuff, too, then we’re going to have to cut their entitlements way down.

I think it’s obvious that we’re going to have to cut more nation-building expenses, that don’t seem to have paid off anyway, than entitlement expenses. That’s democracy for you.

Republicans really need to nominate Ron Paul or somebody more like him than the others.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

However, the problem is actually the opposite – if you check, you’ll note that the only constant, angered “woe is the Republicans” complainers are almost invariably the most virulent anti-Romney types. You don’t have to go very far to confirm it – you see it on display just in this thread, correct?

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Oh bull. Look at the Santorum thread yesterday. Several Romney supporters equated Romney’s detractors to trailer trash and worse and that’s not the first time that’s happened here either.

Either we don’t matter at all because Romney is so super strong, or we are costing him the election. I’ve heard both from the Romney supporters. If Romney wins it was because those “bigots in the South” didn’t matter, but if Romney loses the election the whining about how we didn’t jump on board soon enough or cheer loud enough will start on election night. The hold-our-noses crowd will be at fault either way and it’s so obvious from the most blatant Romney cheer-squad folks that it’s funny.

BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

I never said you had to be HAPPY ABOUT IT! I never said you had a guy in this race. I did say you were complaining about being “crapped on” and you yourself threatened to go third party. So….what did I miss? I’ve said all along I’d vote for whoever the candidate is. My candidate was Romney last time around. I didn’t go around whining that I’d been “crapped on” and threaten to go third party because RINO maverick got the nod instead of the more conserative Romney. I voted for him in the primary and McCain in the general, and I did what I could to advocate for McCain/Palin.

The reason I assumed you hadn’t been voting for very long is because of your attitude. A perfect example? You’re upset by my statement there are more of me than you. That’s about statistical facts, and to call it “arrogant” is silly and…childish.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM

No, I didn’t threaten to go third party NOW. You misinterpreted what I said. I said that the only solution to my problem of being crapped on by people in the Republican Party MIGHT be to go third party. I meant that in the long term, not right this minute.

And then you affirmed that by crapping on me. And your
“statistical facts” are somewhat lacking because you don’t have a clue what all of my political positions are. You just ASSUMED that I’m to the right of you, and lorded it over me that you supposedly have more people who agree with you.

And no, I wasn’t upset by your statement. I was peeved by the ATTITUDE that you conveyed with it. “Oh, boo hoo!” Why didn’t you just say “We won! You lost! Nah nah nah nah nah nah! I wouldn’t do that to you if the candidate I supported got the nomination. You are an arrogant pain in the ass, and I’m through talking to you.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Making stuff up? No, that would be YOU.

I’m not pretending those people don’t exist. I dispute the idea that they are such a huge group of people that they could sway the election away from Romney. Do you make the claim that Romney is losing in Louisiana because of anti-Mormon bigotry? If so, please provide evidence of that, or take YOUR bigotry elsewhere.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

I never said any of those things. As for your last sentence, childish much? How am I a bigot for stating facts? The subset of voters who won’t vote for a Mormon have helped Santorum and Gingrich. Do you want to call me a “bigot” for stating that too? I have no idea who significant their numbers are. Hopefully not enough to hand the election to Obama.

BTW, Mormons are likely to vote for Romney in a primary, but in a general they’ll vote for whoever the nominee is. Sadly, I can’t say that’s true about this subset of voters you can’t deny exist.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

BTW, Mormons are likely to vote for Romney in a primary, but in a general they’ll vote for whoever the nominee is. Sadly, I can’t say that’s true about this subset of voters you can’t deny exist.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Again, since it seems to be going over the rombots’ heads, I am voting not-Obama in the general election.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Wait… am I an irrelevant outlier to be ignored, an insolent serf that needs to get in line and vote for the party apparatchik, or am I a liberal plant…

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

yes…

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM

It’s kind of funy to hear a candidate, Santorum in this instance, complain when an opponent makes political hay of a gaffe. Santorum, imho, is not ready for prime time – he’s too much of a whiner.

Sheerq on March 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Your constant equating of Romney to Obama is just a canard, plain and simple.

If you just sat down and actually looked at his record while Governor and what he tried to do and stopped wasting your time getting your talking points from places like MassResistance dedicated to bad mouthing Romney you might be rewarded with a bit more respect.

Instead, you and many others here continue to erect strawmen and fallacious characterizations and then burn them down and pat yourself on the back for how wittily you disembowled the “Mittbots” or Romney.

Your characterizations are just specious.

SauerKraut537 on March 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Remember that when Obama’s a dictator and you start wishing that you had voted for Romney.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

If Obama become a dictator then it’s time for people to move to the forth box that makes America so great.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

And then you affirmed that by crapping on me. And your
“statistical facts” are somewhat lacking because you don’t have a clue what all of my political positions are. You just ASSUMED that I’m to the right of you, and lorded it over me that you supposedly have more people who agree with you.

