Open thread: Louisiana votes: Update: Santorum closes the deal

posted at 7:30 pm on March 24, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

So is Louisiana a comeback kid moment or another yawn festival briefly interrupting the march to Mr. Inevitable? If the former, Rick Santorum is looking pretty good.

Rick Santorum is looking to Louisiana for a much-needed rebound as Republican voters go to the polls today in the state’s GOP primary.

The former Pennsylvania senator is expected to do well in the contest, after a decisive loss to front-runner Mitt Romney in Illinois on Tuesday.

A win over the former Massachusetts governor would serve as a reminder that Romney still struggles among the GOP’s conservative faithful, especially in the South. Santorum beat Romney in primaries in Alabama and Mississippi this month.

But Romney is outpacing Santorum in the race for critical delegates to the Republican National Convention, and he’s been beating Santorum in big, industrial Midwestern states.

It’s a southern race, and Santorum should do well. If the results from the last few races are any indication, Newt is dropping off the radar and we’ll see a few tests coming up where we can finally answer the question, “Will Santorum win a one on one race against Romney?”

Santorum must feel pretty confident since he already headed to future battlegrounds.

On Saturday, Santorum and Gingrich attended the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference.

Santorum told the crowd he didn’t always understand conservatives’ frustration with Washington but said he comprehends it now. He also said his 2006 reelection loss helped him grasp that frustration.

“In a sense, I didn’t understand,” he said.

Santorum also pointed to his consistent, social conservative stances to separate himself from the GOP presidential field, saying he offers an alternative to President Barack Obama.

This isn’t a “home game” for Romney, so he can play it down. (You know… those southern voters don’t really count, right?) But does Louisiana hold some magic to stop Mitt’s March? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Larry Sabato bravely calls it for Santorum at 8:53 PM eastern.

My prediction: LA will be called for Santo at 9:01. Wow, really out on a limb, aren’t I? :) #CrystalBall

UPDATE: Less than one minute after the polls close, CNN, NBC and Fox are calling it for Santorum by a large margin across most all demographics except those making more than $200K / yr who went for Mitt. Shocker?


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 8 9 10 11

California . . .means 172 delegates in a winner-take-all state primary.

The California primary is June 5th, more then 2 months away.

Emperor Norton on March 25, 2012 at 2:26 PM

California . . .means 172 delegates in a winner-take-all state primary.

The California primary is June 5th, more then 2 months away.

Emperor Norton on March 25, 2012 at 2:26 PM

So go play pretend and post froth-at-the-mouth posts for another 2 months then.

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 2:34 PM

The Goldwater/Santorum comparison seems an appropriate parallel . . .
That’s an empty statement.

Emperor Norton on March 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM

How so? Can you show another historical example that offers a similar or better parallel to this GOP primary?

I suspect you’re the insecure type who can’t stand being beaten in debate so rather than concede the point you start throwing out the random non sequitur as a kind of intellectual smokescreen intended to obscure the weakness of your argument. You do it time and again. This time, try making a cogent counter-argument. Doing so makes you look less the fool.

troyriser_gopftw on March 25, 2012 at 2:36 PM

We seem to be largly in agreement except for your last point. Where is the proof that his committee selected people that did not meet his political views? Honestly, that notion makes no sense at all, and if true it supports my contention that he is ill equipped to be a Republican POTUS.

DannoJyd on March 25, 2012 at 1:07 PM

You are right on the money. After I hit send on that one I thought about that and was thinking, that too. My baby was crying and I left and forgot to get back on that. What I really meant was that the judges were ideologically against who he professes he wanted on the bench.

Thanks for the clarification.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

steel guy on

Sorry for calling you a retard.

The reality is that you see him as electable, that you do not care what his ideology is so long as he has an (R) next to his name. Instead of retard, I will say that you are not an ally of mine, I cannot imagine you being an ally to the nation. What people like romney represent is nothing less than the turning over of the nation to the progressive cause. Romney is not conservative, he does not even try to appear to be conservative on many policies.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Because if he wins without you, why should he listen to our concerns?.. he certainly would have no incentive.. don’t do this in a rage and end up spiting yourself. You may feel good doing it, but the price?

way too high..

mark81150 on March 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Mark – good post …. however I believe Mitt will not care about us one way or the other … he expects conservatives to vote for him because we have no where else to go …. so he really is not concerned with our concerns … that is my take on him … this is why I do not trust him … if he is the nominee I will grudgingly vote for him … but there will be no joy in it … and I stand at 60/40 he loses anyway …

conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I suspect you’re the insecure type who can’t stand being beaten in debate so rather than concede the point you start throwing out the random non sequitur. . .”

Dude, you lost the argument as soon as you started calling my statement an “empty statement” with no supporting arguments of your own. Your tactic was something like an ad hominem, except it sounds a little better than simply calling the other guy’s statement “stupid.” So I did the same with your statement, giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Other than that, you’re not convincing anyone with your effete, patronizing tone.

Your problem is that you find a parallel between Santorum and Goldwater. I don’t. It’s all in your head. Goldwater didn’t show much of any religious belief the whole time he was running, or for the whole time he was in the public eye. You just posited the “parallel” completely by fiat. Yes, they are both Senators, but there have been over a hundred Republican Senators since 1964.

Emperor Norton on March 25, 2012 at 3:26 PM

So go play pretend and post froth-at-the-mouth posts for another 2 months then.
galtani on March 25, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I don’t froth at the mouth. Your buddy bluegill does that.

What I said above about the California primary is true. It’s over 2 months away–72 days from now.

The whole primary season up to now is only 75 days old–since New Hampshire.

A lot has happened in 75 days. A whole lot more can happen in the next 72.

Emperor Norton on March 25, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Louisiana was what? The 30th contest or so to be held in this primary season?

And yet, Mr. Mitt “Outspend all opponents 10-1″ RomneyCare barely manages to buy win a quarter of the vote in a reliable Republican state like Louisana?

LMAO! What a loser…

Sorry, but Romney is a unmitigated disaster. He is destined to lose against Obama and ruin the conservative movement for a generation.

