No, Senator Santorum, Obama and Romney aren’t the same

posted at 8:40 am on March 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As someone who supports Rick Santorum for President, and who will caucus tomorrow in the next phase of Minnesota’s political process as a delegate, I understand the need to replace Barack Obama in 2012 in order to right the American ship of state and address the serious problems that Obama has either created, amplified, or ignored over the last three years.  I do, however, wonder whether Senator Santorum understands that need.  Yesterday, as Allahpundit noted with excellent analysis, Santorum told a Louisiana audience that if Mitt Romney won the nomination, we’d be better off sticking with what we’ve already got:

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

Er, no, we wouldn’t be better off with Obama than with Romney, for many reasons.  Before we get to those reasons, let’s note that Newt Gingrich, at least, does get this right:

“I may have some very substantial disagreements with Gov. Romney. There is no doubt in my mind that if the choice was Gov. Romney or Barack Obama, we would have no choice,” Gingrich said. “The danger of Obama is so great that I would hope that every candidate running – Ron Paul, Gov. Romney and Sen. Santorum – that we would all agree that whoever becomes the Republican nominee, we have one common goal and that is to defeat Barack Obama.”

While Gingrich finds faults with his GOP rivals, he has told crowds throughout his campaign that any of the other candidates are superior to the current president.

It seems that Senator Santorum has forgotten the purpose of the Republican primary.  It’s to choose the most successful candidate to beat Obama in the general election.  It isn’t to test a few candidates to see whether the goal of beating Obama is worth the bother.

And why do we need to beat Obama?  The economic policies of this administration have been an utter disaster.  The Senate won’t pass any budgets, not even the President’s, while he’s in the Oval Office.  Energy prices are going through the roof thanks to the massive regulatory hurdles his administration has created to production and refining, especially on federal lands.  An ObamaCare repeal will only happen if Obama is no longer President, assuming that the Supreme Court doesn’t throw the whole law out this summer.

Most of all, a second Obama term would be infinitely worse than the first.  We have already had a taste of what this will be like over the last few months, as Obama unveiled his class-warfare core.  We’ve also seen Obama’s commitment to limited government as he has tried to manipulate the law to bypass Congress on policy, and openly bragged about it.   Imagine an Obama who no longer needed to worry about his next election, and what that Obama might do in office.

In fact, imagine how many Supreme Court openings there will be in the next term of office, and then tell me there’s no difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama being in the White House to make those appointments, Senator Santorum.

I will go to the caucuses tomorrow.  I expect Senator Santorum to have recovered his sense of reality and apologize for that statement by that time.  If not, I may end up arguing for another candidate when we meet to discuss the next phase at our Republican caucus.

Addendum: One last point.  People who enter primary contests should be prepared to support the eventual product of that primary and unite behind that candidate.  If a candidate can’t do that, he has no business asking his party for the nomination in a primary contest in the first place.  Santorum didn’t explicitly say he wouldn’t support Romney if Romney won, but that statement comes pretty close to the mark.

Update: Don’t forget why I endorsed Santorum in the first place when considering this piece.  I disagree with Santorum on some issues, notably DADT and a few others.  However, I thought he conducted himself with integrity during the campaign and stayed out of the immature (and worse) sniping in which Romney and Gingrich engaged.  I find this very, very disappointing, and potentially nullifying on those points.  I will, however, be open to whatever explanation Senator Santorum offers today.


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 3 4 5 6 7

Just to repeat, since this thread is so long.

IF Mitt can be trusted to really repeal Obamacare and NOT do a federal anything to replace it, AND seriously cut the budget AND pound Obama’s record in his face between now and November, I promise I won’t throw up when I vote for him. These 3 things are why I am SO reluctant that he could end up as our nominee.

karenhasfreedom on March 22, 2012 at 10:19 PM

That’s alot of “ifs.” That is the problem I still have with Romney.

I don’t think Romney will even repeal Obamacare; I think he will just nip around the edges and if by some miracle he does repeal it, he will certainly replace it with some federal thing.

He will not actually SERIOUSLY cut the budget any more than all the past Republican RINOS and squishes have done anything about spending in Congress these many decades.

And Romney has already indicated several times that he won’t be fighting Obama by playing the hardball that needs to be played, any more than McCain did. Plus voters will find him boring and too Wall St in an anti-Wall St. year and he is just not likable.

I think the only reason Romney has any chance of getting elected is if the electorate dislikes Obama even more and stays that way until November. But with Obama’s money and the press, I don’t trust the electorate and I don’t want to take any chances.

I am not confident Romney can win. And we can’t take any chances this year. Sure, I will swallow hard and vote for him. I will even put his bumper sticker on my car. My question is will the Independents and Reagan Dems like him enough over Obama to vote for him and will enough Christians and our base voters turn out for Romney.

I’m not there yet by a long shot. I say Santorum (and maybe even Newt, but probably not) should stay in.

This sums up why:

Brokered Convention! How much worse could it be????? Maybe we would get lucky!!

lisa fox on March 22, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I couldn’t agree more. I can think of several Republicans who would be as bad a candidate as Romney, but I can’t think of too many who would be worse.

And we could get lucky and get someone better. No matter when Republicans unite with our nominee, now or in August, the press and Obama will attack.

This keeps the Dems off their game for now and keeps the national subject on how bad Obama is, with all our candidates criticizing him as if it is an indisputable fact that Obama is a disaster. That sinks in with the electorate. Obama can’t really start his campaign until we decide our nominee.