Waah waaah waaah.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Is it possible for you to comment without sounding like a crybaby? I ASSUMED there are more of me who will vote for a Romney and won’t ever go third party. That is an assumption based on actual evidence. IT’s not about them “agreeing with me” it’s about voting habits and third party movements. That is not “lording it over you”. Seriously, grow up.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I dispute the idea that they are such a huge group of people that they could sway the election away from Romney.
JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

I’m pretty aware of this issue and can tell you it’s a mainstream, sizable subset. e.g. the “Focus On the Family” mentality. It seems largely limited to the fundamentalist Christian community, which is no small potatoes number-wise. Even a once-frontrunner candidate – Perry – had a “pastor problem” with the issue of anti-Mormon bigotry.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

No, I didn’t threaten to go third party NOW. You misinterpreted what I said. I said that the only solution to my problem of being crapped on by people in the Republican Party MIGHT be to go third party. I meant that in the long term, not right this minute.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Long term as in 2016 if the GOP keeps pushing squishy middle-types.
A lot of us are there right now. One clothespin to hold our nose for Romney because Obama is just THAT bad and then we are done.

BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

“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,”

The spin that Santorum would prefer Obama came from between his own two lips, no matter how much he clarification he attempts and no matter how much screeching outrage he shows at people for not understanding what he meant instead of what he said. This is high irony, coming from a guy who is busily trying to spin Eric Fehrnstrom as saying somthing he clearly didn’t mean, and trying to spin Romney as Obama Lite when major differences between them are clear and obvious.

Confutus on March 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

But you were complaining about the “doom and gloom”, end-of-America, end-of-the-world sayers. Again, just by going over this thread alone, you’ll find such to be overwhelmingly anti-Romney types. Is that not correct? (Although, certainly you’d have zero trouble finding it a constant M.O. & refrain in other threads – I’m just trying to save you time.)

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Most of the doom and gloom naysayers that I’ve witnessed are the ABO folks. There are several I’ve responded to on this thread and on other threads the last couple of days.

I don’t know exactly what you’re trying to get me to “admit” to, but I’m not playing your game. Have a nice night.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Since no one has commented about my screed, I’ll post it again:

You know, how Romney and his supporters play the bigot card against Republicans not willing to vote for him. Or basically telling conservatives they’ll vote for him whether they like it or not. That sort of thing.

IcedTea on March 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Perhaps you don’t think we should be offended by all the things you say about Romney?

There is no way he is anything like 0boz0, but there is no use arguing with you because you won’t listen to reason.

Has no one heard that he took $1.00 a year for all four years he was gov?
He took nothing for the 4 years he saved (yes saved, I was there) the Olympics.
He has spent years serving his Church and the poor (I guess about 15).
He pays a tithing to his Church.
He has spent 25 years as a Sunday School teacher.
Does any of this sound like 0b0z0?
He donated the money his father left him to charity.
There is not a hint of scandal in his business dealings. You might not like that people were fired, but isn’t that what we want him to do with the bulging government largess?
Come on, he has made himself and he knows how to help the economy.
Please, please vote for whomever, but when it’s all over we must unite against 0b0z0.

Bambi on March 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Bambi on March 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Is it possible for you to comment without sounding like a crybaby? I ASSUMED there are more of me who will vote for a Romney and won’t ever go third party. That is an assumption based on actual evidence. IT’s not about them “agreeing with me” it’s about voting habits and third party movements. That is not “lording it over you”. Seriously, grow up.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I see. You made comments that made no sense, because you misinterpreted what I said, and somehow that’s my fault?

You need to grow up. You are way too full of yourself.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Again, since it seems to be going over the rombots’ heads, I am voting not-Obama in the general election.
gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Fine. I don’t recall including you in that subset we were talking about.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Bambi on March 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM

well said Bambi. Reasoned and Rational.

SauerKraut537 on March 23, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Your constant equating of Romney to Obama is just a canard, plain and simple.

Except that I have gone to great lengths to explain why I believe Romney does not deserve the nomination. To say that I have equated Mitt with Obama does no service whatsoever to your argument that they’re nothing alike.

If you just sat down and actually looked at his record while Governor and what he tried to do and stopped wasting your time getting your talking points from places like MassResistance dedicated to bad mouthing Romney you might be rewarded with a bit more respect.

What he tried to do is of little consequence to me. What he did was signed a sweeping health care reform bill with Teddy Kennedy smiling over his shoulder that served as a model for Gruber to co-author a strikingly similar bill for Obama. If you can somehow rationally argue that didn’t happen, go right ahead.

Instead, you and many others here continue to erect strawmen and fallacious characterizations and then burn them down and pat yourself on the back for how wittily you disembowled the “Mittbots” or Romney.

Your characterizations are just specious.

