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 6 7 8 9 10

You’re asking a man of principle, Patch. A man of principle, truly conservative principle, would have let the Democratic legislature own it.

That is very revealing. What you are saying is that the Governor should not care about the people of his state and should put “principle” ahead of their welfare. So if they end up with a socialist system where private health insurance is put out of business and the people have no alternative but the government, then he should just let the socialists have their way.

What you are really saying is that he should be so “conservative” that the Democrats get their way on everything. In other words, basically, just let the Democrats run everything without resisting. And that is the same theme that runs through much of this “conservative purist” meme. It always seems to boil down to making sure the Democrat gets elected and making sure the Democrat policy gets implemented. In other words, claiming to be a “conservative” yet really being an operative for the Democrats.

People are seeing through it.

But here’s the deal in Mass.: The people WANTED Romneycare! Actually, they wanted a single payer state system. Romney convinced them to tone it down and keep private insurance. He got half a loaf. The Democrats “owning” the earlier solution would not have worked to the detriment of the Democrats, in fact the people there would have loved it.

Romneycare is not unpopular in Mass even now. The people there LIKE their health care plan, it wasn’t “shoved down their throats” like Obamacare was the rest of the country. The people wanted it. There’s a huge difference.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:03 AM

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

I don’t care how difficult things were in Massachusetts. Romney signed the bill. He owns it. I don’t give a tinker’s dam how foolish you think I am; it’s beyond foolish to consider Romney conservative, especially since this picture doesn’t make Massachusetts look like very difficult terrain to me.

Whatever you think of me and my principles, as foolish as they are or as I am, Mitt Romney is not getting my primary vote, nor will I sit down and shut up like a good little Republican. That’s not how Gryph rolls.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Romneycare is not unpopular in Mass even now. The people there LIKE their health care plan, it wasn’t “shoved down their throats” like Obamacare was the rest of the country. The people wanted it. There’s a huge difference.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Romneycare doesn’t have to be popular. It’s just not conservative. Period.

Look, if a state legislature wanted to up the top state marginal tax rate to 80%, which is also within their rights, and a governor said “I’ll sign in a tax increase to 60% instead,” we wouldn’t patting the governor on the back and calling a 60% top marginal tax rate “conservative!” My god, Medicare is extremely popular with seniors at the federal level, and it is bankrupting America as surely as Romneycare will eventually bankrupt Massachusetts! When government is the problem, as it is in health care, the solution IS NOT MORE GOVERNMENT!

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Falling on my sword would be abject refusal to vote for Romney in the general election. I realize there are some ABR’s who are doing just that, but I am not among them. On the other hand, in alienating the swath of voters that he is, I can’t help but think Mitt is sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.

If it’s any comfort to you rombots, I do believe that Mitt would emerge the victor from a brokered convention if it came to it. I’d be shocked if he didn’t. But I have to wonder, if he has thing wrapped up already why is my support so damn important?

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Nominate a candidate in Delaware that is so “out there” that she loses the general election to a Democrat who was trailing the original “moderate” Republican. Result: Democrats gain a Senate seat.

Nominate a candidate in Nevada that nobody has ever heard of that goes on to lose the general election while her “establishment” primary opponent was leading Harry Reid in polling. Result: Democrats keep Harry Reid.

Nominate a candidate in New York that nobody has ever heard of who goes on to lose in the general election to a Democrat who had been trailing the “establishment” candidate by a mile. Result: Democrats pick up NY US House district 23 seat.

In each of those three cases the “establishment” candidate was pushed out for the “more conservative” candidate that allowed for a Democrat who had previously been trailing badly to win the election.

It is my opinion that many of these so-called “Conservatives” are really Democrat operatives whose mission is to simply nominate the worst possible candidate so the Democrats can win.

Santorum would be ripped to shreds and be a national laughingstock within an hour of getting the nomination. He has said so many off the wall (and downright scary things) in the past that if they were all compiled together in about 5 minutes or less of video would doom his chances of ever being elected dog catcher, let alone President.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Santorum would be ripped to shreds and be a national laughingstock within an hour of getting the nomination. He has said so many off the wall (and downright scary things) in the past that if they were all compiled together in about 5 minutes or less of video would doom his chances of ever being elected dog catcher, let alone President.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:13 AM

But I keep hearing that Mitt has it wrapped up. Does he need my primary vote, or doesn’t he?

This is what really galls me to no end as far as the rombots are concerned. Mitt has it wrapped up. It’s over. It’s mathematically impossible for anyone else to win. BUT…we are imperiling the very fabric of our nation or something if we don’t get behind Mitt and give him our unqualified support. And I’m foolish? And I’m illogical? I’m letting my emotions rule me? Right.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:16 AM

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

Oh! I never noticed that before. Thank you so much for telling me. (I’ve been lurking here for years and never knew that.) I’ll paste my quotes in on that thread, then.

Thank you redriding hood :-)

TigerPaw on March 24, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Oh, the primary is over. What I am saying is that if Santorum would have won it, he would have been ripped to shreds on national television. Suddenly video that has been sitting on youtube for months would be trotted out in prime time ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN even news broadcasts with Santorum saying the people have no right to an expectation of privacy and that there is no limit to federal power to intrude into the private lives of people (because you have no right to privacy) and a lot more.

He would be doomed the first day had he got the nomination.

They haven’t shown any of this on prime time television yet because they didn’t want to blow their chances of him being the nominee so they could set him up to be ripped to sheds.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Santorum is not a conservative when it comes to the constitution and the role of the federal government. He is “conservative” only in his religious values and even then, his seeming desire to shove his personal values down other people’s throats isn’t a particularly Republican value.

He’s a “conservative” statist who believes the federal government is the answer to everything.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM

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

I guess I’m the only one dumbstruck by your assessment of the supreme court. When there are 2 more supremes put in by 0b0z0 the constitution be damned. I just read your quote to my husband who happens to be an attorney and he is as puzzled as I am. I thought that was the purpose of the supremes to decide law according to weather it is constitutional or not. Of course they have drifted far afield, especially with roe v wade and many many more. Then we have ginsberg who doesn’t even like our constitution, but would prefer using another one. And you don’t think this is a HUGE problem?

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 12:24 AM

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

No Republican would ever get elected to anything in the Northeast if they espoused the kind of principles that are so popular in red states. Even Bush just barely won in two general elections for a reason. The truth is the very factors which make a candidate popular in a red state would make him or her a risky choice in the rest of America whereas some of our most effective politicians–Giuliani and Christie come to mind–are not as strong on the social issues as a red state politician might be but would do much better in general elections.