And even if we don’t have a nominee until August, 2 months is a lifetime in politics. There will be enough Republican and Independent hate of Obama to rally the troops even at the last minute. After a week of licking our wounds, we will unite in enough time.

Still to early for me to get behind Romney. I am hoping for something more. Probably won’t happen, but until the fat lady sings, there is still a chance.

Especially this election cycle year when we’ve seen so many crazy things happen.

Plenty of time to unite when it is “definitely” Romney. Not when it is still “probably” Romney.

Elisa on March 23, 2012 at 11:19 AM

This just in from USA Today. It quotes Ed Morrissey….

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:15 AM

What was the title?

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Still didn’t answer my question, do you support Romneycare!!!

Let everyone know where your coming from!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Whether or not I or any other “Mittbot” supports Romneycare is irrelevant. This election is not, should not and can not be about Romneycare. It needs to be about Obama.

So why do you want Obama to get another four years?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

He didn’t say that! Sad that so many of you read Pravda and take it as the truth.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Yeah, you’re right. He didn’t say that, but Rick Santorum also didn’t say “Obama preferable to Romney.”

It’s sad that so many of you read a Drudge Report headline and take it as the truth.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

As someone who supports Rick Santorum for President, and who will caucus tomorrow in the next phase of Minnesota’s political process as a delegate

What on earth would Santorum have to do to lose your support? Obama is a fascist who hates and tramples on the United States Constitution and Santorum says that it is preferable that Obama remain in office to being replaced by a non-fascist who does not hate the United States Constitution. My God, what would it take?

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

And how will you spin it if Santorum is right?

ChuckTX on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

By the way, it was you mittbots that didn’t vote GOP in 2008 because Gov. palin was on the ticket, you voted for obama!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You are such the mind reader!

Wow, I’m a Mittbott and a Palin hater. Who’ed ah thunk it.

Just because I ain’t a Romney hatin’ nutball like you.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM

You could send that message in the direction of some of your fellow Mitt Romney shills too. Changer1701 comes to mind from a thread yesterday. Having the ability to ignore vitriolic rhetoric for 5 pages and then jumping in at the end because someone said something you didn’t personally approve of is a rare talent indeed.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You are making a monumental error here by assuming commenters read other comments.

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

Santorum is either a fascist himself and/or he is a mentally ill.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Two year anniversary of Obamacare today, I see Hoe Air and the mittbots aren’t discussing. I wonder if it has to do with Romneycare.

By the way, 60% of the population wants it repealed. Romneycare as usual says he wants to repeal it, BUT HE HAS NO CREDIBILITY, HE IS THE FATHER OF THAT MONSTROSITY!!!!!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:22 AM

What’s the point in winning when you have to sell your soul and all of your principles to do it?

/pass

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Who says you have to sell your soul?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

You could send that message in the direction of some of your fellow Mitt Romney shills too. Changer1701 comes to mind from a thread yesterday. Having the ability to ignore vitriolic rhetoric for 5 pages and then jumping in at the end because someone said something you didn’t personally approve of is a rare talent indeed.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You’ve got me confused with someone else you don’t know at all…

I’m an ABO “shill”, just like DeMint and a few other people that see the forest for the trees.

gaius on March 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Whether or not I or any other “Mittbot” supports Romneycare is irrelevant. This election is not, should not and can not be about Romneycare. It needs to be about Obama.

So why do you want Obama to get another four years?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Romneycare = Obamacare

This election is about Obamacare. That is why I won’t vote for the Democrat Obama OR the Republican Obama.

IcedTea on March 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

For all those that would rather sit this election out or vote for Obama-
There are major differences between Romney and Obama.
Under 4 more year of Obama:

There will be 4 more years of Eric Holder.
How many Red States will be sued? Will the states that require voter ID be next?
How many new czars will he appoint?
How many new Solyndra’s will the taxpayers fund?
How many Supreme Court Justices will he appoint?
What will happen to the Catholic Church, Catholic Universities, Catholic Charities, Catholic hospitals and other religious institutions?
How many new policies will be forced upon us?

WE CAN’T AFFORD TO RISK 4 MORE YEARS UNDER OBAMA.

redridinghood on March 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You are making a monumental error here by assuming commenters read other comments.

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

What does that mean?

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM

So I’m a nutball, I guess that makes you a piece of sh*t!

by the way you support romneycare, turd!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

And how will you spin it if Santorum is right?

ChuckTX on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

That Santorum said something really stupid that cost him the nomination and gave us the train wreck that is Romney?

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

It’s sad that so many of you read a Drudge Report headline and take it as the truth.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Straight from the horse’s mouth…

“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…”

Sounds like he is saying, we shouldn’t elect the etch a sketch candidate cause he’s only a little different. Am I missing something?

gaius on March 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

You could send that message in the direction of some of your fellow Mitt Romney shills too. Changer1701 comes to mind from a thread yesterday. Having the ability to ignore vitriolic rhetoric for 5 pages and then jumping in at the end because someone said something you didn’t personally approve of is a rare talent indeed.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You’ve got me confused with someone else you don’t know at all…

I’m an ABO “shill”, just like DeMint and a few other people that see the forest for the trees.

gaius on March 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Fine.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM

This is getting beyond embarrassing. You are still playing Ms. Prissy Crabapple giving out report cards on who plays well with others.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Unlike you mittbot’s, I only attack, when attacked. Then I unload!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Daniel, please. I get where you are coming from, but you are truly starting to sound like the anti-Romney bluegill. Tone it down, buddy!