Our only hope at this point is to get a brokered convention and replace Romney. Lousiana’s own Bobby Jindal might be a good option.

ANYBODY but Romney.

Norwegian on March 25, 2012 at 3:33 PM

QUICKLY DUMP SKETCHY MITTENS!

Pragmatic on March 25, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I would rather battle 0bama with a Republican Congress. Making a PROVEN socialist THE leader of the Republican Party is foolhearty at best.
DannoJyd on March 25, 2012 at 2:17 PM

.
Mitt Romney WILL. pick better S . C . O . T . U . S . nominees than BHO.

That reason ALONE is why we should vote for the Republican nominee in November, no matter who it is.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

We do not yet possess the bioengineering technology necessary to fuse Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul together into a single Not Romney entity, especially one driven to simultaneously commit adultery, condemn itself for it, and blame the Illumnati for causing it in the first place.

troyriser_gopftw on March 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Thank you … i needed to laugh …..

conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Sweater Vest!

Uppereastside on March 25, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I wish a more conservative person with a chance of beating Obama were running but it is what it is.

steel guy on March 25, 2012 at 2:23PM

.
The GOP wins the White House this cycle . . . period.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:42 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Thank you … i needed to laugh …..
conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM

.
Oh, alright. : )

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Other than that, you’re not convincing anyone with your effete, patronizing tone.

Your problem is that you find a parallel between Santorum and Goldwater. I don’t. It’s all in your head. Goldwater didn’t show much of any religious belief the whole time he was running, or for the whole time he was in the public eye. You just posited the “parallel” completely by fiat. Yes, they are both Senators, but there have been over a hundred Republican Senators since 1964.

Emperor Norton on March 25, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I don’t much care about convincing others of anything. I follow the logic and go where it takes me. Anyone who can follow the reasoning chain that led me to make certain conclusions can either agree or disagree. Up to them.

And yes, there are parallels between Santorum and Goldwater. Both Santorum and Goldwater are/were opposed in the primaries by wealthy Northeastern Republicans, Romney and Rockefeller, respectively. Both Santorum and Goldwater had a lock on the Deep South in the primaries. Goldwater was and Santorum will be portrayed by their incumbent opponent as extremists. Both have nonexistent charisma. Both represent the self-styled ‘true’ conservative vote (although socially conservative Santorum’s record as a big government Republican necessarily excludes the label ‘fiscal conservative’). Goldwater lost badly. In all probability, Santorum will–in all probability–lose just as badly, for largely the same reasons.

Different times, similar dynamic, same result.

btw, this is the first time anyone’s ever called me ‘effete’. Between the two of us, you and me, one is a former Airborne infantry NCO and a published fiction and non-fiction writer and commercial artist. The other is an anonymous, self-important nebbish who lives alone with his cat and plays ITG online because no one notices his brilliance IRL. Look up the word effete. Compare and contrast.

Loser.

troyriser_gopftw on March 25, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Well folks .. gotta go … got dinner cooked and cleaned up ….
gonna take a 20 min nap …. and go to church …. getting ready for Easter play …
gonna be fun …
:D

conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Between the two of us, you and me, one is a former Airborne infantry NCO and a published fiction and non-fiction writer and commercial artist.

Thank you for your service … yes sir yes sir 3 bags full …. :D

20 yrs 14 days navy spook …. “in GOD we trust … all others we monitor … and we would monitor GOD if we had his crypto and freqs!”

:D

conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Mitt Romney WILL. pick better S . C . O . T . U . S . nominees than BHO.

That reason ALONE is why we should vote for the Republican nominee in November, no matter who it is.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Not a fact at all. Romney had the opportunity to appoint 48 judges in Massachusetts as governor. He used an executive order to create a non-political judiciary nominating board. Of those potential 48 judicial nominations only 9 were either politically inactive independents or Republicans, and even those were of a progressive bent, the rest were either Democrats or Democrat supporting independents and 12 were turned over to the next Governor, a Democrat to appoint. So, where you say it matters so much, judicial nominations, Romney has 0 experience in picking judges, particularly conservative constitutional respecting ones. In fact, he has a record that indicates that once elected, he might hold that part of his job in just as much disdain and EO a new board to pick nominees for him, without regard to their politics.

Elena Kagen was not shot down because she was progressive, she was shot down because she had very piss poor qualifications. We will not be able to shout down every nominee Romney puts up that is against our ideology, and if we do, it makes the Republican party look extremely bad, especially when he picks people with very large, albeit progressive, records of achievement.

Romney is a one mad party destroying machine, and I will do what ever I need to do to keep him from getting the nomination or the presidency.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Elena Kagen was not shot down because she was progressive, she was shot down because she had very piss poor qualifications. We will not be able to shout down every nominee Romney puts up that is against our ideology, and if we do, it makes the Republican party look extremely bad, especially when he picks people with very large, albeit progressive, records of achievement.

Romney is a one mad party destroying machine, and I will do what ever I need to do to keep him from getting the nomination or the presidency.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 3:55 PM

hmmm Elena Kagen is on the SCOTUS … you know that right …
did you maybe mean …..Harriet Miers she was shouted down by those of us on the right ….. because of lack of qualifications …

conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 4:01 PM

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 3:55 PM

.
Is or isn’t Judge Robert Bork going to aid Mitt in judicial nominations?
.
BTW, I haven’t changed my mind. I’m still supporting Santorum till he wins or concedes.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Be honest with yourself at least. If you are not going to support Romney when he wins the nomination, which he will, you are aiding Obama. It is what it is. At least have the guts to admit it.

jazzmo on March 25, 2012 at 4:05 PM

More Drudge Report bias…
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2012/03/25/20120325_012550.htm

If Romney had won LA, it would have been top headline news.

But Santorum’s win is minimized, and accompanied by a snide picture… of pastors praying for Rick, to emphasize that it’s those bitter clingers who put him over the top.

ITguy on March 25, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Be honest with yourself at least. If you are not going to support Romney when he wins the nomination, which he will, you are aiding Obama. It is what it is. At least have the guts to admit it.

jazzmo on March 25, 2012 at 4:05 PM

They won’t. The same goes for those who won’t vote for Santroum if he’s nominee.