Having said this, there’s more than a subtle difference between a Giuliani and an Obama on an issue like abortion–just as there’s more than a subtle difference between Romney and Obama on health care. Abortions declined drastically in Rudy’s administration for a reason. He really meant it when he said he would do all he could to limit abortions and push for adoption as a choice. He also promised to nominate strict constructionists to the SC if elected.

Given this record, and given Giuliani’s strength in the swing states, who would argue that it would have been far wiser to nominate a fiscal Reaganite and conservative legal scholar like Giuliani instead of a Democrat-lite like McCain who was weak on fiscal issues and polled poorly against Obama in the important swing states? The evangelicals opposed Rudy. They ended up with someone far worse–the most pro-abortion president in our history. Now they’re repeating the same mistake by backing Santorum.

I would argue the same people who put social issues on the front burner are the people who in the past put little emphasis on fiscal conservatism, backing fiscal moderates like Bush and Huckabee and McCain and responding strongly to populist appeals. Exit polls in the primary states so far bear this out. The social conservatives back Santorum because he’s strong on family values and seem to not notice or care about his really poor record economically–just as they overlooked the weak fiscal records of other favorites. There’s no denying there’s a strong populist tendency in the South that goes way back. Northeast Republicans, on the other hand, have generally been strong fiscal conservatives. This is what characterizes the real split in the party imo–the fight between populism and fiscal conservatism–and it explains why Romney is doing better than Santorum this primary cycle at a time the country faces such obvious fiscal peril.

writeblock on March 24, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Actually I think Santorum and “Etch-A-Sketch” has been beneficial to Romney. He’s had to track Conservative and if he Romneys it back after winning the nomination he’s going to be abandoned by the base who will sit home. I might just get into the car and go to the polls on election day after all. He’s going to be contained. Or else he’s toast. Not wrapping up the nomination is like putting him in rehab.

Marcus on March 24, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Romneycare is not unpopular in Mass even now. The people there LIKE their health care plan, it wasn’t “shoved down their throats” like Obamacare was the rest of the country. The people wanted it. There’s a huge difference.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:03 AM

You make it sound like Romneycare was shoved down Romney’s throat. It wasn’t. Romney is PROUD of it. STILL. He has been given numerous opportunities to back down from it, and has been warned that it could cost him the nomination, and yet he has always stood up for Romneycare.

Think about that. What has Romney EVER stood up for with perfect consistency? Abortion? Nope. Gun rights? HA! Reagan conservatism? LOL.

No, the only thing, the ONLY thing Romney has been resolute on is Romneycare. So please, spare me how Romney was forced into it. Romneycare DEFINES Mitt Romney.

IcedTea on March 24, 2012 at 12:26 AM

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Look, all I care about it that you will vote for the nominee in the general election. I don’t care who it is, if someone else is picked besides Gov Romney, I will vote for them. We have to get this guy out of office.

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Look, all I care about it that you will vote for the nominee in the general election. I don’t care who it is, if someone else is picked besides Gov Romney, I will vote for them. We have to get this guy out of office.

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 12:28 AM

This is horrible, horrible advice.

If you’re in a car heading off into a ditch, don’t jerk the wheel without first considering where you’d be going. It is better to end up in a ditch, than to have a knee-jerk reaction and steer into an oncoming 18-wheeler.

There IS something worse than having Obama for a president. And that is electing a Republican Obama. A liberal, freedom-destroying Republican president can do far more damage than a Democrat one could.

IcedTea on March 24, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Santorum’s right.

If he weren’t, we wouldn’t have thread after thread arguing over who’s the best, most conservative GOP candidate, and Romney would have been winning by huge percentages all along the way.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 24, 2012 at 12:35 AM

There IS something worse than having Obama for a president. And that is electing a Republican Obama.

I think that is the most hilarious and at the same time desperate thing I have seen written on here. I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.

If there were a “Republican Obama” running, I might be tempted to agree with you, but there isn’t one.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:38 AM

If there were a “Republican Obama” running, I might be tempted to agree with you, but there isn’t one.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Oh really?

Romneycare = Obamacare = the beginning of the end of your freedom

If the government can mandate that you buy something, and Romney agrees that it can (at the state level, but it still equates to the government usurping our freedom), then that creates the slippery slope to the loss of all freedoms. If government can force you to buy health insurance, it can force you to do anything.

Own it. Romney has – he loves Romneycare, as it is the one thing, the only thing, he has ever stood by.

IcedTea on March 24, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Romneycare doesn’t have to be popular. It’s just not conservative. Period.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM

yeah, like you are the office of measurement and evaluation of conservatism and its degrees…

jimver on March 24, 2012 at 12:43 AM

I guess I’m the only one dumbstruck by your assessment of the supreme court. When there are 2 more supremes put in by 0b0z0 the constitution be damned. I just read your quote to my husband who happens to be an attorney and he is as puzzled as I am. I thought that was the purpose of the supremes to decide law according to weather it is constitutional or not. Of course they have drifted far afield, especially with roe v wade and many many more. Then we have ginsberg who doesn’t even like our constitution, but would prefer using another one. And you don’t think this is a HUGE problem?

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 12:24 AM

It’s absolutely a problem. But in order to solve the problem first, we have to accurately define it. Electing a president who will persist in allowing the Supreme Court to exercise unconstitutional powers in the name of “tradition” won’t do it.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Given this record, and given Giuliani’s strength in the swing states, who would argue that it would have been far wiser to nominate a fiscal Reaganite and conservative legal scholar like Giuliani instead of a Democrat-lite like McCain who was weak on fiscal issues and polled poorly against Obama in the important swing states? The evangelicals opposed Rudy. They ended up with someone far worse–the most pro-abortion president in our history. Now they’re repeating the same mistake by backing Santorum..

writeblock on March 24, 2012 at 12:24 AM

+1. Evangelicals need to remember that the three things a president can do on life & family issues are: 1) model morally right behavior in his personal life; 2) appointing federal judges who respect the rule of law and agree that a judge’s role is to say what the law is, and not what the judge wishes it to be; and 3) veto bills that undermine life and the traditional family.

Outlander on March 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Well, it doesn’t matter at this point anyway. Santorum is done, Newt isn’t going anywhere, and there’s just about no mathematical possibility that Romney won’t be the nominee.