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Yeah, you’re right. He didn’t say that, but Rick Santorum also didn’t say “Obama preferable to Romney.”

It’s sad that so many of you read a Drudge Report headline and take it as the truth.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I don’t need Matt Drudge to translate Santorum’s words for me! Do you think Ed Morrissey needs Drudge to understand Santorum’s words? How about Stephen Hayes? Newt Gingrich? Don Surber? Buehler?

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

It’s sad that so many of you read a Drudge Report headline and take it as the truth.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Straight from the horse’s mouth…

“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…”

Sounds like he is saying, we shouldn’t elect the etch a sketch candidate cause he’s only a little different. Am I missing something?

gaius on March 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

It also sounds like he thinks that its a greater risk to elect Romney than Obama. Your milage may vary…

gaius on March 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM

What does that mean?

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

That you need the Romney supplied secret decoder ring.

So I’m a nutball, I guess that makes you a piece of sh*t!

by the way you support romneycare, turd!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Ya’ know, forget setting you up with blue gills. You have very much in common with buymoredanishstuff, and she’s here. Y’all can pillow talk about Romney.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM

redridinghood on March 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

What in Romneycare’s background tells you he’ll be less liberal than Obama…

You do understand Obama modeled Obamacare after romneycare w/the help of romney’s advisors

You are aware that romneycare appointed two radical gay rights activist as judges in massachusetts

etc. etc.

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM

So after 10 posts you still won’t answer if you support Romneycare.

is it because you’ll admit your a sociolist!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM

So, that right there shows a clear distinction. And if nothing else, shows why it is ludicrous to say Romney is like Obama or Romney is Obama-lite.

milcus on March 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM

What you said also serves as a general commentary about the difference between any President’s first term, which is often framed in terms of how he can win reelection, and his second term, when all bets are off.
When was the last time any two-term President’s second term was better than his first? And, considering how disastrous Obama’s first term has been, what he’s capable of with another four years is unthinkable.

Right Mover on March 23, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Santorum lost my vote. His comment about how it may be better to reelect Obama sealed it. Santorum should be ashamed of himself for saying such a thing and refusing to go on Fox to clarify his remark.
Shame on Santorum!

jqc1970 on March 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

What does that mean?
hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

It means that you continue to criticize commenters (like me!) for not being blog nannnies and tsk-tsking other commenters day in and day out, when the fact is they may not have even seen those comments. Not that it’s our job anyway. If that’s what you want to do, feel free. But it is incredibly unfair for you to make demands that we all spend our time in this manner.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

This is getting beyond embarrassing. You are still playing Ms. Prissy Crabapple giving out report cards on who plays well with others.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM

it was a comment to someone else, commenting about the same thing. Sockboy.

But what’s really embarrassing is someone so pathetically desperate to get someone to notice a comment he makes that he needs multiple accounts and screen names to try.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

I hear you Bill, I hear you…

I Can’t Stand It Any More!
Bill Quick
March 23, 2012

http://www.dailypundit.com/2012/03/23/i-cant-stand-it-any-more/

Instapundit » Blog Archive » SANTORUM: Obama Is Preferable To Romney. No he’s not, and you just demonstrated that it’s time to …

SANTORUM: Obama Is Preferable To Romney. No he’s not, and you just demonstrated that it’s time to end your campaign. Either you’re an idiot, or you’ve cracked under the pressure. Either way, go home.

Even Glenn, one of the calmest bloggers around, can only take so much crap.

Man, what a sludge of a GOP primary. I had this feeling, more than a year ago, that it might well turn out like this. I liked Palin, but I was never sure she could cut it, and then she didn’t even try. Worse, she’s been playing coy all along, letting surrogates push her as a possibility at a brokered convention. Rick Perry turned into an amazing dud – how could a politician as unskilled in retail, public politics have managed to get elected as often as he did? Then, Cain. The less said there, the better. And Gingrich, who’s been more sinned against than sinner, victim of his own past and Romney’s oceans of money, which have helped keep Romney insulated from his past- dalthough that won’t help him when he finally goes up against Obama’s 3/4 billion war chest.

So now we come down to a socialist (lite) and a socon whackadoodle who’d rather talk about gays, abortion, and satan, and who lost his last election by eighteen points.

Ugh. Just ugh.

I can’t believe we still have seven more months of this crap to endure. Maybe I’ll take up dog and music blogging. Anything would be better than this. And you know the worst thing about all this?

This:

Known By Your Enemies – And Your Friends | Daily Pundit

“If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them,” he said while at Davos, Switzerland.The suggestion is that on economics, there is little to distinguish between the current occupant of the White House and Romney.

Yeah, that’s right. One way or another, apparently not much is going to change when this endless shitstory finally settles.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Why do you want Obama to get another four years?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

is it because you’ll admit your a sociolist!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Wow! that really came out of the blue. A socialist now.

I’m a Romney-bot
a turd
a piece of turd
and a socialist…all because you have no reading comprehension.

You have a problem, and its somebody else’s fault…yep, 0bama plant.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Whether or not I or any other “Mittbot” supports Romneycare is irrelevant. This election is not, should not and can not be about Romneycare. It needs to be about Obama.

So why do you want Obama to get another four years?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

See, that’s the thing some of you don’t appear to understand. Obamacare is one of THE BIGGEST threats to our economy. The cost of health insurance are already going up. Once Obamacare kicks in, completely, costs of health insurance are going to skyrocket, and employers are going to have to cut back on benefits drastically, if they can even afford to continue to provide health insurance benefits.