SauerKraut537 on March 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Straw men consist of making counter-arguments to nonexistent arguments. I think what you’re actually accusing me of is a “non-sequitur,” but I digress. Mitt Romney will probably get to 1144 before the convention. I’d be surprised if he didn’t, but he’ll do it without my support in any way shape or form. I’m hanging fire on the ABO outrage until after the convention.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:00 PM

wow – really sad to see what poor control Santorum has over his temper. I guess all the talk of him whining and complaining is based on reality.

gatorboy on March 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

I’m pretty aware of this issue and can tell you it’s a mainstream, sizable subset. e.g. the “Focus On the Family” mentality. It seems largely limited to the fundamentalist Christian community, which is no small potatoes number-wise. Even a once-frontrunner candidate – Perry – had a “pastor problem” with the issue of anti-Mormon bigotry.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I have to say I think the main problem is more a Romney-first, Mormonism-second type of issue. Not saying anti-Mormon bias doesn’t exist for some people. However, if say, Glenn Beck were running, I think some of the people that count Mormonism as a problem on Mitt Romney’s checklist would suddenly find it not mattering as much.

BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM

I see. You made comments that made no sense, because you misinterpreted what I said, and somehow that’s my fault?

You need to grow up. You are way too full of yourself.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM

My comments made perfect sense! Perhaps it’s your ability to convey your points which is the problem? Perhaps if you weren’t so emotional and whiny you’d do a better job. Now, what did I get wrong? I’m all ears.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

You’re just making stuff up. There are a subset of evangelicals who won’t vote for a Mormon. Many of them live in the South. Those are indisputable facts.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM

From Evangelical lips to my ears, folks. In plain English. “I will only vote for a ‘Christian’ for President…and Mormons are not Christians”.

And he wasn’t in the south or anywhere near it. And his church has 10,000 members.

Jaibones on March 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

The race is over. Time to recognize that. Santorum couldn’t win the nomination if he swept the remaining primaries. There’s not going to be a “brokered convention” this cycle (or probably any other under current rules).

Freedom Works dropped their anti-Romney position and in their statement said that with a GOP Congress he could be “the most conservative President ever.” Jim DeMint stopped short of outright endorsement, but was effusive in his praise. Jeb Bush signaled the end of doubt on the part of the “party establishment” that makes so many heads explode.

If your feelings are hurt, GET OVER IT. It’s too important to the country to defeat Obama and the Democrats this year – we may not have another chance to save ourselves from financial disaster.

Don’t like Romney? Join the club, but you can stand in line like everyone else. However, in a situation where what is needed is to cut hundreds of thousands of federal positions and reorganize whole departments to be more efficient with less money, we could do worse than a guy with his background.

Adjoran on March 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I am getting confused with all the false narratives you folks are trying to paint me with.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

you are confused, period. the narratives of whatever sort obfuscate you even further…

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

You know, how Romney and his supporters play the bigot card against Republicans not willing to vote for him. Or basically telling conservatives they’ll vote for him whether they like it or not. That sort of thing.

IcedTea on March 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM

It’s funny IcedTea. I seriously doubt that every Romney supporter has done this so don’t lump them all together so brazenly. Secondly, it’s a fact that several tens of thousands of voters USED Romney’s Mormonism as one of the many excuses for why they wouldn’t vote for him. It may not have been their number 1 reason, bet it was for some though, but use it as an excuse they likely did.

SauerKraut537 on March 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

I never said any of those things. As for your last sentence, childish much? How am I a bigot for stating facts? The subset of voters who won’t vote for a Mormon have helped Santorum and Gingrich. Do you want to call me a “bigot” for stating that too? I have no idea who significant their numbers are. Hopefully not enough to hand the election to Obama.

BTW, Mormons are likely to vote for Romney in a primary, but in a general they’ll vote for whoever the nominee is. Sadly, I can’t say that’s true about this subset of voters you can’t deny exist.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Why do you always assume that people are directly referring to things that YOU personally have said. I didn’t say you said any of those things. I was talking about claims that other people have made. Not just you. Why is everything always about you? Why do you always feel that people are attacking YOU?

I said IF you are making that claim without evidence, then it would be bigotry. Are you lacking in reading comprehension, or are you just flailing around to find things to get outraged about?

Good night. I’m wasting my time.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM

They weren’t ready for a pro-choicer–but strict constructionist–like Rudy or a Mormon like Romney

writeblock on March 23, 2012 at 10:06 PM

And who can blame them, both of those candidates, especially Rudy, are terrible on the 2nd amendment. It’s laughable to think either one of them could ever be the nominee of the Republican Party. You’re wrong that it’s only the social conservatives that are the problem, it’s also the big-government corporatists that like things like Romneycare and don’t have a problem violating the Constitution on issues such as the individual mandate, (forcing citizens to buy products from the governments corporate cronies), or the 2nd amendment, or the expansion of powers provided by the Patriot Act, and worse I think, the NDAA.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

The race is over.