Adults know that in life, they can’t always get what they want and have to work with what they can get.

Children throw temper tantrums when they can’t get everything they want.

Need I say more?

Pcoop on March 25, 2012 at 4:19 PM

With over 10 Million votes cast so far,
Romney has received 40%.

Which means that 60% of Republican Primary voters DON’T want Romney.

I’m not in favor of asking any candidate to quit. Even the 3rd and 4th place candidates. Let them stay in, and give people the option of voting for the candidate for whom they want to vote.

In proportional states, the not-Romney voters can vote for the not-Romney of their choice. In winner-takes-all states, if Romney is polling #1 before the primary, then the supporters of the #3 and #4 candidates would be wise to vote for the #2 candidate in order to deny Romney the delegates.

And I’ve had enough of the estalishment pushing their propaganda about how it’s “close to mathematically impossible” for candidate #2 to win a majority of the delegates. That’s meaningless, and it’s the same exact thing that they did in 2008 to get Romney to break his promise (the promise he made on February 5, 2008 to battle “all the way to the convention”) and quit. How did that work out?

There’s nothing wrong with candidates #2, #3, and #4 to actually do what Romney promised he would do (but didn’t) in 2008… to fight all the way to the convention.

Romney broke his promise, quit, lied about his reasons for quitting (terrorism had NOTHING to do with it!), and a week after quitting he “released” his delegates to McCain…

… So Romney should not complain if Newt Gingrich ends up returning the favor and “releases” his delegates to Rick Santorum.

ITguy on March 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Mitt Romney WILL. pick better S . C . O . T . U . S . nominees than BHO.

That reason ALONE is why we should vote for the Republican nominee in November, no matter who it is.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

And what guarantee do we have that he will? Bush 1.0 picked Souter. Or have you forgotten?

Dunedainn on March 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM

if he is the nominee I will grudgingly vote for him … but there will be no joy in it … and I stand at 60/40 he loses anyway …

conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Then there is little that we disagree on, there is no joy in this election at all. It’s not that we’re electing a champion warrior of conservative values, but the least objectionable candidate.. God help this nation.. but God protect us even more, if we loose.

mark81150 on March 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Mitt Romney WILL. pick better S . C . O . T . U . S . nominees than BHO.
listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

A Republican Senate could stop a reelected Obama from appointing any Progressive justices and thereby leave the Supreme Court short of nine. It seems like Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be the next to go. Good riddance.

Ceteris Paribus on March 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Children throw temper tantrums when they can’t get everything they want.

Need I say more?

Pcoop on March 25, 2012 at 4:19 PM

.
STOP PICKING ON ME . . . . . . I’m telling on you . . . . . . .

JAZZ ! . . . . . . pcoop‘s picking on me, . . . and everything . . . . . .

Yeah, you’re gonna’ get in BIG HECK now . . . . . .

(something like that, right?) : )

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 4:33 PM

We do not yet possess the bioengineering technology necessary to fuse Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul together into a single Not Romney entity, especially one driven to simultaneously commit adultery, condemn itself for it, and blame the Illumnati for causing it in the first place.

troyriser_gopftw on March 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM

So funny! Thanks.

Lightswitch on March 25, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Sorry, but Romney is a unmitigated disaster. He is destined to lose against Obama and ruin the conservative movement for a generation.

Our only hope at this point is to get a brokered convention and replace Romney. Lousiana’s own Bobby Jindal might be a good option.

ANYBODY but Romney.

Norwegian on March 25, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I disagree, Romney can’t ruin the conservative movement, we did that when our best and brightest declined to even run. How can you blame a moderate like Romney, for the failings of our own leaders to step up? I don’t know why they didn’t run, I don’t,.. I wish some of them had so we could avoid this debacle of a Polish firing squad.

Romney simply stepped into the void, hardly his fault.

We can save the movement, and maybe pull Romney to the right, at least enough to be tolerable. We need to stop blaming the moderates for playing the primary game better than we did, and start encouraging our star players to take to the field.

mark81150 on March 25, 2012 at 4:39 PM

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

A Republican Senate could stop a reelected Obama from appointing any Progressive justices and thereby leave the Supreme Court short of nine. It seems like Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be the next to go. Good riddance.

Ceteris Paribus on March 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

.
If the Republican Senate would DO that, great.

I haven’t seen Republicans on Capitol Hill resist a Democrat SCOTUS nominee yet.
.
I still say we’re all better off with Romney in the White House, than Obama.
.
But, for now, I support Rick Santorum.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Obama and Romney are NOT the same.

While Romney has said that his “views are progressive”,
Obama has never called himself “severely conservative”.

ITguy on March 25, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Mitt Romney WILL. pick better S . C . O . T . U . S . nominees than BHO.

That reason ALONE is why we should vote for the Republican nominee in November, no matter who it is.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

And what guarantee do we have that he will?

Dunedainn on March 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Because he has people like Robert Bork, Mary Ann Glendon and Thomas Phillips on his judiciary advisory team advising him?

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 4:56 PM

hmmm Elena Kagen is on the SCOTUS … you know that right …
did you maybe mean …..Harriet Miers she was shouted down by those of us on the right ….. because of lack of qualifications …

conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Thanks, sorry about who I meant. Have not had but about 10 minutes at a time to read and post.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Romney 42, Santorum 23, Gingrich 12, Paul 10 also means:

Not Romney 45 (23+ 12+ 10)=45, Romney 42

Not Romney by +3

Emperor Norton on March 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM

That means that Santorum, Gingrich and Paul together are only within the margin of error. That’s nothing to brag about.

Gelsomina on March 25, 2012 at 5:16 PM

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

And what guarantee do we have that he will?

Dunedainn on March 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Because he has people like Robert Bork, Mary Ann Glendon and Thomas Phillips on his judiciary advisory team advising him?