This election is about Obamacare, and Romneycare is a lead weight around Romney’s neck. We deny that reality at our own peril.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

It means that you continue to criticize commenters (like me!) for not being blog nannnies and tsk-tsking other commenters day in and day out, when the fact is they may not have even seen those comments. Not that it’s our job anyway. If that’s what you want to do, feel free. But it is incredibly unfair for you to make demands that we all spend our time in this manner.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

You’ve talked about the tone yourself. You rail o angryed and others. Did i miss a memo?

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Ya’ know, forget setting you up with blue gills. You have very much in common with buymoredanishstuff, and she’s here. Y’all can pillow talk about Romney.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Do you earn a living in an occupation where being a lying jackass is a job requirement? I ask because you’re very practiced at this technique.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM

What’s the point in winning when you have to sell your soul and all of your principles to do it?

/pass

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Accepting the reality that you can’t get everythign you waqnt whenever you want to get it is not selling your soul. It’s called facing reality.

And reality can be a bitch. So you got two choices, you can keep trudging ahead and work with what you got, or sit and pout like a little kid. You can clearly tell who’s willing to do by reading the posts on this site.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 11:35 AM

You’ve talked about the tone yourself. You rail o angryed and others. Did i miss a memo?
hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Yes, I do because Angryed addresses comments to me and I respond to those comments. See the difference?

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

Santorum is either a fascist himself and/or he is a mentally ill.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 11:22 AM

What the Hell good does that do?..

Santorum’s voters minus the die hards are hurt, confused, and angry, both at him for saying what he did, and the Mitt camp for being such unmitigated ajckasses about it. They are in a situation nobody should be in,

this is when you put unity over stupid poet tricks, and stop with the “I’m so proud o me” comments..

Talk to people like you can have an ounce of compassion, you should be asking, “come on, join us, it’s alright, we know how it feels to be betrayed like that.. Here, we’ll listen to your side, let you have a say, all you need is to join us, and we’ll work it out. Obama is the target, and nothing else is more important, not your pride, or our ego, we can be grown ups here..

Let’s do this together..

That, is what you me and the rest need to say..

Just piling on like a schoolyard thug and smirking accomplishes exactly zero.

Do you other Ronemy voters want to win or not?

Loose the high and mighty superiority complex and try being an America first, instead of whatever in the Hell you pray alligence too. It’s simply smart to enclude all the conservatives we can, I swallowed my pride to support Romney, as much as I have issues with him, time you stoped acting like you can win a general if everyone else stays home.

mark81150 on March 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Beck is a Mormon just saying.

95% of Mormons are voting Willard

liberal4life on March 23, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Beck is a Santorum supporter, and had him on his show this morning to help him cover his behind. I didn’t catch all of it, just the part where Rick doubled down on explaining why Romney is no different than Obama. Beck and his show buddies helped Santorum out with a little class warfare rhetoric, just in case the point hadn’t been made. Matter of fact, Beck and the boys did most of the talking, since they seem to be able to make Santorum’s points better than their candidate can.

Faux libertarian fraud Glenn Beck rode the small government wave when the Tea Party was riding high. It was good for ratings. But come the Republican primary, the social-con in him came bursting forth. He just can’t help himself. Didn’t he, or Hannity (Gingrich shill), or Levin, or Palin for that matter, learn anything from Oprah’s meltdown in 2008?

Rush is the only pundit that is going to come out of this undamaged – he hasn’t endorsed, he’s criticized and complimented all the candidates, and so his support for the eventual nominee will actually mean something. I think a lot of people are going to see their ratings/hits drop after the election.

Mr. Arkadin on March 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM

But it is incredibly unfair for you to make demands that we all spend our time in this manner.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I never demand anything. I’ll just say this. I understand you’re embarrassed at your outbursts yesterday, but I’ve never considered you vitriolic. I wish the tone were better here. We do try to have reasoned debate and then it falls apart with rank insults. Is that what you want here?

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

I don’t, but giving the nomination to romneycare will guarentee it. Their is a reason romneycare has never gotten more than 49% of the vote in a general election!

in a way, I’m trying to say the GOP establishment from themselves. But I starting to think they rather want to lose w/romneycare than win with a conservative.

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Who says you have to sell your soul?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I’d consider selling out my principles exactly that. I will stand on them, I will die with them, alone if I must. There are many things worse than death, and many more things far more important than living.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Do you earn a living in an occupation where being a lying jackass is a job requirement? I ask because you’re very practiced at this technique.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Nah, getting you nutballs to run around like chickens with their heads cut off is just a hobby. One that keeps y’all nutballs occupied so decent folks can carry on threads without the likes of y’all fouling it up.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Yes, I do because Angryed addresses comments to me and I respond to those comments. See the difference?

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

And others.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Man, I gotta start proof reading my posts,.. sigh.. wish I had a spell checker..

mark81150 on March 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

It baffles me that someone with the superior intelligence of Ed Morrissey can think that a statement like Santorum’s can be mitigated with an apology, to the point that Santorum is supportable as a candidate. I would think that even if this were the only misstatement Santorum had made, and he’s made many embarrassing statements by now.

Sowell Disciple on March 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Straight from the horse’s mouth…

“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…”

Sounds like he is saying, we shouldn’t elect the etch a sketch candidate cause he’s only a little different. Am I missing something?

gaius on March 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

That means “I prefer Obama to Romney in the general election?”

Or does it mean, “I’m more dissimilar to Obama than Romney, and you should vote for me in the primary?”