And after Ricky blew up his campaign yesterday, it’s pretty much over. He was leading by 10 points in Louisiana yesterday, we’ll see how much he damaged himself in Louisiana tomorrow. His appearance in Cavuto today didn’t help his cause, either.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Iced tea:

I’ve posted this before and I’ll post it again, They are nothing alike! He is not 0b0z0 lite! Obviously you don’t care, you just keep saying the same mantra. So I guess I assume you are a dem, cause they never deviate from the white house talking points.

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

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM

yeah, like you are the office of measurement and evaluation of conservatism and its degrees…

jimver on March 24, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Well everyone defending Romneycare is telling me that it is conservative, and I don’t see you harping on them for their “measurement and evaluation of conservatism.”

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Look, all I care about it that you will vote for the nominee in the general election. I don’t care who it is, if someone else is picked besides Gov Romney, I will vote for them. We have to get this guy out of office.

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Well thanks for your permission to do what I was going to do anyway. Unfortunately, that’s not good enough for some here. If it were up to the rombots, I’d be singing Romney’s praise to the high heavens in an effort to get the ABR’s on board with unseating Obama, which would then and only then ensure the nation’s salvation.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Iced tea:

I’ve posted this before and I’ll post it again, They are nothing alike! He is not 0b0z0 lite! Obviously you don’t care, you just keep saying the same mantra. So I guess I assume you are a dem, cause they never deviate from the white house talking points.

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM

All you have done is confirmed you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Are you really trying to tell me Romneycare and Obamacare are nothing, nothing alike? Really?

I have never voted for a Democrat, not once, in my entire life. And if I wasn’t a Christian, I’d tell you what you could do with that smear.

He pays a tithing to his Church.
He has spent 25 years as a Sunday School teacher.
Does any of this sound like 0b0z0?

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Both attend racist “churches” that teach doctrines widely considered blasphemous to orthodox Christianity.

Come on, he has made himself and he knows how to help the economy.

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM

I lived under governor Romney, have you? I can tell you he didn’t do so hot for MA’s economy. There is a reason why Romney didn’t bother to run for reelection in MA.

But I can’t help but asking again, do you really see no similarities between Romneycare (Romney’s defining legislation) and Obamacare (Obama’s defining legislation)? Hint: Think healthcare mandate…

IcedTea on March 24, 2012 at 12:55 AM

OK, I give, what is ABR – oh duh anyone but, OK, I get it.

I’m not giving you permission to do anything. You have your free agency for a little while anyway. I don’t care if you sing his praises or not. I won’t sing santorum’s praises, but I will vote for him in a general election.
All this screaming at each other does nothing to advance the agenda.
I don’t like Mass health care either, but Romney has committed to get rid of 0b0z0′s care. He thinks the states should work out their own health care, and then we will have 50 laboratorys to judge and learn from. Why is that so bad?
If you read my screed above, Romney is a down the road American, his family values can’t be questioned. He has loved his wife for all the years they have been married and before that. He has a great family. He loves this country. If the health care thingy is the only thing you don’t like don’t move to Mass.
There is not a hint of scandal assocated with him.
Everyone has changed as they grow and learn and see what is working and what is not. Certainly Newt, Rick, Mitt, but maybe not Paul. Ok, Paul is a good man, I’m sure, but not a great candidate for Pres. Can you imagine up against 0b0z0?
Well, anyway as the night draws nigh (wow) can be agree to disagree nicely?

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Iced tea! Nasty. Glad you’re a Christian, I’m sure I would not be able to read your post.
BTW, you think his Church is racist? Do you know Gladys Night is a Mormon, along with many more whose name you might not know? I know, I know you are going to bring up the past. However, in the LDS Church there is no black or white church. They are all the same and meet together. Africa is one of the fastest growing missions in the church.
Anyway, it’s late and so to bed!

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 1:09 AM

I don’t like Mass health care either, but Romney has committed to get rid of 0b0z0′s care. He thinks the states should work out their own health care, and then we will have 50 laboratorys to judge and learn from. Why is that so bad?

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Because:
#1. Romney has committed himself to a lot of things, many of which are contradictory (he has been on both sides of numerous major issues)
and
#2. Romney has a great deal of pride in Romneycare, which is the basis for Obamacare
and
#3. It would take a great deal of effort to repeal Obamacare, and Romney hasn’t shown any willingness to “light his hair on fire” in order to please the conservatives.

I have to ask you, why in the world do you take Romney’s campaign promises seriously? He’s running for office, for Pete’s sake, what do you expect him to say?

He has loved his wife for all the years they have been married and before that. He has a great family.

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM

By all appearances, Obama has been a faithful husband and father, too.

IcedTea on March 24, 2012 at 1:09 AM

BTW, you think his Church is racist? Do you know Gladys Night is a Mormon, along with many more whose name you might not know? I know, I know you are going to bring up the past. However, in the LDS Church there is no black or white church. They are all the same and meet together. Africa is one of the fastest growing missions in the church.
Anyway, it’s late and so to bed!

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Oh, I dunno. Would you consider it racist if a certain church taught, as inspired by God, official doctrine, that blacks were born black as punishment for being morally inferior in their pre-incarnate existence? Call me craaaaaazy, but I’d consider that racist and repugnant.

Now realize, Romney attended said church while they were still officially racist, and not only attended, but was a missionary for said church. But nah, Romney has no explaining to do. It’s all OK now, since his church has had further (recent – as in 1978) revelations that set all this aside.

All of this is confirmed by your defense of Romney. What does a racist typically say when confronted with their racism? “Who me? I have lots of black friends…” “The Mormon church racist? They have lots of black members…” Yeah, that’s nice, now how about answering the doctrinal racism of that church?

IcedTea on March 24, 2012 at 1:15 AM

But to answer the oft-repeated charge of Romney supporters:

Yeah, I’m a bigot because I make an issue out of the racism of Romney’s church.

Just like I was a racist for pointing out the racism in Obama’s church back in 2008.

Maybe if y’all attack me by playing the race/bigot card, I’ll be intimidated into being silent.

Nah – the truth is the truth, and the truth stands clear from error. So call me what you like, the truth will win out.

IcedTea on March 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM

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.

So, you are saying that When Rubio said that America has two equally legitimate paths it can take. One being the direction Democrats want to take us, and one where the Republicans lie to us every chance they get and say they want to take us. He was legitimizing the Democrats path?

astonerii on March 24, 2012 at 1:27 AM

But to answer the oft-repeated charge of Romney supporters:

Yeah, I’m a bigot because I make an issue out of the racism of Romney’s church.