Adjoran on March 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

The race is over if and when Romney has 1144. And not a moment before.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

But you were complaining about the “doom and gloom”, end-of-America, end-of-the-world sayers. Again, just by going over this thread alone, you’ll find such to be overwhelmingly anti-Romney types. Is that not correct? (Although, certainly you’d have zero trouble finding it a constant M.O. & refrain in other threads – I’m just trying to save you time.)

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Most of the doom and gloom naysayers that I’ve witnessed are the ABO folks.

Romney supporters are saying it’s the end of the world, doom & gloom if you vote for Romney instead of Obama? Sorry, but that just makes absolutely no sense at all.

There are several I’ve responded to on this thread and on other threads the last couple of days.
JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Even if that were so, it would illustrate and underline my point in that you had to go hunting for even just a few.
And, remember, the “doom & gloom” was your complaint, that it upset you. To be totally honest, there just are no bigger (wannabee) downers than the anti-Romney/anti-GOP nominee types. For them, it’s an unrelenting, bizarrely obsessive preoccupation.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Confucius say – when man called rick run for office, man lose

DHChron on March 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM

I have to say I think the main problem is more a Romney-first, Mormonism-second type of issue. Not saying anti-Mormon bias doesn’t exist for some people. However, if say, Glenn Beck were running, I think some of the people that count Mormonism as a problem on Mitt Romney’s checklist would suddenly find it not mattering as much.
BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Ironically, if Glenn Beck were to run I would be concerned about his religious leanings. I used to watch his show, er, religiously until he went full bore religious and that topic began to overwhelm everything else. At that point I began to tune him out. Although it’s not his Mormon faith per se that I found troubling, it was just his messianic approach. Romney is very different from Beck…

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM

If your feelings are hurt, GET OVER IT. It’s too important to the country to defeat Obama and the Democrats this year – we may not have another chance to save ourselves from financial disaster.

Don’t like Romney? Join the club, but you can stand in line like everyone else. However, in a situation where what is needed is to cut hundreds of thousands of federal positions and reorganize whole departments to be more efficient with less money, we could do worse than a guy with his background.

Adjoran on March 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Most of us ABR’s on here will be pulling the lever for him, don’t worry. Hope his money pit doesn’t run low in the next few months though. Having a good chunk of his proxies act like absolute a-holes all these months towards the other candidates and their supporters won’t get people to do much more than check the box come November.

BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:11 PM

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I think there are people on all sides that are acting out of fear. Legitimate fear. But I do think that’s a mistake, cause when you act out of fear you tend to make mistakes. Bad mistakes. I am not acting out of fear. I loath Barack Hussein Soetoro-Obama with every fiber of my mind, heart, and soul and I will do what I can to defeat him on the first Tuesday of November, but if he is re-elected, America was as good as over before he was elected the first time. I won’t shed a single tear.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM

/ Off Topic

As there is no current ‘Walking Dead’ thread for me to post this to.

I see a link at the top of Hot Air to this on Cracked: “Five reasons “The Walking Dead” has to get better

I just wanted to say I disagree with some of the criticisms on that page. Just about every TV show or movie with a death and mayhem theme has filler characters who serve as fodder. I disagreed with that writer’s views about Dale, Shane, and the farm.

I totally disagree with this statement:
“Besides, if the show still needs a moral center (it doesn’t)…”

Yes, it does. That is one of the major points of the show and why I find it interesting, the moral dilemmas it presents to the characters.

TigerPaw on March 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

It’s funny IcedTea. I seriously doubt that every Romney supporter has done this so don’t lump them all together so brazenly. Secondly, it’s a fact that several tens of thousands of voters USED Romney’s Mormonism as one of the many excuses for why they wouldn’t vote for him. It may not have been their number 1 reason, bet it was for some though, but use it as an excuse they likely did.

SauerKraut537 on March 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

I have not seen a single person harping on Willard Fillmoure Romneycare’s religion here. And if I had, I’d have been the first person in their face about it, the same way I was when Salamander was talking like an occutard over Bain capital against Willard.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

It’s a distinction without a difference. His “explanation” is that he’s been saying for weeks or months that we might as well re-elect Obama if we’re going to nominate Romney. When mildly rebuked today by Hugh Hewitt he blamed the news coverage on spin by Romney, which may be true, but he didn’t seem to get it when Hugh pointed out that when you spin the Etch-A-Sketch gaffe the way Santorum has been doing, you can’t be heard to cry ‘unfair’ when someone does the same thing to you. Santorum couldn’t see it. He’s moved into a cocoon where the world is being unfair to Rick and therefore denying freedom to us all.

