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 9 10 11

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

Funny that, How old is Massachusetts constitution? more than 12 years old I imagine. He also tabled a law to make it unconstitutional for gays to marry while simultaneously ignoring the constitutional requirement that the legislature is the only entity that can create the necessary laws to get gays married, which he streamlined and got done without the legislature. So much for your argument. Funny how things work huh? By the way, progressives would be happy to have a balanced budget amendment on the books at the federal level and anywhere else. That is how they justify increasing taxes. So, keeping it in place fit perfectly with the progressive agenda, and Willard Mitt Romney stepped right up and initiated a tremendous number of new and increased taxes.

astonerii on March 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Hey DannoJyd, thanks for bringing us a defense of Romney’s judicial appointment record. I am only afraid that his stupidity is lost on readers because this thread had probably ran its course.

galtani on March 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Disclaimer. Before someone who disagrees writes me off as a Romneybot, Mitthead etc. He’s my third choice. But Santorum needs 74% of the remaining delegates. Which is a bit like being down 43 to 7 in the 4th quarter. Could you win? sure it’s possible. It’s also possible to winning the lottery. Santorum’s comments about being better off with Obama is frankly unforgivable. I have no problem with making the case of why you’re better. But Santorum’s strategy now is depseration. It’s like burning the bridges and towns as you retreat to slow the inevitable and inflict more pain. It’s just not a winning strategy.

Minnfidel on March 26, 2012 at 12:39 AM

He also tabled a law to make it unconstitutional for gays to marry while simultaneously ignoring the constitutional requirement that the legislature is the only entity that can create the necessary laws to get gays married, which he streamlined and got done without the legislature.

astonerii on March 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM

In other words, he didn’t even need to consult the democrat laden legislature if he wanted to spend like a democrat.

Thanks for helping to prove Romneys conservative credentials, astonerii.

(you might wanna get that bullet hole in your foot looked at)

Alberta_Patriot on March 26, 2012 at 12:49 AM

So, keeping it in place fit perfectly with the progressive agenda, and Willard Mitt Romney stepped right up and initiated a tremendous number of new and increased taxes.

astonerii on March 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Except you keep repeating what isn’t true. A user fee is not a tax. If you use a service, most people have no problem with your paying for it. That’s not a tax. Most user fees go for entertainment facilities, toll roads, waterways and such. Neither is closing tax loopholes a tax. It simply makes the tax codes fairer. Describing these tools for balancing a budget–which any revenue-strapped GOP governor uses short of raising taxes–as “progressive” is dishonest. It’s another way the Romney-haters smear a good man and an effective administrator.

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 12:55 AM

The fact that you are supporting Romney automatically forces you to feign conservative in order to keep any degree of authenticity as someone on a conservative site to listen to you. So of course you never made it known publicly.

C’mon Astonerii, with this moron claiming to represent real conservatives, thank God there is a Romney in this time and place.

Godzilla on March 26, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Except you keep repeating what isn’t true. A user fee is not a tax. If you use a service, most people have no problem with your paying for it. That’s not a tax. Most user fees go for entertainment facilities, toll roads, waterways and such. Neither is closing tax loopholes a tax. It simply makes the tax codes fairer. Describing these tools for balancing a budget–which any revenue-strapped GOP governor uses short of raising taxes–as “progressive” is dishonest. It’s another way the Romney-haters smear a good man and an effective administrator.

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 12:55 AM

We pay sales taxes, that money goes to the general fund. We pay income taxes, that to goes into the general fund. What exactly are those taxes for? Now then, I understand the use fees, they also go into the general fund.

Cigarette use fee. That is what it is, is it not? The fee you pay the government in order to use a cigarette? It is a tax. When I go to register my car, it does not cost some percentage of my vehicle’s value to register. That too while considered a use fee is a tax. Gasoline tax, is yet another use fee. It is levied to pay for the damage that your vehicle causes to the road. But MPG is not always an indicator of the degree of damage a vehicle will cause, and it certainly is not linear.

Anything we pay the government to provide the services that the government provides is a tax. You can argue all you want about the nomenclature used to describe it, but it in the end, money levied by the government is a tax. If you cannot understand that concept, it does not surprise at all that you cannot understand just exactly how progressive Romney really is.