Just like I was a racist for pointing out the racism in Obama’s church back in 2008.

Maybe if y’all attack me by playing the race/bigot card, I’ll be intimidated into being silent.

Nah – the truth is the truth, and the truth stands clear from error. So call me what you like, the truth will win out.

IcedTea on March 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Dont be such a dramaqueen, Tea. Nah, Im sure the subject doesnt come up when Willard faces the first black potus in the general election.

Valkyriepundit on March 24, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Romneycare doesn’t have to be popular. It’s just not conservative. Period.

Look, if a state legislature wanted to up the top state marginal tax rate to 80%, which is also within their rights, and a governor said “I’ll sign in a tax increase to 60% instead,” we wouldn’t patting the governor on the back and calling a 60% top marginal tax rate “conservative!” My god, Medicare is extremely popular with seniors at the federal level, and it is bankrupting America as surely as Romneycare will eventually bankrupt Massachusetts! When government is the problem, as it is in health care, the solution IS NOT MORE GOVERNMENT!

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Excellent post! I could have made it myself. It is government interference in health care that has caused the problems.

It’s nice to see BuyDanish, who was complaining whining last night about people talking about her when she wasn’t on a thread, taking a pot shot at me in my absence. Self-centered and a hypocrite, too.

Excuse me, I have to polish up my ABO button. See you anon.

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM

Romneycare will eventually bankrupt Massachusetts!

Sure. And “Romneycare” wasn’t really Romney’s idea. It was an attempt to scale back what would have been a much WORSE program that would have bankrupted the state even sooner.

Had the state legislature not wanted to implement such a program, Romney wouldn’t have proposed one. Health care was a big issue already. It had been ever since “Hillarycare”.

You make it sound like Romney arrived and just out of the blue, for no reason, concocted Romneycare and shoved it down the throats of the people of Mass. That just isn’t what happened. Romneycare was a walking back to the extent that he could of a much worse plan.

You people are absolutely amazing in your cognitive dissonance.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 2:17 AM

The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney’s original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide “fair and reasonable” health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation. Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment. Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 2:23 AM

When the legislature has you by a 4:1 margin, overriding the veto of the Governor is no problem. Romney attempted to stop several parts of it, but there was nothing he could do. The legislature simply overrode every single one of his vetoes.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Using the logic I see here, there is no reason for a Republican to ever run for governor of a liberal state.

I am gaining a better understanding of the Santorum voter demographics.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Using the logic I see here, there is no reason for a Republican to ever run for governor of a liberal state.

I am gaining a better understanding of the Santorum voter demographics.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 2:25 AM

You never heard of Scott Walker?

Myron Falwell on March 24, 2012 at 2:34 AM

Romneycare doesn’t have to be popular. It’s just not conservative. Period.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Uhmm…conservatism is all about returning power to the states. I have no problem with states making choices, but I want a vote in the matter on larger legislation. Like the OP said, Romneycare was going to happen one way or another in Mass.

One point. If republicans plan a take down of Obamacare, they better damn well have an alternative method, where people can get healthcare. As for the 30 million deadbeats…let them eat cake.

rubberneck on March 24, 2012 at 2:36 AM

When the legislature has you by a 4:1 margin, overriding the veto of the Governor is no problem. Romney attempted to stop several parts of it, but there was nothing he could do. The legislature simply overrode every single one of his vetoes.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Which does nothing to explain why Romney won’t let a ray of daylight come between him and Romneycare, even though it would be to Romney’s advantage to distance himself from Romneycare.

But he just won’t do it. Why? Because, despite your propaganda, Romney wasn’t strong-armed into passing Romneycare by the liberal MA folks or the Democrat majorities. He was grinning with Teddy K as he signed it into law.

So keep trying to rationalize your support of Romney, and Romney’s support of Romneycare…

IcedTea on March 24, 2012 at 2:37 AM

One point. If republicans plan a take down of Obamacare, they better damn well have an alternative method, where people can get healthcare.

There is one. It’s called paying for it.

SilverDeth on March 24, 2012 at 3:14 AM

Fourth Largest Gun Maker In US Is Out Of Guns
by Tyler Durden

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fourth-largest-gun-maker-us-out-guns

In a somewhat sad and shocking slap of reality to the face of our ‘recovery’ and ‘freedom-based-debt-holdings’, today’s press-release-of-the-day (since we still haven’t heard from BATS) goes to Sturm, Ruger (the 4th largest gun-maker in the US) who after receiving orders for over one million units in Q1 has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders due to being out of stock.

Forget PCLN, CRM, NFLX, here’s where the real action is!

RGR is up a whopping 571% from Nov 07 while the S&P 500 is down 3%…

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/03/20120323_RGR%20vs%20SPX.png

SilverDeth on March 24, 2012 at 3:18 AM

Looks to me like Americans are waking up just fine. If that facts scares some liberals – regardless of their political affiliation, tough.

SilverDeth on March 24, 2012 at 3:19 AM

1.) Reagan changed his mind on an issue. Granted, it’s the one I hold most dear. Romney has changed his mind on almost every issue. Where Reagan talked about not backing down, Romney has spoken about how he won’t set his hair on fire. So do I believe Romney? No.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Reagan didn’t actually change his mind on abortion at all. He was opposed to it when he signed it.

This was a case where Reagan compromised on a bill he hated because he understood that the legislature had enough votes to override his veto. So he tried to mitigate the damage by agreeing to sign the bill if they would make certain changes.

Unfortunately, even with the changes, the bill had a provision for allowing abortion when the “mental health” of the mother required it. Now, you and I know by now that a clause like this is an escape hatch to allow unlimited abortion on demand, but we have the advantage of hindsight. Reagan thought he had done the best he could, but he never let himself get put in that position again.

And the only reason it gets brought up any more is that Romney supporters are desperate to make the case that Romney is not that unconservative, so they try to make Reagan look like he was just as bad.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 3:27 AM

And the only reason it gets brought up any more is that Romney supporters are desperate to make the case that Romney is not that unconservative, so they try to make Reagan look like he was just as bad.

That was a fine conversation to have six months ago but it’s done now. Romney will be the nominee. At this point Santorum isn’t going to stop him so the question becomes the rather lunatic notion that Romney is as liberal as Obama which is ridiculous on the face of it.