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 4:56 PM

.
I trust Judge Robert Bork.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM

hmmm Elena Kagen is on the SCOTUS … you know that right …
did you maybe mean …..Harriet Miers she was shouted down by those of us on the right ….. because of lack of qualifications …

conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Thanks, sorry about who I meant. Have not had but about 10 minutes at a time to read and post.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 5:15 PM

.
Easy to do, happens to most all of us.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Is or isn’t Judge Robert Bork going to aid Mitt in judicial nominations?
.
BTW, I haven’t changed my mind. I’m still supporting Santorum till he wins or concedes.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Yes, Romney has put Judge Bork on his ELECTION team. Of course, I am wondering what other candidates need to hire a spokesperson for their Judicial Nomination credentials. Santorum does not seem to advertise he has a judicial nominating aid, and aid that can be canned any time. Like Tiger Woods was canned the moment he was no longer beneficial to the company. That happens the moment that Romney is elected and does not need to sucker voters into accepting him.

Romney’s words have no meaning. His actions do. What did he do with all the spare time that not having to pick conservative judges? Did he spend it going out to Green Peace demonstrations in order to condemn those people killing coal plants? Did he spend it in meetings with Malthusian John Holdren, the population control guy who worked with Obama recently as his science czar.

I dunno, maybe he was spending his extra time encentivizing his peasants into buying health insurance. It might be popular, but in the end it shows a draconian bent in the man.

Santorum is good enough for me, if he wins he can count on my vote. Then again, I am still pulling for the miracle of Newt winning somehow.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 5:27 PM

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

How do you know?

antisocial on March 25, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Santorum is good enough for me, if he wins he can count on my vote. Then again, I am still pulling for the miracle of Newt winning somehow.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I thought you are pulling for Palin winning the brokered convention.

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 5:31 PM

mark81150 on March 25, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Some of them did run. And were laughed out by “conservatives”.

antisocial on March 25, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Like Huntsman?

kingsjester on March 25, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Romney 42, Santorum 23, Gingrich 12, Paul 10 also means:

Not Romney 45 (23+ 12+ 10)=45, Romney 42

Not Romney by +3

Emperor Norton on March 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM

When will you start arguing that 77% of Republicans do not want Santorum in CA?

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Neither Romney not Santorum has, to this point, generated enough support to win the nomination. But either could. Or neither could.

While I like Santorum, he’s not my first choice at a brokered convention.

If we reach a brokered convention, I think that the level of animosity between (Paul Santorum Romney Gingrich) could be so high that none of those 4 would be able to put together a majority of delegates. Perhaps a Santorum/Gingrich coalition could, or perhaps a Romney/Paul coalition could. But if not, I could see the convention looking to two candidates who ran in 2008 but did not run in 2012. I could see a Huckabee/Palin ticket kicking Democratic butt… regardless of if that is an Obama/Biden Democratic ticket or a Clinton/? Democratic ticket.

ITguy on March 25, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Keep your eyes on Hillary Clinton.

I think that she still has her eyes on the Presidency, and not just in 2016, but in 2012.

I think she is seriously prepping to be the Democratic nominee in 2012. How in the world can I say that? Keep two things in mind:

1) This, and
2) This

If Barry is found ineligible and/or guilty of forgery, fraud, obstruction of justice, etc, OR if the Clintons introduce him to Vince Foster and blame it on the Tea Party, who would the Democrats nominate? Joe Biden? No way. It would HAVE to be Hillary. And when you listen to what she’s said, both in 2008 and recently, she’s trying to pave the way for the first woman Democratic Presidential nominee and first woman President.

Listen to the 20 seconds from 1:36 to 1:56 in this recent video of Hillary Clinton

“She embodied the spirt of an America coming of age and {pause} increasingly confident, ready to lead in a quite uncertain and dangerous world.”

So, is America “coming of age” and ready for its first female president?

Hillary wants you to see her as “increasingly confident, ready to lead in a quite uncertain and dangerous world.”

And oh, by the way, that whole manufactured “Republican War on Women” thing would play right into Hillary’s hands if she were to become the Democrats’ nominee…

Now, if Hillary Clinton ends up being the Democratic Nominee, wouldn’t you want Palin on our ticket, at least as the VP?

ITguy on March 25, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I thought you are pulling for Palin winning the brokered convention.

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I would support her, but that is even beyond an act of God making happen. Got to stick with who we got in the race. Just like I am not going to win the lottery today.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Sorry for calling you a retard.

The reality is that you see him as electable, that you do not care what his ideology is so long as he has an (R) next to his name. Instead of retard, I will say that you are not an ally of mine, I cannot imagine you being an ally to the nation. What people like romney represent is nothing less than the turning over of the nation to the progressive cause. Romney is not conservative, he does not even try to appear to be conservative on many policies.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Apology accepted.

I haven’t always been a Romney supporter. In fact I believe I have supported each and every candidate at some point during the campaign.
My politics more resembled Perry’s than everyone else, but he soon enough proved he was not ready for prime time. When Romney attacked Perry for calling S.S. a ponzi scheme, which it is, I could not have been more dissapointed. When he tried to make a $10,000 bet I said I could never support him. I switch to Cain, then Newt. I soon realized that Newt couldn’t win after he started doing what Newt does with his nutty ideas and his attacks on capitalism. I like Santorum but I am a libertarian/republican and I believe in individual liberty above all else, and I don’t want the government what I can or can’t do from either the right or the left. I also don’t believe Santorum can win against Obama, you can dissagree but I really don’t believe he can. That leaves Mitt who I think has a chance. I am not happy with the choice but he is all thats left for me. I know all the baggage he has and why conservative have issues with him, I can’t blame anyone for not trusting him. I liken Romney to a republican version of Bill Clinton, not really a true believer, no core values, more of an opportunist. If Romney wins the presidency it is people like us who will need to hold his feet to the fire and convince him that the only way to gain reelection is to govern as a conservative. I don’t blame you for being suspicious of Romney, I am too. But he will be the Nominee and we will just have to live with that fact

steel guy on March 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Some of them did run. And were laughed out by “conservatives”.

antisocial on March 25, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I’m conservative and I didn’t laugh at Pawlenty and Perry. Pawlenty wasn’t in long enough for me to decide about him one way or the other. I don’t understand why he dropped out so early, unless it was a matter of money.