Tell you what. You decide which interpretation is closer to accuracy.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Fair enough. I think lots of people are doing just that this morning…

gaius on March 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Typical Mittbot, have you read what you wrote about me, nutjob, etc.

God, you hacks are hopeless. All I asked, was do you support romneycare and for whatever reason you can’t bring yourself to say you do!

You have the problem, you can’t even admit you support your guy’s biggest accomplishment in office!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

That means “I prefer Obama to Romney in the general election?”

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

It doesn’t matter what he meant. The narrative is out there and it hurts Santorum.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM

You have the problem, you can’t even admit you support your guy’s biggest accomplishment in office!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Honey, one of us has a problem, that’s for sure. You just pointed your finger in the wrong direction.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Once Obamacare kicks in, completely, costs of health insurance are going to skyrocket, and employers are going to have to cut back on benefits drastically, if they can even afford to continue to provide health insurance benefits.

And it will open new doors to other areas where the government can strictly dictate to us what we eat, what we drink, how we drive, where we drive, pretty much every area of our lives, all for “our own good.”

Right Mover on March 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Dan, Cozmo is anything but a shill. You’re barking up the wrong tree. He’s a pretty down the middle commenter here. And Cozmo can correct me if I’m wrong, but he’s been pretty much undecided since Governor Perry dropped out.

Take a breath.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Why Oromneycare is here to stay
By Michael Gene Hendrix:
Distinction Without A Difference

http://coldfury.com/2012/03/23/why-oromneycare-is-here-to-stay/

One more time: almost everybody is asking the wrong damned question.

In my mind, if you buy the progressive theory of the General Welfare clause (as not only Democrats but the vast majority of Republicans in government do), there are virtually no limits at all. That is why I thought that, rather than asking Mitt Romney and the other GOP candidates about the constitutionality of contraception bans that no one is actually seeking, it would have been worthwhile to ask these champions of limited government what, if any, limits there are on Congress’s power to tax and spend for the “general welfare.”

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, this was an open question until 1936. There were two schools of thought. Hamilton argued that the preamble’s reference to a power to tax to “provide for the…general Welfare of the United States” was a separate, substantive source of authority, empowering the government to tax for any purpose so long as it arguably benefited all Americans — i.e., it had to be “general,” not for the good of some at the expense of others. Madison countered that this would defeat the purpose of the rest of Sec. 8 — which, following the preamble, exactingly enumerates Congress’s powers. For Madison, the preamble simply made clear that Congress could tax and spend for the purpose of carrying out these limited grants of authority to regulate interstate commerce, establish Post Offices, establish lower federal courts, etc. Otherwise, the federal government could grow into an uncontrollable monstrosity that spends trillions more than the trillions it takes in in taxes. (Oh, right…).

I think Madison was correct, but the New Deal Supreme Court sided with Hamilton in United States v. Butler (1936) (more on this here). Alas, it appears commentators on the right have little stomach to revisit this conclusion because it would be tantamount to arguing that the welfare state is unconstitutional.

Another reason the abomination of government health care won’t be going anywhere:

There is no question that Obamacare can be undone. The American people want it undone. The only question is whether the Republican party, and the eventual Republican nominee whoever that may be, will show the necessary leadership and resolve to bring about the desired result. If Republicans want to repeal Obamacare as badly as President Obama wanted to pass it, Obamacare will be repealed.

Correct. Which is why we’re effing doomed. Anderson misses widely here, though:

If Obama gets sent packing in an election that’s largely focused on Obamacare, Democrats will lose their stomach for the fight.

Oh, really? Gee, how much inclination to give up did they evince when they were using every manipulative legislative trick in the book to pass the damned thing, against the clearly-expressed will of a majority of their subjects? Have we seen any evidence at all to support the mistaken assumption that they’ll lose their stomach for this or any other fight? Ever?

And how exactly do you conclude that this election will be largely focused on Oromneycare when both candidates are in favor of it, no matter what soothing lies one of them is telling now in order to get the GOP nomination–after which he will abandon not just this but many other of his “principles” to appeal to the “moderate” Left? More “ifs” and “buts”:

If the Court does not strike down the law and a Republican wins the White House, his first priority must be to take whatever actions necessary to repeal this law. It is disheartening to think of any other outcome.

It is that. But you better get used to the idea, missy, because despite all the wishful thinking out there, your worst-case scenario is all but assured. Meanwhile: assumptions, assumptions, everywhere assumptions:

Many conservatives are grumbling about the quality of the GOP presidential field. What we do know, however, is that any of these nominees will repeal Obamacare.

We “know” that, do we? HOW, pray tell? Because Romney says (for now) he will? The promise of a compromised hack like Romney is an awfully thin reed to hang your dreams of a return to Constitutional government from, but believe what you must to get you through your day, I guess. But maybe the most fanciful of these mistaken assumptions and false premises is this one:

Repealing Obamacare is necessary to preserve individual liberty, maintain limited government, improve health care, and restore economic growth.

In order to “maintain” and “preserve” anything, they have to still exist in the first place. Individual liberty and limited government exist only in the breach rather than the main in America as currently constituted; like economic growth, they will have to be restored first. The apparent GOP nominee is not going to do that. His very appeal to those who support him is that he isn’t a revolutionary, but a cautious manager; he says so himself, and that’s exactly what he’ll govern as in the unlikely event he somehow gets himself elected. Restoration is going to require some overturning first, and that requires a revolutionary, a firebrand, a visionary. That ain’t Mittens, folks, as even his own supporters admit. I’ll let Powers sum up:

Today marks two years since Obama signed the ironically-titled “Affordable Care Act,” the law that was born breach and without an epidural for its host — American taxpayers present and future. Joe Biden called it a “big f-in deal,” and he was correct — 60% of doctors believe the law will have a negative impact on patient care. But what do they know? They’re only doctors — not career politicians with law degrees.