Now there are certain people who pretend to be “conservatives” who are basically just trying to get Obama re-elected. One of the arguments is “Romney is exactly the same as Obama so you might as well just vote for Obama”. Why? Why not just vote for Romney if they’re the same? If that’s the case, why wouldn’t ALL the Democrats vote for Romney? Because they aren’t the same, that’s why.

It is a last-ditch desperate meme from people who are upset that their candidate didn’t get the nomination so they want to sabotage the one who did, or they are really Democrats pretending to be “conservatives” through anonymous sockpuppet postings but are really just trying to get Obama re-elected.

Santorum is done. It’s over. Obama is your “enemy” not Romney.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 3:36 AM

Uhmm…conservatism is all about returning power to the states. I have no problem with states making choices, but I want a vote in the matter on larger legislation. Like the OP said, Romneycare was going to happen one way or another in Mass.

One point. If republicans plan a take down of Obamacare, they better damn well have an alternative method, where people can get healthcare. As for the 30 million deadbeats…let them eat cake.

rubberneck on March 24, 2012 at 2:36 AM

It’s called “paying for what you can afford.” It’s what conservatives expect people to do in every other industry. Health care should be no exception. Romney crossed the line from “insurance” into “welfare.”

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:48 AM

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

Giuliani never had a chance, whether evangelicals liked him or not. McCain hated evangelicals, and it probably cost him the election. It certainly handed the 2000 election to Bush.

The evangelicals you so despise were doing what we all do: trying to pick the best possible candidate, who they thought was McCain based on electability, even though McCain hated them.

Oh, and I was prepared to vote for Romney in 2008 because he kept making conservative sounds and I believed him at the time, and because Huckabee played up economic populism rather than sound economics. I don’t vote based on what religion you are. If Romney wasn’t a shifty liberal posing as a conservative, as has become all too plain lately, I would vote for him. But he started playing moderate instead of conservative, and that made me look closer at his record, and now I’m glad I never had the chance to vote for him in 2008. You can’t believe anything he says.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 3:49 AM

Santorum is done. It’s over. Obama is your “enemy” not Romney.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 3:36 AM

I’m really really sorry that rombots are so butthurt that Mitt isn’t getting my primary vote. But I’m still not voting for him in the primary. Period. It’s not because Romney is my “enemy,” as you so elegantly and wrongly put it. It’s because he’s an opportunistic Northeastern blue-blooded pseudoconservative whose entire campaign is predicated on his ability to redefine conservatism. I’ll vote against Obama when the time comes. For now, we’ll see if Mitt can get to that magic 1144.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:50 AM

You lost fair and square.

scotash on March 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Counting your chickens before they’re hatched.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 3:52 AM

You make it sound like Romney arrived and just out of the blue, for no reason, concocted Romneycare and shoved it down the throats of the people of Mass. That just isn’t what happened. Romneycare was a walking back to the extent that he could of a much worse plan.

You people are absolutely amazing in your cognitive dissonance.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 2:17 AM

He signed it with Ted Kennedy looking over his shoulder, and with the help of someone who also co-authored Obamacare (Gruber). If you think that’s all just a great big coincidence, I’ve got some land to sell you…

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:52 AM

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

That’s incoherent. No, it’s not the federal government’s business to tell states they can’t outlaw abortion. Because the Constitution says nothing about it! It also says nothing about sodomy, or pornography, or prostitution. Those things were left to the states.

As for mandating health insurance, there is not a single person that I’m aware of who claims that the Constitution prevents a state from mandating that everyone buy health insurance. In fact, there are a whole lot of really stupid and dictatorial things that the U. S. Constitution does not prohibit states from doing.

And that’s because the U. S. Constitution does not address states at all. All powers not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to either the states or to the people.

No, the problem with Romneycare is not that it was unconstitutional. The problem with it is that a government trampling your rights and acting like a dictator is bad even if it’s a state government, and therefore doesn’t directly violate the Constitution.

There are some provisions of the Constitution that do get applied to states, but only since they were “incorporated” by the 14th Amendment, and only the ones specifically named by the Constitution or Amendments. Healthcare was not one of them.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 4:10 AM

Romneycare will eventually bankrupt Massachusetts!

Sure. And “Romneycare” wasn’t really Romney’s idea. It was an attempt to scale back what would have been a much WORSE program that would have bankrupted the state even sooner.

Had the state legislature not wanted to implement such a program, Romney wouldn’t have proposed one. Health care was a big issue already. It had been ever since “Hillarycare”.

You make it sound like Romney arrived and just out of the blue, for no reason, concocted Romneycare and shoved it down the throats of the people of Mass. That just isn’t what happened. Romneycare was a walking back to the extent that he could of a much worse plan.

You people are absolutely amazing in your cognitive dissonance.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Here come the excuses. Since Romney created the commission that proposed Romneycare, and is still proud of Romneycare, and still defends Romneycare, the only possible conclusion is that Romney owns Romneycare.

And you’re just pretending otherwise.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 4:28 AM

And the only reason it gets brought up any more is that Romney supporters are desperate to make the case that Romney is not that unconservative, so they try to make Reagan look like he was just as bad.

That was a fine conversation to have six months ago but it’s done now. Romney will be the nominee. At this point Santorum isn’t going to stop him so the question becomes the rather lunatic notion that Romney is as liberal as Obama which is ridiculous on the face of it.

If that conversation was over, then we wouldn’t have Romney supporters still trying to make it today. They know people remember Reagan and have noticed that Romney is nothing like him.

And Romney is not the nominee. I realize you’re trying to convince people it’s all over, but it’s not.

Is Romney as liberal as Obama? No. But Obama isn’t asking to be the leader of the Republican party. Republicans will be fighting the progressive Democrat Obama. Would they fight the progressive Republican Romney? Or would his progressive ideas — many of which he shares with the Marxist currently in the White House — be adopted because the Republican House was trying not to fight a president from their own party?

Now there are certain people who pretend to be “conservatives” who are basically just trying to get Obama re-elected. One of the arguments is “Romney is exactly the same as Obama so you might as well just vote for Obama”. Why? Why not just vote for Romney if they’re the same? If that’s the case, why wouldn’t ALL the Democrats vote for Romney? Because they aren’t the same, that’s why.

It is a last-ditch desperate meme from people who are upset that their candidate didn’t get the nomination so they want to sabotage the one who did, or they are really Democrats pretending to be “conservatives” through anonymous sockpuppet postings but are really just trying to get Obama re-elected.