Perry is both capable and likable. I think he wasn’t feeling well to begin with, and it affected his ability to articulate. It was unfortunate.

Lightswitch on March 25, 2012 at 6:20 PM

What people like romney represent is nothing less than the turning over of the nation to the progressive cause. Romney is not conservative, he does not even try to appear to be conservative on many policies.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Totally false. What Romney represents is fiscal competence. He is far more a conservative than either Santorum or Gingrich who never met a government program they didn’t like. But evangelicals don’t care a damn about fiscal competence. If they did, they wouldn’t be falling for shallow rhetoric from candidates with poor fiscal rhetoric. But evangelical voters give both Santorum and Gingrich a pass. Just as they gave Bush and McCain a pass. Fiscal responsibility is not something they get worked up about. It’s religion that gets them riled up.

It’s now clear from the voting patterns emerging in states with high evangelical constituencies that Romney’s Mormonism is the big problem with evangelical voters, not his “liberalism” or even Romneycare. This kind of reaction is nothing new. Evangelicals routinely drive out top notch candidates from outside the sunbelt and chase after economic know-nothings who espouse the religious party line.

They rejected Rudy vehemently–despite his strong standing in every national and swing state poll. That gave us McCain–and then Obama. They pushed Bush over the top twice–though he expanded the government, led us into a fiscal crisis, and almost destroyed the GOP by refusing to fight his enemies and refusing to defend his friends.

So once again it’s the evangelicals who are the big problem in primaries, not competent NE politicians like Giuliani or Romney or Christie in the future. These fanatical religionists are the ones who demonize the other candidates with overwrought rhetoric and hyperbolic venom in blog after blog.

I’m pro-life and pro-second amendment, but I’m also a guy with common sense. Even I can see a Perry or a Santorum would be a disaster in November with independents in swing states. But evangelicals exist in a bubble of their own and seem to believe their own smear campaigns. So they continue to fight on and do all they can to weaken a solid frontrunner from outside their comfort zone geographically. It’s as if they have a death wish and want to lose all over again.

writeblock on March 25, 2012 at 7:00 PM

“fiscal rhetoric” should read “fiscal records” in the above post.

writeblock on March 25, 2012 at 7:04 PM

I guess what we really need is to have someone sit down and decide if the GOP is a party with conservatives in it, or a conservative party.

Until then, we’re going to have to keep putting up with this same kind of internicene nonsense every 4 years.

JFS61 on March 25, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Because he has people like Robert Bork, Mary Ann Glendon and Thomas Phillips on his judiciary advisory team advising him?
galtani on March 25, 2012 at 4:56 PM

.
I trust Judge Robert Bork.
listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that unless Bork is President himself, he will not be nominating a single judge or justice. So your faith appears a bit misdirected.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:10 PM

writeblock on March 25, 2012 at 7:00 PM

So, fascism is ok as long as it is managed properly?

Regardless of your answer to that question, the facts do not support you. He was not fiscally competent. While in office he did what all good socialist governments do, the move money from one groups of producers pockets and into other groups who are not productive pockets. He did not balance any budgets without tax increases. He increased taxes tremendously in order to not make any actual cuts. Spending increased in all of his years where he had control of the budget. I know what you are going to say, most of those taxes I claim were use fees. But use fees when presented by the government are a tax. That is why when I license my car, it is counted as a tax and reduces my income that the federal government taxes. All of those fees are taxes. The money goes into the same fund where taxes go. It is all taxes.

So much for fiscal competence. Oh, and if you argue he balanced the budget, that is because it is statutorily required and constitutionally required for him to have done so.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I would rather see Santorum lose than end up with a Sketchy win as one of those outcomes would destroy the Republican Party for decades.

DannoJyd on March 25, 2012 at 12:46 PM

It’s official. You’ve gone completely insane. Your mindless hatred of Romney has robbed you of your patriotism.

You know that another term of Obama will literally destroy The United States of America, don’t you? Another four years of Obamas deficits will make the debt crisis irreparable.

Yet you would rather pull that trigger on the first and greatest democracy in history, just to get your hate on against Romney?

Your patriotism is as non-existent as a 9/11 twoofer paultard.

Alberta_Patriot on March 25, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Totally false. What Romney represents is fiscal competence. He is far more a conservative than either Santorum or Gingrich who never met a government program they didn’t like.

writeblock on March 25, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Totally false. He sees government as the solution to all problems. He is a true statist.

And just fyi, your typical liberal bigotry against Evangelicals isn’t very convincing.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:14 PM

It’s official. You’ve gone completely insane. Your mindless hatred of Romney has robbed you of your patriotism.

Alberta_Patriot on March 25, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Can you Romney supporters please come up with some arguments that do not come straight from the Democrat’s play book and dont drip with typical lettering hatred for those who support limited government? I mean. Unless you’re a moby.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Lettering = leftwing. Stupid iPhone autocorrect.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM


God help this nation.. but God protect us even more, if we loose.

that

conservative tarheel on March 25, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Less than one minute after the polls close, CNN, NBC and Fox are calling it for Santorum by a large margin across most all demographics except those making more than $200K / yr who went for Mitt. Shocker?

“I’ll Attack China!”

Kyrie eleison

maverick muse on March 25, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Did Newt say anything after the LA primary?

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 7:26 PM

loose v. lose /that

maverick muse on March 25, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Can you Romney supporters please come up with some arguments that do not come straight from the Democrat’s play book and dont drip with typical lettering hatred for those who support limited government? I mean. Unless you’re a moby.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM

I’m fairly certain that Romney is a moby, himself. He and his surrogates keep saying and doing things that seem to be designed to turn off voters. Maybe he’s a stealth Obama-bot, just waiting to throw the election. Or he’s just a tone-deaf liberal Rino.

Buckshot Bill on March 25, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Can you Romney supporters please come up with some arguments that do not come straight from the Democrat’s play book and dont drip with typical lettering hatred for those who support limited government? I mean. Unless you’re a moby.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Can you just once, justify you’re willingness to let the country under Obama just because you can’t get the candidate you want?

unless you’re actually a Democrat.