Most Americans are more concerned about our national debt and sluggish economy than the social issues this election. I’m not happy with national policies on abortion and support for Planned Parenthood, but I don’t want the federal government outlawing abortion, because it’s not the federal government’s business. Still I can’t see Romney wanting to continue federal subsidies for Planned Parenthood or any other feminist causes or many conservative ones either. He’s for cutting back federal spending and that means cutting all kinds of sacred cows. At least that’s what I expect. It’s what I’d like to see. Wean Americans off of government support.

flataffect on March 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Why do you always assume that people are directly referring to things that YOU personally have said. I didn’t say you said any of those things. I was talking about claims that other people have made. Not just you. Why is everything always about you? Why do you always feel that people are attacking YOU?

I said IF you are making that claim without evidence, then it would be bigotry. Are you lacking in reading comprehension, or are you just flailing around to find things to get outraged about?

Good night. I’m wasting my time.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM

OMG. When, say, people like Bmore and cozmo show up here out of the blue and start hounding me about commenters I have nothing to do with, and lie about my interaction with said commenters, it’s about ME. I said nothing to you which should have indicated I felt you were attacking me. I responded directly to statements you made. Honestly, I have no idea what the rest of your comment is about. You’re not very good at articulating your points.

Good night.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM

And, remember, the “doom & gloom” was your complaint, that it upset you. To be totally honest, there just are no bigger (wannabee) downers than the anti-Romney/anti-GOP nominee types. For them, it’s an unrelenting, bizarrely obsessive preoccupation.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I’ll own up to being a downer. I thought and still think that Romney will lose to Obama. He is not a good candidate and not a good candidate especially in this climate. I hope and pray that I am wrong and you are right. Until then I’ll continue to Eeyore it up.

BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM

/ Off Topic
As there is no current ‘Walking Dead’ thread for me to post this to.
TigerPaw on March 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I imagine most of us feel like the walking dead after this primary season – so, no prob!
:D

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Most Americans are more concerned about our national debt and sluggish economy than the social issues this election. I’m not happy with national policies on abortion and support for Planned Parenthood, but I don’t want the federal government outlawing abortion, because it’s not the federal government’s business. Still I can’t see Romney wanting to continue federal subsidies for Planned Parenthood or any other feminist causes or many conservative ones either. He’s for cutting back federal spending and that means cutting all kinds of sacred cows. At least that’s what I expect. It’s what I’d like to see. Wean Americans off of government support.

flataffect on March 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

It’s not the federal government’s business to tell states they can’t outlaw abortion, either. Or sodomy. Or most other stuff. The folks who fear what Obama may do with Supreme Court nominations are wholly ignorant of the fact that the constitution does not vest the supreme court with authority to decide what is constitutional and what is not.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Until then I’ll continue to Eeyore it up.
BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Why? What end does it serve?

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Having a good chunk of his proxies act like absolute a-holes all these months towards the other candidates and their supporters won’t get people to do much more than check the box come November.

BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:11 PM

you just vote for him, we’ll take care to fill his coffers :-)…

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

The race is over if and when Romney has 1144. And not a moment before.
gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

This is cutting off your nose to spite your face. What is the point of Santorum and Newt staying in after the end of April? They can’t win, but they can very much weaken Romney by sucking his resources dry and seriously damage our ability to defeat Obama.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM

This is cutting off your nose to spite your face. What is the point of Santorum and Newt staying in after the end of April? They can’t win, but they can very much weaken Romney by sucking his resources dry and seriously damage our ability to defeat Obama.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM

First off, I’m all for weakening Romney. He doesn’t deserve the nomination and he should have to work for it every step of the way. He’s not even halfway to 1144, and I’m supposed to believe it’s as good as over? Bullshit!

Secondly, and on a more personal note, my state’s primary is not until June 5. I do kind of like the idea of mattering for a change, which we have not so much in the past.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

I’ll own up to being a downer. I thought and still think that Romney will lose to Obama. He is not a good candidate and not a good candidate especially in this climate. I hope and pray that I am wrong and you are right. Until then I’ll continue to Eeyore it up.

BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM

The best way to fight the tendency to be Eeyore is to speak positively about donating to Romney and the GOP, not say, “Oh well, I do hope he has some money left cause gosh it could be a problem and make it harder to win”.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:25 PM

First off, I’m all for weakening Romney. He doesn’t deserve the nomination and he should have to work for it every step of the way. He’s not even halfway to 1144, and I’m supposed to believe it’s as good as over? Bullshit!