Santorum is done. It’s over. Obama is your “enemy” not Romney.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 3:36 AM

If it were over, it would be a waste of time. But there you are skipping over the inconvenient fact that Romney has not won the nomination, nor is it a sure thing that he will.

Neither is there a good reason to vote for a man to win the nomination that can’t win the general. Romney will lose in the general.

Romney is not inevitable.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 4:39 AM

If only Rick Santorum could display 1/100 the amount of class Mitt Romney did in 2008, when Romney dropped out of the race (rather than fight all the way to the convention), because he knew that prolonging the Republican in-fighting would be bad for the party and bad for the country.

VIDEO: Romney Endorses McCain in Feb. 2008, and Asks His 280 Delegates to Vote for McCain at the Convention

VIDEO: Romney Drops out of 2008 Race in Feb.

“Today we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat.

[...]

Now, if I fight on, in my campaign, all the way to the convention…I want you to know, I’ve given this a lot of thought — I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

-Mitt Romney, putting his country ahead of himself and dropping out of 2008 race

bluegill on March 24, 2012 at 4:51 AM

Rick Santorum sounds like a baby in this interview with Neil Cavuto.

bluegill on March 24, 2012 at 4:52 AM

If it were over, it would be a waste of time. But there you are skipping over the inconvenient fact that Romney has not won the nomination, nor is it a sure thing that he will.

Neither is there a good reason to vote for a man to win the nomination that can’t win the general. Romney will lose in the general.

Romney is not inevitable.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 4:39 AM

BUT in fact it IS over. Santorum has no path to the nomination nor even to a “brokered” convention. Freedom Works dropped their long opposition to Romney this week, saying that with a GOP Congress he could be “the most conservative President ever.” DeMint is praising him, Jeb Bush endorsed, he’s way ahead in Wisconsin polls and even 75% of the LA Republicans in the poll showing Santorum ahead by double digits in the state believe Romney will be the nominee (meaning they know Santorum is a safe protest vote with no chance of winning).

Romney has been consistently competitive with Obama in head-to-head polls for a year now, so your claim he will lose in the general is baseless. Typically the polling goes up once a nominee is chosen, too.

You don’t have to like reality, but that doesn’t change anything.

Adjoran on March 24, 2012 at 5:30 AM

I would’nt ever vote for Obama. Romney has even less chance because he wont repeal Obamacare. Hell with Snake oil Romney. He will never get my vote.

Gedge on March 24, 2012 at 6:14 AM

whatevervest

gatorboy on March 24, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Rick Stickaforkinmycampaignum

Roy Rogers on March 24, 2012 at 7:49 AM

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,

Sorry Rick…I don’t see a hatchet job. We know what you said… and the inference that was made is that Obama is no worse than Romney and re-electing Obama is less risky. Get over your madness and own up to the unfortunate message you conveyed. And get off the stump for crying out loud.

lynncgb on March 24, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Rick Stickaforkinmycampaignum

Roy Rogers on March 24, 2012 at 7:49 AM

lol

Priscilla on March 24, 2012 at 7:52 AM

From The Other McCain: Rick Santorum in Cavuto Interview: ‘This Is the Hatchet-Job of All Time’ (Video Added)

Personally, I think the strain is getting to Santorum, but I like reading The Other McCain. BTW, I’m pro-Newt, not Santorum. I’m more or less neutral on Santorum.

Gladtobehere on March 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Thanks Ricky for clearing things up. So this dust up is a “hatchet job” conspiracy by the Romney people to take your comments in context! Brilliant!!!! Very tricksy those Romney bazzilionairies!

If Ricky doesn’t get the nomination, I suggest that he at least get the “Whiner of the Year Award”!

essequam on March 24, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Anybody who says “We have to coalesce around the nominee” or “I won’t vote for Romney in the primary, but I will in the general” should just shut up, drink the damn kool-aid and relax right now.

Mr. Grump on March 24, 2012 at 8:18 AM

+1. Evangelicals need to remember that the three things a president can do on life & family issues are: 1) model morally right behavior in his personal life; 2) appointing federal judges who respect the rule of law and agree that a judge’s role is to say what the law is, and not what the judge wishes it to be; and 3) veto bills that undermine life and the traditional family.

Outlander on March 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM

This is absolutely true. And, on all of these criteria, ol’ RINO Romney would be pretty good. Certainly, his personal and family life appear to be above reproach – whatever one thinks of Mormons, they are family-oriented, give to charity (if mostly their church, which itself does a large amount of charitable work), and are not decadent in the sense of being personally tolerant of drug use, alcohol abuse, or promiscuity. On judges, he’s pledged to appoint strict constructionists. (In MA, he had to appoint from an approved list who were all rather liberal), and I think he would veto bills of the sort that would undermine life and the traditional family.

He’s a RINO in many ways, but he’s infinitely preferable to Obama, and much preferable to Santorum, who strikes me as very out of touch with American conservatism – Santorum’s views are more consonant with European “conservatives” in parties like the very Catholic Christian Socialists in Bavaria or the Christian Democrats in Italy.

CatoRenasci on March 24, 2012 at 8:34 AM

But I keep hearing that Mitt has it wrapped up. Does he need my primary vote, or doesn’t he?

This is what really galls me to no end as far as the rombots are concerned. Mitt has it wrapped up. It’s over. It’s mathematically impossible for anyone else to win. BUT…we are imperiling the very fabric of our nation or something if we don’t get behind Mitt and give him our unqualified support. And I’m foolish? And I’m illogical? I’m letting my emotions rule me? Right.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:16 AM

If Santorum had a shot at beating Obama, how come he couldn’t catch up to and surpass Romney in the primaries? After all, aren’t Romney and Obama the same?

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Here’s a question, why are all you people who hate Mitt so bad backing Santorum anyways? He supported Romney in 2008. Romneycare was on the books then. By proxy, that would make Santorum a supporter of Romneycare. And now, he’s opposed to Romney and Romneycare.

Doesn’t that make Santorum a flip-flopper?

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Nominate a candidate in Delaware that is so “out there” that she loses the general election to a Democrat who was trailing the original “moderate” Republican. Result: Democrats gain a Senate seat.

Nominate a candidate in Nevada that nobody has ever heard of that goes on to lose the general election while her “establishment” primary opponent was leading Harry Reid in polling. Result: Democrats keep Harry Reid.