Pcoop on March 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Can you Romney supporters please come up with some arguments that do not come straight from the Democrat’s play book and dont drip with typical lettering hatred for those who support limited government? I mean. Unless you’re a moby.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Personally, I have no problem with fellow Republican primary voters voting for someone other than the primary candidate I support, who happens to be Romney.

I have a major problem with those members of the Conservative Purity Brigade who claim they’re not voting for the eventual GOP nominee–invariably Romney’s name comes up–if that nominee doesn’t meet some arbitrary, ever-changing ‘true’ conservative criteria. Should Romney win the nomination and you’re a Republican and you don’t for him out of pique or spite, so be it. That’s a personal decision, although one with which I disagree.

However, encouraging others to not vote as a gesture of protest is reprehensible. What, exactly, are you protesting? More importantly, what are you hoping to accomplish? Our country is rapidly approaching the precipice. The appropriate response when faced with a national emergency is not to behave like a petulant child.

Oh, okay, you don’t consider yourself a Republican? Fine, great, then don’t vote in a Republican Party primary. There is a Conservative Party, a Libertarian Party, others. Join a political party or movement more in keeping with your beliefs. You think your political ideas are wonderful? Okay, then sell your vision of political and philosophical perfection in the marketplace of ideas we call the American political process. Good ideas have a way of catching on.

There’s a caveat, though: if you’re the only one in a giant room full of 300 million people who thinks your ideas are what the country needs, then you’re probably wrong and you should reconsider those beliefs.

troyriser_gopftw on March 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Totally false. He sees government as the solution to all problems. He is a true statist.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:14 PM

so want a leader who will pull the party line even when it goes against his core principles as Santorum has admitted to doing?

what’s the difference?

Pcoop on March 25, 2012 at 7:55 PM

basically, if you’re looking for a candidate who matches every one of your beliefs and principles, you should’ve ran for president yourself.

Pcoop on March 25, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Can you Romney Santorum supporters please come up with some arguments that do not come straight from the Democrat’s play book and dont drip with typical lettering hatred for those who support limited government? I mean. Unless you’re a moby.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Right back at you.

Bad enough some people have actually convinced themselves that the “Obamney” meme is true, but to say with apparent seriousness that they would rather have Obama have the chance to finish the job than take the risk that Romney might be President.

We’d rather the country die than this guy we don’t like get credit for saving it… it’s just unfathomable.

Alberta_Patriot on March 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM

I asked earlier, I do not believe there was a reaction from Newt after the LA primary And a 16% third place finish, it was a lot of worse than he expected. The long silence may be signaling he is in the process of weighing his future. The longer the silence, the more likely it may be that he is dropping out.

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM

so want a leader who will pull the party line even when it goes against his core principles as Santorum has admitted to doing?

what’s the difference?

Pcoop on March 25, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Well, for one, not everyone’s first instinct is the conservative instinct. Many times it needs to be learned and used with deliberate intent. Other times it comes naturally to people who were raised understanding conservative principles. Much like a first language, first ideology pigments peoples views of the world. Just the same, second languages are filtered at first and for many people for their entire lives through their first language. The difference would be that Romney refuses to give up his first ideology, which is fully to the left of Senator Kennedy and thus has his world view fully painted by progressiveness, filters everything through a progressive world view, and when ever not forced to do otherwise reverts back to his core which is progressive.

Santorum on the other hand has abandoned his old ideology fully and now filters through a conservative world view, and when ever not forced to, still remains with his new conservatism.

Basically, Romney is a foreigner who detests his new home, and refuses to become a part of it, reverting back to speaking his native tongue when he is able to do so. Santorum is more like someone who moved from New York to Texas and has so become a part of it, that if he moved back to New York, he would have trouble remembering how to fit back in.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 8:09 PM

I asked earlier, I do not believe there was a reaction from Newt after the LA primary And a 16% third place finish, it was a lot of worse than he expected. The long silence may be signaling he is in the process of weighing his future. The longer the silence, the more likely it may be that he is dropping out.

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Sure hope not. I am not fully convinced that Romney does not have an ace up his sleeve if he gets the opportunity to one on one against Newt or Santorum. I think having them both in the race forces his to keep his powder dry.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 8:09 PM

That’s the most contrived BS I’ve ever read.

I’d have more respect for you if you simply said it’s because he’s a Mormon.

Pcoop on March 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Santorum on the other hand has abandoned his old ideology fully and now filters through a conservative world view, and when ever not forced to, still remains with his new conservatism.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 8:09 PM

So Santorum is a weak-kneed, lily-livered socialist Obama-clone RINO…

…but it’s not his fault?

Good to know you’ve found someone you can believe in who will never betray your principles.

Alberta_Patriot on March 25, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Santorum has no core.

Rusty Allen on March 25, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Santorum on the other hand has abandoned his old ideology fully and now filters through a conservative world view, and when ever not forced to, still remains with his new conservatism.

Basically, Romney is a foreigner who detests his new home, and refuses to become a part of it, reverting back to speaking his native tongue when he is able to do so. Santorum is more like someone who moved from New York to Texas and has so become a part of it, that if he moved back to New York, he would have trouble remembering how to fit back in.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 8:09 PM

You’re projecting thoughts and motivations onto Romney and Santorum without a scintilla of evidence to back it up. And by the way, there’s nothing conservative about Santorum’s statements regarding the role of government in the private lives of Americans. And that Santorum claims he was physically nauseated by JFK’s 1960 church & state separation speech? Watch for yourself. Watching the speech, listening to JFK, understanding to some degree of the historical context in which the speech was made, do you think Santorum’s reaction was appropriate or even normal?

Santorum is pathetic. Just pathetic. And you Not Romneys would run him against Obama.

troyriser_gopftw on March 25, 2012 at 9:37 PM

This is santorum in a month.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KIBRg7G9c0c

Nuts.

rubberneck on March 25, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Santorum’s really presidential.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rick-santorum-swears-at-new-york-times-reporter

Pcoop on March 25, 2012 at 9:41 PM

This is santorum in a month.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KIBRg7G9c0c

Nuts.

rubberneck on March 25, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Thank you so much for posting these. I learn a lot from the comments on this site.