Secondly, and on a more personal note, my state’s primary is not until June 5. I do kind of like the idea of mattering for a change, which we have not so much in the past.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

You’re seeking a Pyrrhic victory? Seriously, advocating weakening our nominee nuts. The others cannot win, so yeah, it’s as good as over.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:27 PM

It’s not the federal government’s business to tell states they can’t outlaw abortion, either. Or sodomy. Or most other stuff.
gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM

…so, states can ban sodomy but can’t mandate health insurance to get people to actually contribute to their healthcare costs…you make no sense…

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 11:30 PM

You’re seeking a Pyrrhic victory? Seriously, advocating weakening our nominee nuts. The others cannot win, so yeah, it’s as good as over.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:27 PM

I don’t care who can win. I will call Mitt the Republican nominee when he has 1144. And not a moment before. I think he’ll get there; you’re not wrong about that. But he’ll do it without my help. And if that bothers you, you’re free to take a long walk off a short cliff.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:30 PM

BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM

This is where I’m at too, so don’t feel too alone. “Sound and fury signifying nothing.” Just like 2008, a moderate-to-liberal RINO who will have to pick a conservative Veep candidate in order to get the conservatives in his party’s base to be able to pull the lever for him without upchucking. Will it work any better than it did 4 years ago? I’m not confident. Apparently, we’re going to have to keep playing this game and hope that the powers-that-be will go Fluke themselves when they come at us again in 2016 with the same formula.

Left Coast Right Mind on March 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

From Evangelical lips to my ears, folks. In plain English. “I will only vote for a ‘Christian’ for President…and Mormons are not Christians”.

And he wasn’t in the south or anywhere near it. And his church has 10,000 members.

Jaibones on March 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

If I’ve been following her thinking correctly, JannyMae may think what you said is BIGOTED or something. You’re just providing an excuse why people won’t vote for him!/

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Reading through the comments, its astounding how some conservatives mirror the progressives. Last election cycle, if some hillary supporters refused to support obama, they were denounced as racists. Obama supporters insisted that the primary race was already over and that some people were still supporting hillary because they were closet racists. This election cycle, its Romney. If you don’t support him, you must be an anti-mormon bigot. Really funny how history repeats itself.

tommy71 on March 23, 2012 at 11:32 PM

…so, states can ban sodomy but can’t mandate health insurance to get people to actually contribute to their healthcare costs…you make no sense…

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 11:30 PM

I never said they can’t mandate health insurance, Jimmy. THAT is a straw man. What I said was, Mitt’s health insruance mandate wasn’t conservative and that Mitt’s entire campaign is predicated on changing the definition of “conservatism.” States can do a lot of things that are piss-poor ideas, but Romney pretending that Romneycare was a good idea and somehow conservative to-boot is a slap in the face to those of us who know better.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

This is cutting off your nose to spite your face. What is the point of Santorum and Newt staying in after the end of April? They can’t win, but they can very much weaken Romney by sucking his resources dry and seriously damage our ability to defeat Obama.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Some call it weakening, others call it scaring him to the right.
I don’t want the Romney that thinks Obama is a nice man in over his head.

BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

There sure are a lot of angry people here on HA. That’s very sad. We need to stop the vitriol. It does the party’s chances in November no good. Santorum jumped the shark with his latest anti-Mitt rant. It may not be fair to judge him on this one mistake. But, that’s politics. It’s time for him to face reality and get behind Romney. This was a critical error at a crucial stage in the nomination process. He can’t undo the damage that has been done to his image. GOP voters of all stripes are now questioning his readiness to be President. He doesn’t look Presidential. He looks whiny and lacking in judgement right now. He is plummeting in the national polls. It’s time to close ranks. The nomination battle is over. I’m not saying that Santorum or Gingrich supporters need to change their allegiance to who they support in the remaining primaries. But, it is time to face reality. Romney is the man who will face Obama this November. So, our troops in the key battleground states need to close ranks and start planning how they can assist Romney in winning those states. Forget the polls. They are meaningless. History clearly shows us that Presidents like Obama who preside over a bad economy are usually defeated. The fake statistics won’t save him. People throughout America are living every day in the obamanomics nightmare economy. Many of those who voted for him last time will either abstain from voting for him or vote for change…they will vote for the other guy. They will vote for the new hope and change candidate, because the old one failed to bring hope or change that made their lives better. Obama is vulnerable and can be defeated by Romney, if he stays on message. All that will really matter to most Americans in November is finding a way out of the economic mess that exists today.

NuclearPhysicist on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 PM

The race is over if and when Romney has 1144. And not a moment before.
gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

This is cutting off your nose to spite your face. What is the point of Santorum and Newt staying in after the end of April? They can’t win, but they can very much weaken Romney by sucking his resources dry and seriously damage our ability to defeat Obama.
Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM

That is Santorum’s (at least) end game, attempting to take down the GOP nominee. So it makes perfect sense in that context. As we’ve seen with his latest antics, he has no interest in how the nominee fares against Obama. Especially given the fact that he’s offering up the notion that another 4 years of Obama would be a good thing.
Newt is irrelevant at this point, though he’s surprisingly not as ego-obsessed as Santorum. He knows you just don’t crap on your own party.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 PM

There sure are a lot of angry people here on HA. That’s very sad. We need to stop the vitriol. It does the party’s chances in November no good.

NuclearPhysicist on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 PM

“Civility” is for liberals and chumps. But I repeat myself.