I’m not sure what the results would have been had there not been a media frenzy in Delaware. If you can’t see the similarities between what happened to Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell and Newt Gingrich, you need to start paying attention.

Did the national media have one positive story about Christine O’Donnell? I’m not sure what sort of Senator she would have been because I never saw one story from the national media talking about issues, it was all about Bill Maher (name ring a bell) and his show 10 years (10 years, think about how much you changed in the 10 years since you were in high school).

Harry Reid had to pull out all the stops, in Nevada and, after watching what he’s been doing since his re-election, I doubt he could beat Sharon Angle a second time.

When you have the press in your hip-pocket, you have extra votes already. The Democrats know they can get away with saying anything and won’t be called on it. They can make a mistake, but God help you if you’re a Republican challenger and make a mistake. Just look at what we’re talking about here!!! Right now, the press in in a funk trying to figure out how they can get Obama re-elected. They succeeded in getting him elected, in 2008, and they want to do it again. They will do what it takes, although I don’t believe they’ll succeed this time because everyone knows what they did last time and no one believes them anymore.

bflat879 on March 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM

It’s actually comical watching the mittbots say that it wasn’t romneycare’s fault that he crafted Romneycare. Even though still today he loves it. The hacks use excuses like, well they had a democratic legislature etc.. Dimwits, you do realize in 2004, the democratic senate leader proposed to cover half the uninsured, Romneycare THE NEXT DAY, proposed covering everyone.

Once Romneycare proposed covering everyone, all the liberals and the crack pots went crazy. If romneycare went as far as the democratic senate leader romneycare would only be half as bad as it is, yet, he went FAR LEFT OF THE DEMOCRATS.

Mittbots, stop looking at 2006, look at what your socialist did in 2004!

Danielvito on March 24, 2012 at 9:45 AM

So Santorum has been mathematically eliminated unless he can pull off wins in California and New Jersey at the same time as winning every state he is within 5 points of in the polls and that will only give him a chance…..

He needs to learn from Romney 4 years ago on how to drop out with some class and to look to the future instead of battering himself to political death.

Zybalto on March 24, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Santorum is toast. It doesn’t matter how much he protests at this point. After he loses Louisiana, the calls for him to get out of the race will grow more intense.

Danielvito on March 24, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Romney was not my choice for the nomination. He is my choice to beat Obama. I agree Romnecare is a problem. I also don’t disbelieve that Romney will dismantle the federal Obamacare program if given the opportunity.

Romney’s argument for Romneycare will have to be federalism as Coulter has laid out. We all know that is not the best argument, but it’s what we have.

Santorum’s obsession with social issues makes him a loser in the general. There is a reason he had his ‘google problem’ before running. Santorum embodies everything that is bad about social conservatism. He’s a good guy, but he should not be president.

BryanS on March 24, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Here’s a question, why are all you people who hate Mitt so bad backing Santorum anyways? He supported Romney in 2008. Romneycare was on the books then. By proxy, that would make Santorum a supporter of Romneycare. And now, he’s opposed to Romney and Romneycare.

Doesn’t that make Santorum a flip-flopper?

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 9:10 AM

I heard someone ask him about that recently, and his rationale was that Romney supported mandates in 2009. Which, you know, he’d also supported in 2006 when Romneycare was passed and during the 2008 presidential race. So, Santorum’s justification is nonsensical.

I’ve asked before and gotten no response, but what was Santorum saying about Romneycare at any time before he entered the presidential race last year? I can’t find it anywhere. Surely, given his current stance, he must have been screaming from the rooftops about how bad it is, right?

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 9:57 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Danielvito on March 24, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Blah, blah, blah.

You lose. ‘Cuz you’re a loser.

Mittbot? More like MITTBOMB.

But hey, you keep venting your impotent rage. That’s right- there, there… cry it all out, little boy.

M240H on March 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Two things stand out for me:
Saint Rick has yet to learn the art of rhetoric and hypérbolé, and …
He’s right in the first inference.
Mittens is a wuss who hasn’t the testes to take on the hate-filled Leftists, and their LSM ‘pyschophants’, who strive to ruin this country.
Willard will fold like a cheap suit, melt like the black Shinola on his ever-changing temples, and go all Alfalfa with his Great Clips doo.

Gingrich / Perry 2012
§§§§§§§§§§ ~(Ä)~ §§§§§§§§§
GOP Attack Squad Since 1972

Karl Magnus on March 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM

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

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Yes.There is too much at stake. Swallow your pride and line up. The alternative is unthinkable–a secend Obama term with no prospect of reelection to constrain him.

BryanS on March 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM

M240H on March 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Back at the name calling again Mittbot, I though you were still at obozo’s sucking his wood. Don’t forget when your done with that Romneycare’s balls need to be washed, I know you’ll be coming!

Danielvito on March 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM

All of you who are screaming against Mitt are putting conservatism first, country second.

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Either that or, they are not who they are pretending to be.

lynncgb on March 24, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Thank you redriding hood :-)

TigerPaw on March 24, 2012 at 12:19 AM

You’re Welcome! Glad I could help.

redridinghood on March 24, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Danielvito on March 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Balls, wood, yeah, got it. Clever. What’s it like to always lose?

M240H on March 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM

After Santorum’s melt-down on Neil Cavuto’s 4PM show on Fox News last night, I would have thought that it would have been mentioned in subsequent Fox News shows, especially the 6PM show. However, no mention of that, only Romney’s Etch-A-Sketch issue. Krauthammer has really been out-to-lunch on most political issues this year, wrong more often than right. The real harm that came from the Etch-A-Sketch issue was Santorums use of it and the multiple subsequent melt-downs that will end his campaign. This ended up as a positive for Romney and will have no impact on the general election. Santorum’s childish actions this week have proved that it is time to end this primary now, regardless of what happens in LA.

lhuffman34 on March 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I get the distinct impression that a number of the ABR crowd are Media Matters shills. They support Obama, so they just want to create havoc on this “conservative” website. The ABR mantra seems to be to throw the GOP and conservatives who disagree with them under a bus. Media matters is out to destroy conservatism and the GOP. It sounds to me like the ABR crowd and Media Matters have the same objective.

NuclearPhysicist on March 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I would’nt ever vote for Obama. Romney has even less chance because he wont repeal Obamacare. Hell with Snake oil Romney. He will never get my vote.