Rick Santorum does NOT have a presidential temperament AT ALL. He would better suited to hosting a talk show of some sort. Maybe that’s what he’s really angling for?

This man Santorum would be a disaster.

bluegill on March 25, 2012 at 10:19 PM

BREAKING: Rick Santorum swears at NY Times Reporter:

March 25 Tweet from NY Times’ Jeff Zeleny:

I ask Santorum if Romney is “worst Republican” to run. He says: “Quit distorting my words It’s bulls*@%!.” He says he was talking health care

(I had to edit Santorum’s coarse profanity in order to post here)

As a conservative Republican voter, I am EMBARRASSED of the unelectable Rick Santorum and his ego-driven campaign that seems to be headed straight off a cliff.

bluegill on March 25, 2012 at 10:28 PM

This is santorum in a month.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KIBRg7G9c0c

Nuts.

rubberneck on March 25, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Let’s be completely fair. While Santorum was acting like a six-year-old there, that was a six year old video.

He should be at least capable of acting like a 12 year old now.

Alberta_Patriot on March 25, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Santorum misspoke.

What he meant to say is:

“Quit distorting my words It’s taurus fimus!”

:-)

Don’t worry, it’s not a BFD, like Rombamacare is.

ITguy on March 25, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Rick Santorum says George Zimmerman was “malicious.” Is this closing the deal?

Mr. Joe on March 25, 2012 at 10:36 PM

bluegill on March 25, 2012 at 10:28 PM

You beat me to this by 3 seconds. (:

He’s such an out of control loser.

Rusty Allen on March 25, 2012 at 10:42 PM

wait, Santorum’s a conservative. He would never do something like Romneycare. None of this stuff matters because I’d rather vote for him than Romney.

Why are you trying to ruin such a good man?

Can I roll my eyes now?

Pcoop on March 25, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Rick Santorum says George Zimmerman was “malicious.” Is this closing the deal?

Mr. Joe on March 25, 2012 at 10:36 PM

I’m surprised there isn’t a separate HotAir post about this. Allahpundit, Ed Morrissey, Tina Korbe? Hello?

Thank goodness for you commenters. Seriously, I learn a lot from the links and other things that you guys post.

Newt Gingrich was RIGHT ON with his criticism of Obama regarding this case.

What is Santorum thinking?! Maybe he is just trying to be all mavericky so that the news media will treat him even more favorably?

bluegill on March 25, 2012 at 10:45 PM

So, fascism is ok as long as it is managed properly?

Regardless of your answer to that question, the facts do not support you. He was not fiscally competent. While in office he did what all good socialist governments do, the move money from one groups of producers pockets and into other groups who are not productive pockets. He did not balance any budgets without tax increases. He increased taxes tremendously in order to not make any actual cuts. Spending increased in all of his years where he had control of the budget. I know what you are going to say, most of those taxes I claim were use fees. But use fees when presented by the government are a tax. That is why when I license my car, it is counted as a tax and reduces my income that the federal government taxes. All of those fees are taxes. The money goes into the same fund where taxes go. It is all taxes.

So much for fiscal competence. Oh, and if you argue he balanced the budget, that is because it is statutorily required and constitutionally required for him to have done so.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 7:13 PM

See what I mean? You prove my point. You go way beyond reasonable criticism when you intimate Romney’s a fascist doing what all “good socialist governments do.”

And you are equally unreasonable when you insist closing tax loopholes and increasing user fees is the same as raising taxes. But they are not the same. Unlike taxes, user fees are a matter of free choice and closing tax loopholes simply makes any tax code far more fair. Why would anybody complain about that?

Most residents of a state don’t mind user fees either. They do mind taxes. This is because if you use a service most people realize you need to pay for the service rendered. You don’t pay if you don’t use. They also know the vast majority of user fees go to pay for the use of toll roads, recreational facilities, waterways, harbors and such. So user fees are not only less politically dangerous, they also make more sense in terms of simple fairness. Romney simply did what any good Republican governors would do faced with a revenue shortfall and the need to balance a budget. Nothing fascist about that.

It’s also one thing to balance a budget and another thing to do so while facing billions of dollars of red ink as was the case in MA. Anyone who knows a thing or two about executive leadership would realize his was an impressive achievement, given a liberal Democratic legislature and given his promise not to raise taxes.

This in practice meant doing more than simply raising user fees or closing tax loopholes. It meant consolidating agencies and firing deadwood bureaucrats. It meant cutting corners in a thousand different ways while making government more efficient while operating on a budget of far less. You are dismissive of such good government achievements–but imo they weigh far more in Romney’s favor, given an adverse liberal legislature, than what Perry achieved with an overwhelmingly conservative legislature.

writeblock on March 25, 2012 at 10:45 PM

I asked earlier, I do not believe there was a reaction from Newt after the LA primary And a 16% third place finish, it was a lot of worse than he expected. The long silence may be signaling he is in the process of weighing his future. The longer the silence, the more likely it may be that he is dropping out.

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I agree. He’ll drop out not because he wants to, but because he’s going into debt big time. It’s all over for him–and he knows it. Besides, the anger toward Romney has probably cooled.

writeblock on March 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Oh, and if you argue he balanced the budget, that is because he made a conscious decision not to table a bill repealing the balanced budget law like all liberals with overwhelmingly liberal legislatures would do it is statutorily required and constitutionally required for him to have done so.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Corrected free of charge.

Romney sounds, dare I say, “severely conservative” when you take into account the facts, doesn’t he?

Alberta_Patriot on March 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Let’s be completely fair. While Santorum was acting like a six-year-old there, that was a six year old video.