/PBBBBBT

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM

That is Santorum’s (at least) end game, attempting to take down the GOP nominee. So it makes perfect sense in that context. As we’ve seen with his latest antics, he has no interest in how the nominee fares against Obama. Especially given the fact that he’s offering up the notion that another 4 years of Obama would be a good thing.
Newt is irrelevant at this point, though he’s surprisingly not as ego-obsessed as Santorum. He knows you just don’t crap on your own party.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Say it with me, kids!

Romney

isn’t

the

nominee

yet

!

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Fluke themselves when they come at us again in 2016 with the same formula.
Left Coast Right Mind on March 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Who’s “they”? One man, Mitt Romney, chose to run and spent years building up an organization and support. Anyone is free to do what he did. Newt could have done the same thing if he’d taken this seriously instead of deciding at the last minute to run (and immediately take off on a cruise).

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM

When you have stuff like this going on in the Southeast, it is very difficult to have a political discussion:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anti-mormon-pastor-admits-to-cnn-religion-should-trump-competence-in-elections/

Religion should trump politics? And that is exactly what we are seeing in that particular region.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 11:37 PM

When you have stuff like this going on in the Southeast, it is very difficult to have a political discussion:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anti-mormon-pastor-admits-to-cnn-religion-should-trump-competence-in-elections/

Religion should trump politics? And that is exactly what we are seeing in that particular region.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Yeah, that’s right. Cause we all know that the plural of “anecdote” is “data.”/

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

but Romney pretending that Romneycare was a good idea and somehow conservative to-boot is a slap in the face to those of us who know better.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

‘those of us who know better’ :-)…it must be free pot day in gryphonville :-)

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Off Topic

As there is no current ‘Walking Dead’ thread for me to post this to.

I see a link at the top of Hot Air to this on Cracked: “Five reasons “The Walking Dead” has to get better”

I just wanted to say I disagree with some of the criticisms on that page. Just about every TV show or movie with a death and mayhem theme has filler characters who serve as fodder. I disagreed with that writer’s views about Dale, Shane, and the farm.

I totally disagree with this statement:
“Besides, if the show still needs a moral center (it doesn’t)…”

Yes, it does. That is one of the major points of the show and why I find it interesting, the moral dilemmas it presents to the characters.

TigerPaw on March 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

If you go to the Headlines and click on the number to the right of the Headlines you will be able to post your comments. The number to the right is the amount of comments that have been posted from Hot Air commenters.

redridinghood on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Say it with me, gryphon: Neither was John McCain. You are letting grudges(?) emotions – something unfathomable – to guide your decisions. You’re free to do that but please don’t pretend there’s any logic to it.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM

but Romney pretending that Romneycare was a good idea and somehow conservative to-boot is a slap in the face to those of us who know better.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

‘those of us who know better’ :-)…it must be free pot day in gryphonville :-)

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Yup. I assert that Romney’s campaign depends on changing the very meaning of “conservative,” and all you can respond with is an ad hominem. At least you could have said “no it doesn’t.” And you didn’t even get that far. You kind of remind me of Nancy Pelosi’s answer when she was asked what the constitutional basis for Obamacare was.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Yeah, that’s right. Cause we all know that the plural of “anecdote” is “data.”/

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Exit polls are data. Lotsa clues in those polls.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Yup. I assert that Romney’s campaign depends on changing the very meaning of “conservative,” and all you can respond with is an ad hominem.
gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM

You know who’s changing the meaning of the word “conservative”? You and those “true cons” like you who are redefining it to mean something very far to the right, something which has never ever won a Presidential election. Every one of our candidates is conservative. It’s a matter of degrees and emphasis.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:44 PM

gryphon202, under the circumstances that Romney was presented with, what do you think his alternative was concerning Romneycare? Considering he was originally presented with a single payer state health care system and the opposition had a 4-1 majority in the legislature. What would you have done, considering there was no way for you to block it because a veto would be overridden by a large margin?

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM

The same people who believe that “it’s his turn” is as good a reason as any for someone to run for President.

If Romney goes on to become the nominee and loses in November, he’ll be back in 2016 because he will not have lost his place in line.

Left Coast Right Mind on March 23, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Secondly, and on a more personal note, my state’s primary is not until June 5. I do kind of like the idea of mattering for a change, which we have not so much in the past.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

that’s when California (my state) and NJ vote :-).so, you are waiting till then to see at least 200 votes going to Romney in a blink of an eye lol :)…and am not even counting the delegate votes he will get from smaller states (population-wise) that vote on 5 June too (NM, MO, and SD I believe)…well, what can I say, that’s some smart strategery on your part (to use a bushism :-) there :-)…

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 11:48 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Say it with me, gryphon: Neither was John McCain. You are letting grudges(?) emotions – something unfathomable – to guide your decisions. You’re free to do that but please don’t pretend there’s any logic to it.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Au contraire, my friend. I think I am one of the few here that is putting principle above personality. You are of course free to disagree, as always, but there will be consequences for Romney’s callous treatment of the conservative voting bloc. I have said time-and-again that I am willing to pull the lever for whoever the not-Obama ends up being, and honestly I think I deserve better than another four years of Obama, so self-interest is a sufficient reason for me. It’s not a sufficient reason for everyone.