Gedge on March 24, 2012 at 6:14 AM

That makes no sense. Does that mean you won’t vote??? In this election, buddy, every vote AGAINST Obama counts. Don’t you get it???????????????????

chai on March 24, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Either that or, they are not who they are pretending to be.

lynncgb on March 24, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Or, perhaps, we actually researched his record.

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 12:16 AM

If Santorum had a shot at beating Obama, how come he couldn’t catch up to and surpass Romney in the primaries? After all, aren’t Romney and Obama the same?

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 9:06 AM

It’s absolutely a longshot. But that doesn’t change the fact that Mitt doesn’t have his 1144. If Mitt has this in the bag, if he’s already won, he doesn’t need my support. So I’d like to know what the rombots are so nervous about when I say that Mitt will probably get to 1144 and he’ll do it without my help.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM

After Rick’s melt down yesterday on Cavuto, the party’s over.

Roy Rogers on March 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM

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

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Yeah, cause conservatism never works./

Refreshing for you to imply that Mitt’s not really a conservative. I wish his supporters would just come out and say that.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Here’s a question, why are all you people who hate Mitt so bad backing Santorum anyways? He supported Romney in 2008. Romneycare was on the books then. By proxy, that would make Santorum a supporter of Romneycare. And now, he’s opposed to Romney and Romneycare.

Doesn’t that make Santorum a flip-flopper?

Pcoop on March 24, 2012 at 9:10 AM

This question has been asked and answered several times. I, too, supported Romney in 2008. A LOT has occurred since then–

1. Obamacare (modeled on Romneycare WITH Romney’s help).

2. I know a lot more about Romney’s record now than I did in 2008.

3. He was a NO SHOW during all the important fights being waged against this administration in 2009-2010 in regards to Obamacare and bailouts. I lost a LOT of respect for him because of that.

KickandSwimMom on March 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM

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.

Perfectly reasonable indeed:

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

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

Not quite enough? OK then! Let’s see how a RonMe win could affect 0bamacare:

Romneycare Becomes Obamacare, Then Coultercare

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

Yep! A vote for RonMe is DEFINITELY a vote FOR 0BAMACARE and a vote for a LIBERAL SUPREME COURT!

DannoJyd on March 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM

If the easiest way to defend Romney is to write his supporters off as closet Obama shills, y’all rombots got some major issues need dealin’ with.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM

M240H on March 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM

actually Mittbot, your backing the loser Romneycare and I’ll blame you specifically for 4 years if Obama gets re-elected.

You and your mittbot pals who spam this site are giving aid and comfort to Obama.

Romneycare HAS NO FREAKIN CHANCE! He’s is as empty a person as you!

Danielvito on March 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM

NuclearPhysicist on March 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Nah. No conspiracies. No cabals.

What you’re seeing is pure unalloyed fear. Both the loony left and the loony right are terrified by their arch nemesis, reason, in the form of Mitt Romney. All of the din and cry that you’re hearing from both is the sound of the fat lady finishing up her act.

I’m enjoying the show! I hope that you are too :-)

MJBrutus on March 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

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

DannoJyd on March 24, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I don’t think it is a media matters influence at all for ABRs. What is similar with some ABRs when referenced to our socialist friends on the left is the close mindedness in which they look at this election. Emotion rules the day for them- not logic- as displayed by Santorum himself. They need desperately to have Romneycare disqualify Rombo- or damage him irreparably.
Like a dishonest liberal, they refuse to look at the whole picture. They refuse to acknowledge that it is in the hands of SCOTUS. While they don’t allow Mittens to hav a 10 th amendment states rights issue, SCOTUS may very well say ObieCare will be the law of the land anyway. That’s what I call a game changer.
The process of this election has been to put anyone up against Romney and see how they fair. While santorum has done better than most challengers he is too weak to overtake romney. And Romneycare is not the reason why Santorum CAN’T win the nomination. Santorum has far less experience than his opponent and contraception and bedroom issues aside- Rick doesn’t offer much as a potential president.

FlaMurph on March 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

Just the same? I don’t think so!

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Yes.There is too much at stake. Swallow your pride and line up.
(snip)

BryanS on March 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Gee …
Where have I heard, er, read, that before? Stalin, Mao, Adolph, Benito, etc.
Like sheep to the slaughter.
No Thanks

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM

There is no doubt if Romney is the candidate I will be voting for him in November, but most probably a losing cause. At this point the only individual with a clear difference is Newt. Say what you will about him, but he can and would carry more independents than Romney.

DDay on March 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Nominate a candidate in New York that nobody has ever heard of who goes on to lose in the general election to a Democrat who had been trailing the “establishment” candidate by a mile. Result: Democrats pick up NY US House district 23 seat.

Santorum would be ripped to shreds and be a national laughingstock within an hour of getting the nomination. He has said so many off the wall (and downright scary things) in the past that if they were all compiled together in about 5 minutes or less of video would doom his chances of ever being elected dog catcher, let alone President.

crosspatch on March 24, 2012 at 12:13 AM

all the establishment candidates also went on to not only NOT endorsing the winners in the case of NY 23 she (and her union management husband) endorsed the Dem … she was pro obamacare … she was pro tax increase she was pro everything Obama wanted … yeah she was a big time Republican ….
the fact Newt supported her Killed Newt for me …. and I stopped writing checks to the GOP after they attacked the only conservative running …

if you think Santorum would get ripped up … wait till you see what Obama and company have planned for mittens ….
youtube is going to get a lot of play coming up ….

conservative tarheel on March 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Nah. No conspiracies. No cabals.

What you’re seeing is pure unalloyed fear. Both the loony left and the loony right are terrified by their arch nemesis, reason, in the form of Mitt Romney. All of the din and cry that you’re hearing from both is the sound of the fat lady finishing up her act.

I’m enjoying the show! I hope that you are too :-)

MJBrutus on March 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

There’s fear on all sides. Mitt Romney disgusts me like few politicians have in my lifetime, but I don’t fear him. He’ll probably win the nomination, he will do so without my help, and then I move on to the general election to vote for the not-Obama, whoever that happens to be. But I don’t fear him like some ABR’s do.

Conversely, it looks to me like some folks seek to help Romney by redefining conservatism. Those folks don’t do themselves or the country any kind of service either. If Romney has it wrapped up, why am I a bad person for refusing to support him? I may be foolish and irrational, I may even be putting principle above the future of my country(!) according to some of you, but honestly, who cares? Romney’s the nominee…right?

I don’t act out of fear. Disgust? Loathing? Yeah. But not fear.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9 10