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi said the law “honors the vows of the Founders.” Unless the Founders made a vow to f*#k the country, she’s wrong. Pelosi then went on to argue for the constitutionality of the law by quoting from the Declaration of Independence. Go figure. Stretch also said that Obamacare will aide Americans in their “pursuit of happiness,” a quest that only another government mandate can help fulfill. I mean, what better way for the government to facilitate happiness than by fining people who are, by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s definition, unhappy? Sometimes people just need that extra push toward happiness, and if they’re flat broke by the time they get there, so be it.

As of a few days ago, 56% of Americans favored repeal of the law, and that’s with all the “goodies” (consumer protections that were supposed to be “popular”) front-loaded, and the expenses back-burnered. What we’re seeing now is the good stuff, and the majority of people still hate it. Hang on, because it only gets worse.

Will Obamacare live to see a third birthday?

It will live precisely as long as our current form of extra- (more accurately, contra-) Constitutional government does. Not one moment less, but, thankfully, not one moment more, either.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM

It doesn’t matter what he meant. The narrative is out there and it hurts Santorum.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Exactly. Unforced error. Language like “we might as well stay with what we have” is unacceptable in my opinion.

gaius on March 23, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I don’t need Matt Drudge to translate Santorum’s words for me! Do you think Ed Morrissey needs Drudge to understand Santorum’s words? How about Stephen Hayes? Newt Gingrich? Don Surber? Buehler?

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

I don’t need ANYBODY to translate Santorum’s words for me. I can read them and comprehend them all by myself. Lots of Romney shills just like you were posting that Drudge headline last night as if were gospel truth. Please, don’t insult my intelligence with your inability to see reality.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I’d consider selling out my principles exactly that. I will stand on them, I will die with them, alone if I must. There are many things worse than death, and many more things far more important than living.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I see. Your principles are all about you. You would rather feel all righteous and indignant and holier than thou while you sit at home fuming that your guy didn’t get the nomination than go vote to stop the guy who will do the most damage to the principles you claim to hold more dear than life itself.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

So madame, do you support romneycare!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

But what’s really embarrassing is someone so pathetically desperate to get someone to notice a comment he makes that he needs multiple accounts and screen names to try.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

You are getting paranoid, Ms. Prissy Crabapple.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I came in the last open registration,.. and as greatful as I am to be finally given a chance to participate, if Ed decided to just banish all of us noobs, I’d understand. The tone has gotten lower from what I’ve read the last couple of years..

I can admit, I got baited and typed things I regret,.. I’ve learned from that and am trying to keep my ego in check. We have to do better, screaming at each other, calling each crazy doesn’t help any of the candidates. It just makes folks bitter, and tune out. That may suit a trolls purpose, but ours?

Please, can’t we stop with the insults, on all sides?

mark81150 on March 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM

but he’s been pretty much undecided since Governor Perry dropped out.

Take a breath.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM

I wasn’t even that stuck on Perry. I have voted for more conservative opponents in the primaries for governor.

But geeze rotorhead, in this economy fun is where you find it. And there are lots of nutballs here to toy with since the last two open registrations.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

“I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be. Doesn’t matter to me. My campaign doesn’t hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates. It’s something more foundational that’s going on.”

antisense on March 23, 2012 at 10:53 AM

What does that have to do with socons here being despised by some because we apparently can’t be fiscal cons at the same time? As to the quote above, there is something more foundational going on. Does that mean I can’t be a fiscal conservative?

Lightswitch on March 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Impressions.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

You are also getting to be quite the drama queen, Ms. Prissy Crabapple.

VorDaj on March 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I never demand anything. I’ll just say this. I understand you’re embarrassed at your outbursts yesterday, but I’ve never considered you vitriolic. I wish the tone were better here. We do try to have reasoned debate and then it falls apart with rank insults. Is that what you want here?
hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM

You may not “demand” it, but you posted and reposted a commenters comment the other day asking everyone to be suitably outraged. As for yesterday, I’m not embarrassed in the least. Bmore misrepresented my relationship with another commenter, offered a non apology apology (gee, what a great way to apologize – to call the person “lazy”!), refused to read my response, and tag teamed with Cozmo who repeatedly lied about me and continues to do so today. So yeah, the tone sucks because this place has been taken over by swarms of bratty children.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Yes, I do because Angryed addresses comments to me and I respond to those comments. See the difference?

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

Yeah, the difference is pretty obvious. It’s always all about YOU.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM

All the etcha sketch Santorum supporters (yeah right) that are bolting him because of such a HUGE blunder show how easily swayed and etcha sketched some posters on here can be. Gives one whiplash. Sorry, I’m sticking with my man, Santorum, and his principles – he admits when he’s wrong but doesn’t bend with the wind or change his views even when dumped on. I admire that more than a moneyed bully.

mozalf on March 23, 2012 at 11:52 AM

But geeze rotorhead, in this economy fun is where you find it. And there are lots of nutballs here to toy with since the last two open registrations.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Rotorhead? To think I held back a comment that I was going to send tissue after Governor Perry dropped out.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:52 AM

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

So madame, do you support romneycare!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

What do I care what you libtards do in yankeeland. I haven’t even thought about Massachusetts since I turned down a neat job there because I didn’t want to spend a winter in Boston.