I see some of Romney supporters act out of fear that Romney is the only man who can beat Obama, regardless of what Romney’s track record suggests he might actually do in office. I am not that guy.

I see some of Romney’s detractors so fearful of replacing Obama with a Northeastern blue-blood country club type, they would rather sit on their fingers and do nothing, taking the chance of letting others do the heavy lifting for them. I’m not that guy either.

Romney’s “conservatism” is a settled question: It doesn’t exist, because he’s not. To argue otherwise hinges on changing the definition of a concept that men far wiser than I labored for decades to engineer. And as far as I’m concerned, if it’s all wrapped up for Romney as the rombots want me to believe it is, he should do just fine in the primaries without my support. After all, I’ll vote for him in the general election anyway, right? WRONG. I’ll vote against Obama. And that’s as far as my support for Mitt Romney will go.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:51 PM

That is Santorum’s (at least) end game, attempting to take down the GOP nominee. So it makes perfect sense in that context…
whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Sure seems that way. To say I’m very disappointed in him (and Newt for his Bain attacks) is a huge understatement. I used to really like and admire both of them. I also loathe the games Palin has been playing to push for a brokered convention. Now the Palinistas will attack, but I don’t care because I have to sign off and won’t be back until Sunday nite at the earliest:)

Some call it weakening, others call it scaring him to the right.
I don’t want the Romney that thinks Obama is a nice man in over his head.
BakerAllie on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

I don’t think he believes the nice man part. But they don’t want the election to be like Bushhitler redux, and politically they must think it’s a way not to scare off “moderates” and the like.

Have a nice weekend Hot Airians…

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Its over. Its done. Finished. Romney has won. Santorum might do well in Louisiana, at least everyone is expecting him to win, but that’s pretty much the end of the road for him. I doubt he will still be in it come Pennsylvania, but he might.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM

gryphon202, under the circumstances that Romney was presented with, what do you think his alternative was concerning Romneycare? Considering he was originally presented with a single payer state health care system and the opposition had a 4-1 majority in the legislature. What would you have done, considering there was no way for you to block it because a veto would be overridden by a large margin?

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 11:46 PM

You’re asking a man of principle, Patch. A man of principle, truly conservative principle, would have let the Democratic legislature own it. He didn’t sign it under protest in the dark of night, for God’s sake. He signed it with Teddy Kennedy smiling over his shoulder and with the legislature’s Dem leadership all lined up for the photo op! I don’t care why he did it. I’m not psychoanalyzing it except to say it’s not conservative. Period. And he’s not getting my primary vote.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Its over. Its done. Finished. Romney has won. Santorum might do well in Louisiana, at least everyone is expecting him to win, but that’s pretty much the end of the road for him. I doubt he will still be in it come Pennsylvania, but he might.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM

*yawn*

Tell me that again when he has the requisite 1144.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:54 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Before I go. I don’t doubt you’re acting on “principle”! Ever hear of falling on your sword? As for my alleged “callousness”, backatcha, OBRs!

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Untill the severely conservative Romney reaches the required no. of delegates to win the nomination, it ain’t over.

tommy71 on March 23, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Yeah, that’s right. Cause we all know that the plural of “anecdote” is “data.”/

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

yeah, like you stating that Romneycare wasn’t a good idea in MA, is, I assume your idea of datum :), as opposed to the ‘anecdotal’ 62 percent of MA residents who support the law that Romney signed into law five years ago…I guess there’s a reason why ‘those of you who know better’ live all in gryphonville :-)…

jimver on March 23, 2012 at 11:58 PM

One more thing, Gryph – I hate to say it but I think a word which describes you is “foolish”. This is not a dictatorship, you’re not going to get everything you want. Mass in particular was a difficult terrain to operate from. To say it would have been better to let the Dem legislature run roughshod over the people of Mass is very cynical (and dare I say callous?).

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Before I go. I don’t doubt you’re acting on “principle”! Ever hear of falling on your sword? As for my alleged “callousness”, backatcha, OBRs!

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:54 PM

I didn’t call you callous. I called Mitt callous. And I can find scores of well-sourced articles in defense of that position just on HotAir. As for falling on my sword, you’re barking up the wrong tree with me, pal. I’m voting for the not-Obama in November, but I’m not sure there’s anything left of “America” worth saving as it is. In seven-and-a-half months we’ll find out.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Final goodnight!…

Buy Danish on March 24, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9 10