He’s still acting petty. He whines, he complains, he makes excuses. When asked to define himself in one word in a recent debate, he said, “Courageous.” He didn’t have enough sense to be embarrassed by self-praise either. He views himself in a heroic light as someone who goes politically against the grain, yet when challenged by his questionable past votes on one statist policy or another–he makes excuses, he claims he was just being “a team-player”. He’s anything but a profile in courage.

writeblock on March 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM

galtani on March 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I agree. He’ll drop out not because he wants to, but because he’s going into debt big time. It’s all over for him–and he knows it.

Besides, the anger toward Romney has probably cooled.
writeblock on March 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

.
Ooooooooooooh . . . . . . I was with you until those last eight words.

I tend to think Newt’s still “white-hot” on the inside, but time will tell.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM

He’s still acting petty. He whines, he complains, he makes excuses. When asked to define himself in one word in a recent debate, he said, “Courageous.” He didn’t have enough sense to be embarrassed by self-praise either. He views himself in a heroic light as someone who goes politically against the grain, yet when challenged by his questionable past votes on one statist policy or another–he makes excuses, he claims he was just being “a team-player”. He’s anything but a profile in courage.

writeblock on March 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I’m shocked the guy has won 11 states. What does it say about the party? The man is a poor candidate. He’s so defensive. You poke him a few times on his own gaffes and he goes ballistic. He has the temperament of a child. The media is not taking him to task cause he’s slamming Romney. Tell you one thing, I will NEVER support him in future primaries, if he should ever run.

If Romney beats him in PA, then his political career is likely over. Who can run for anything when the lose twice in their home state.

rubberneck on March 25, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Butthurt Romneybots are butthurt about Santorum. Keep alienating people!

You’ll be blaming all those rubes for causing your electable god to lose in november

Flapjackmaka on March 25, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Your patriotism is as non-existent as a 9/11 twoofer paultard.

Alberta_Patriot on March 25, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Speak for yourself. I’m not working to get 0bama lite elected, and I NEVER support a liberal as you are doing today.

DannoJyd on March 25, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Romney sounds, dare I say, “severely conservative” when you take into account the facts, doesn’t he?

Alberta_Patriot on March 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

That might be true for another liberal, but not for me:

Romney once argued his only connection to GOP was party registration, but that’s not the full picture

Now DO feel free to tell me about his Conservative Credentials. LOL!

DannoJyd on March 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Thanks for the clarification.

astonerii on March 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Thank you for the honest, American styled debate.

DannoJyd on March 25, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Looking at Santorum’s most recent comments about Romney being “the worst possible Republican to run against Obama” (I believe Huntsman filled that bill), it looks once again like the entire purpose of Santorum’s campaign is to get Obama re-elected.

He knows he would lose against Obama, and now he is going to say whatever he can to torpedo anyone who does get the nomination. His latest comments might have just blown any chance he might have had in the unlikely event of a brokered convention.

He’s not acting like a Republican, he’s acting like Obama’s stalking horse.

Somebody talk some sense into that idiot, please.

Ricky knows the primary season is now done and he has the last win he is likely to get. The chances of him getting the nomination at this point are somewhere between slime and none so now he is going to throw a tantrum and try to damage the entire party’s chances in the fall election because he didn’t get nominated?

I fully expect to see Santorum on the campaign trail for Obama this fall.

crosspatch on March 25, 2012 at 11:52 PM

And just fyi, your typical liberal bigotry against Evangelicals isn’t very convincing.

besser tot als rot on March 25, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I have no problem with evangelicals–as long as they separate their religion from their politics. It’s when they mix the two that I get worried–since their ignorance about politics is so profound. They seem to care very little at all about electability when they chase after candidates like Bauer, Hunter, Huckabee, Perry, Bachmann, and now Santorum–all longshots–as if an America outside the sunbelt never existed, as if the rest of America shared their inflexible opinions on every moral issue. That doesn’t make me a bigot. It makes me a realist. I’m as religious and conservative as anybody from the South–but I’m not politically naive like so many social cons who want their president to be mirror images of themselves or no dice.

I watched with horror in 2007-8 as we threw away the general election by blocking a potential winner, ultimately allowing a socialist to win–far worse than the executive genius they blocked. It was obvious a mile away they were backing a losing horse–just as it’s obvious now how unsuitable somebody like Santorum would be as a nominee.

Evangelicals need to put election victory first–not the futile search for a standard bearer for their principles, exclusive of any economic records worth talking about. Huckabee was a poor excuse for a governor, economically speaking–but boy, could he talk the talk to evangelicals. Ditto for Gary Bauer and Michelle Bachmann. Ditto now for their latest hero, Santorum.

Evangelical voters need to at least try to appreciate that the rest of America doesn’t admire candidates who wear religion on their sleeves, that this is a country full of Catholics and Jews and Mormons and atheists and everything else in between, that, unlike the culturally homogeneous South, the rest of the country is religously polyglot–with a vast distrust and distaste for candidates who push too hard on the social issues. Liberals actually take advantage of this–and exploit this politically.

I don’t say this because I don’t like evangelicals. I say it because I sincerely believe it’s true and politically self-defeating. Evangelicals heretofore have controlled the process and people like myself, a resident of PA, were out of the loop. By the time we got to vote it was all over and a few small states with outsized evangelical constituencies had determined the outcome. Things are different this year. They don’t like it one bit–but it’s a much fairer process. It gives somebody like Romney a chance he never had before–though he’s far better prepared to lead this country than a Santorum or a Huckabee would ever be.

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 12:22 AM

We do not yet possess the bioengineering technology necessary to fuse Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul together into a single Not Romney entity, especially one driven to simultaneously commit adultery, condemn itself for it, and blame the Illumnati for causing it in the first place.

troyriser_gopftw on March 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM

LOL I don’t care who’s side your on, that was funny!

Minnfidel on March 26, 2012 at 12:22 AM

DannoJyd on March 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM

DannoJyd posts are usually one-sided distortions. His post at 11:31 is particularly laughable. If you clicked on his highlighted text, it is from

http://gopprimary2012.com/a-look-at-romneys-judicial-philosophy-conservative-reform-in-the-most-liberal-state/

Read the whole article, it is actually a defense of Romney’s judicial appointment record in MA.

And if you care to google them, there are other posts that defended Romney’s record.

galtani on March 26, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11