We don’t do socialism in Texas.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:54 AM

For those of you who complain that the Republican party is getting too liberal, you just have no historical perspective. Over the years there have been many Republican senators who are as liberal as the three in New England. I have voted in all the presidential elections for the last fifty-two years as a Republican. I voted once with enthusiasm for Goldwater as well as taking a week off from work to campaign for him. I was pleased to vote for Reagan twice and Eisenhower the second time, he wasn’t as bad as I had thought. Other than that I have held my nose and pulled the lever. Republicans have always been wishy washy but better than the alternative.

burt on March 23, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Do you other Ronemy voters want to win or not?

mark81150 on March 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Obviously they never have.

Myron Falwell on March 23, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Rotorhead? To think I held back a comment that I was going to send tissue after Governor Perry dropped out.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:52 AM

You try to screw up my fun and think I won’t go for at least a little snark?

At least you didn’t bite. ALT bites.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM

It doesn’t matter what he meant. The narrative is out there and it hurts Santorum.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Exactly. It SHOULD matter what he meant, but it doesn’t. People are taking the opportunity to throw him under the bus, and he deserves it, because he was stupid to say it.

The thing is, the same standard is going to apply to Mitt the next time he makes a gaffe, (remember “I don’t care about the poor?”) and the same people who are jumping all over Santorum now are going to be whining like toddlers when his comments are distorted.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM

It’s sad that so many of you read a Drudge Report headline and take it as the truth.
JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

We watched what Rick said.

Rusty Allen on March 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

If you like the tone now fine Danish.

It’s funny though you’re telling me to ignore the tone as you’re finding it impossible to ignore when I comment about the tone.

I mean, the comment you made about it on this thread to me, was me commenting to someone else, with the someone else talking about the tone.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008. Now he says that was just a political gesture.

I see the remark all the time — I’ve never understood how anyone can say that Obama and Romney are the same. Santorum is going to be hard pressed to walk back on this one — he’s redoubling his efforts after he’s forgotten his aim.

cheeflo on March 23, 2012 at 11:59 AM

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:54 AM

madame, you do romneycare real well. How much you want to bet,your boy romneycare loses texas to santorium!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:59 AM

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:52 AM

You try to screw up my fun and think I won’t go for at least a little snark?

At least you didn’t bite. ALT bites.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Funny dude.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM

And it will open new doors to other areas where the government can strictly dictate to us what we eat, what we drink, how we drive, where we drive, pretty much every area of our lives, all for “our own good.”

Right Mover on March 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

That’s the ultimate goal of Obamacare. Destroy the private insurance industry, and the government ends up taking over all of health care, and ultimately controls our lives….and people who thought it was such a grand idea are going to act so surprised!

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Cozmo who repeatedly lied about me and continues to do so today. So yeah, the tone sucks because this place has been taken over by swarms of bratty children.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Even after you proposed a tryst then stood me up, I always held out hope that you wouldn’t recross the fence into nutball territory.

Then I did the honorable thing and tried to get you some companionship more fitting with your nutball sensibilites.

So sad.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM

It’s sad that so many of you read a Drudge Report headline and take it as the truth.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

when your guys quote is micconstued its bad. when the other guys(remember etch-a-sketch) its good.

LOL

gerrym51 on March 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM

This election is about Obamacare, and Romneycare is a lead weight around Romney’s neck. We deny that reality at our own peril.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

That’s the way I see it. Doesn’t matter though because Mitt is a severe conservative now.

Lightswitch on March 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM

And others.
hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Yeah, like Cozmo who you are defending as “middle of the road”. Unreal. I’m waaaaaay over this guilt by association game. I support Romney. Other commenters support Romney, many of whom are jerks. Ergo, I support the other commenters and I’m a jerk too. It’s a vile tactic.

I don’t need ANYBODY to translate Santorum’s words for me. I can read them and comprehend them all by myself. Lots of Romney shills just like you were posting that Drudge headline last night as if were gospel truth. Please, don’t insult my intelligence with your inability to see reality.
JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I didn’t post the Drudge headline! What the hell are you talking about?

I have to go. later maybe. I don’t know that I can stomach any more of this place today and I’ll be gone all weekend.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Yeah, the difference is pretty obvious. It’s always all about YOU.
JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM

So says one of the most defensive posters.

Rusty Allen on March 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM

hawkdriver

Before I go, here’s Cozmo the liar in action:

You associate, and defend, the likes of blue gills and chupi. They are your allies. Just like you bashed Perry for associating with evangelicals.
cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM

You would have to prove yourself worthy. For now, you, like the other nutballs, are just my version of a cat toy. Speaeking of cat toy, what happened to your other nutball comrade, whatasillycattoy…
cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Aw, kissie kissie. You know what you wrote, and I know what you wrote.
cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Unhinged/Meltdown 2012 !

Bmore on March 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I’d consider selling out my principles exactly that. I will stand on them, I will die with them, alone if I must. There are many things worse than death, and many more things far more important than living.

SilverDeth on March 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM

That’s your problem, the “all or nothing” approach. This always guarantees disappointment.

It’s not selling your soul if you accept the fact that you can’t always get everything you want, everytime you want. It’s called facing reality. Reality can be a harsh mistress.

So, in life, you are usually faced with two options, you can either trudge ahead and keep fighting with what you can get, or cry and pout about what you can’t get.

It’s obvious who’s chosen to do what by reading these posts.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 12:04 PM

All the etcha sketch Santorum supporters (yeah right) that are bolting him because of such a HUGE blunder show how easily swayed and etcha sketched some posters on here can be. Gives one whiplash. Sorry, I’m sticking with my man, Santorum, and his principles – he admits when he’s wrong but doesn’t bend with the wind or change his views even when dumped on. I admire that more than a moneyed bully.

mozalf on March 23, 2012 at 11:52 AM

There’s always been a group of folks here who are all gung ho for some political leaders until they say ONE THING they don’t like, and then it’s “Oh, I can NEVER support so-and-so now!”

It’s only gotten worse, of late, with these fickle folks.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 12:04 PM

That’s why I’m fighting so hard for Rick Santorum. It would be nice to have a principled and conservative candidate who speaks the truth against a liberal socialist fraud. The only difference with romney against obama is he’s not a socialist… yet. Sorry, but that’s how much I don’t trust that dude. Especially if he gets pressured from democrats. He’d cave, that much we can be sure of since he did in Massachusetts.

mozalf on March 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Over 700 vetoes in 4 years. Yeah, that sure sounds like caving. How many of the dems bills has Obama vetoed?

Swerve22 on March 23, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I don’t call him Willard, but I don’t think it sounds rich. Just nerdy.

Lightswitch on March 23, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I only think of rats when I hear ‘Willard’

AH_C on March 23, 2012 at 12:06 PM

I was pleased to vote for Reagan twice and Eisenhower the second time, he wasn’t as bad as I had thought. Other than that I have held my nose and pulled the lever. Republicans have always been wishy washy but better than the alternative.

burt on March 23, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I agree with you, and I started paying attention at 12 during the 72 election. Nixon was no conservative, remember wage and price controls?.. Ford, Bush HW,.. only Reagan was truly conservative, and now we have folks here denouncing him, because he wasn’t pure enough..

I don’t think we’ve ever had a truly hard right president. Reagan as much as I loved the man, was a conservative, but a pragmatic one who worked with the left when he had to, and pushed our values when he could. That isn’t something to be ashamed of, it’s just living in a country divided like ours is.

I’ve already been called a rino, a liberal, and even a socialist even though I’m a Reagan conservative, and have been since 1980.

Some of you need a reality check, the country is center right by all poling, not hard right, not libertarian, not isolationist either. All have their adherents, but you’re just factions, hardly a majority even within the party.. You have to get over making deals to govern… Romney isn’t Obama, and Santorum isn’t Satan either…

We got along under Reagan, we still can when each faction stops trying to burn the buss if they don’t get the keys to it.

mark81150 on March 23, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Beck Reid is a Mormon just saying.

95% of Mormons are voting Willard voted Reid last cycleliberal4life on March 23, 2012 at 10:06 AM

AH_C on March 23, 2012 at 12:07 PM

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 11:54 AM

madame, you do romneycare real well. How much you want to bet,your boy romneycare loses texas to santorium!

Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Well ya’ ignorant moron (since you either didn’t bother to read earlier stuff in this thread, or couldn’t comprehend what you tried to read moron is the only descriptive I can come up with for you), since I will most likely be filling in the bubble for Santorum, or Gingrich if he is still in it, why the heck would I want to bet that Romney will take Texas. I don’t think you understood what you wrote though. I would bet that Romney will loose Texas. The way you wrote it, you would bet that Romney will win Texas?

Here is a clue though…just so you don’t join the total nutballs who claim Romney will lose in a 50 state landslide…if Romney is the nominee, he will win Texas in November.

cozmo on March 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I didn’t post the Drudge headline! What the hell are you talking about?

I have to go. later maybe. I don’t know that I can stomach any more of this place today and I’ll be gone all weekend.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I didn’t say you did post the Drudge Headline. I was responding to your comment here:

He didn’t say that! Sad that so many of you read Pravda and take it as the truth.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I was pointing out that news sources were distorting Santorum’s comment the same way they distorted Fehrnstrom’s.

That is all.

My comment was a general comment, and not meant as an attack on you.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Yeah, like Cozmo who you are defending as “middle of the road”. Unreal. I’m waaaaaay over this guilt by association game. I support Romney. Other commenters support Romney, many of whom are jerks. Ergo, I support the other commenters and I’m a jerk too. It’s a vile tactic.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Danish, I don’t go out of my way to not get along with anyone here. I don’t think anyone believes you need to feel guilty about any of your associations. I’ve wondered out loud why folks seem so tolerant of the tone that’s taken over the site. It’s not much more complicated than that. The jerks thing, you’re inventing things I haven’t said. I certainly haven’t ever thought or said you were a jerk.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM

So says one of the most defensive posters.

Rusty Allen on March 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM

So says you.

JannyMae on March 23, 2012 at 12:10 PM

madame, you do romneycare real well. How much you want to bet,your boy romneycare loses texas to santorium!
Danielvito on March 23, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I’ll take that bet, considering Scamtorum won’t be a candidate when Texas votes.

Rusty Allen on March 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Buy Danish on March 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM

He no where near as bad as other commenting here.

Have to go myself.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I feel vindicated for sticking by Perry through all the ridicule at his gaffes. Thing is they WERE gaffes- just mistakes about minor things and thus forgivable. What Santorum has said is and ought to be unforgivable. It was not a gaffe. It was an example of extreme poor judgement and truly hurtful to the real goal we all ought to have which is defeating Obama. I am thankful for it though. Better he confirm now that he is definitely not presidential material. If people had any sense, this should make them turn to Gingrich as the legitimate alternative to Romney. but I guess it won’t.

cheetah2 on March 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7