I do not shoot myself in the foot.

astonerii on March 26, 2012 at 1:20 AM

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

Thanks for starting your post like that, claiming Romney is more conservative than Santorum or Gingrich. It saved me the trouble of reading anything else in your post. If you’re trying to pass off Romney as more conservative than anyone else in the race, then you’ve already thrown away your credibility.

tom on March 26, 2012 at 1:47 AM

We pay sales taxes, that money goes to the general fund. We pay income taxes, that to goes into the general fund. What exactly are those taxes for? Now then, I understand the use fees, they also go into the general fund.

Cigarette use fee. That is what it is, is it not? The fee you pay the government in order to use a cigarette? It is a tax. When I go to register my car, it does not cost some percentage of my vehicle’s value to register. That too while considered a use fee is a tax. Gasoline tax, is yet another use fee. It is levied to pay for the damage that your vehicle causes to the road. But MPG is not always an indicator of the degree of damage a vehicle will cause, and it certainly is not linear.

User fees produce money; taxes produce money; money goes into a general fund. So what?

There’s some overlap. But most user fees are in exchange for services rendered by government–for use of a public golf course, for instance, or to use facilities in a public park. Hiking these a bit to balance a budget is seldom a cause for public resentment. Most people recognize the difference between a voluntarily paid fee for a service rendered and a coercive tax. That is, unless they’re trying somehow to distort Romney’s actual record.

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Thanks for starting your post like that, claiming Romney is more conservative than Santorum or Gingrich. It saved me the trouble of reading anything else in your post. If you’re trying to pass off Romney as more conservative than anyone else in the race, then you’ve already thrown away your credibility.

tom on March 26, 2012 at 1:47 AM

I’m not surprised you didn’t both with the rest of the post since I signaled it would run contrary to what you want to believe. That’s known as having a closed mind, I believe–refusing to even listen to an opposing point of view. But maybe you should listen to Senator Toomey–who just this weekend affirmed Romney’s conservative credentials. Or does Toomey also lack credibility for saying this?

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 2:30 AM

I’m sure Obama is sitting back, laughing his rear off while these idiots tear each other apart. This entire Republican primary has degenerated into a childish, destructive egocentric game.

rplat on March 26, 2012 at 3:16 AM

Breaking news via Drudge:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57404222-503544/santorum-romney-worst-republican-to-face-obama/
Santorum: Romney ‘worst Republican’ to face Obama

Pressed further, Santorum clarified that he meant Romney was the worst candidate “to run against Barack Obama on the issue of health care, because he fashioned the blueprint. I’ve been saying it in every speech. Quit distorting our words. If I see it [in print], it’s bull(expletive). C’mon man, what are you doing?”

Presidential!

almosthandsome on March 26, 2012 at 3:30 AM

Godzilla on March 26, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Wow, good call Godzilla, Santorum just lynched Zimmerman without having a clue about what he is saying. What a lawless, stupid comment from Santorum.

Hey Hot Air, did you see this?!!!

scotash on March 26, 2012 at 3:56 AM

Thanks for starting your post like that, claiming Romney is more conservative than Santorum or Gingrich. It saved me the trouble of reading anything else in your post. If you’re trying to pass off Romney as more conservative than anyone else in the race, then you’ve already thrown away your credibility.

tom on March 26, 2012 at 1:47 AM

I’m not surprised you didn’t both with the rest of the post since I signaled it would run contrary to what you want to believe. That’s known as having a closed mind, I believe–refusing to even listen to an opposing point of view. But maybe you should listen to Senator Toomey–who just this weekend affirmed Romney’s conservative credentials. Or does Toomey also lack credibility for saying this?

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 2:30 AM

If you want someone to hear you out, don’t tell obvious falsehoods. I’ll note that you didn’t just claim that Romney was conservative. If you’re loose enough with the definition of “conservative,” you might be able to defend such a claim.

But you claimed that Romney was more conservative than Santorum or Gingrich. This is a nonsense position.

As for Toomey, a) I don’t know what he said exactly, b) I seriously doubt that he claimed Romney was more conservative than Santorum or Gingrich, and c) if he did say that, then he lacks credibility.

Is that so shocking for a politician?

Now about the “closed mind” accusation: I’ve already evaluated the evidence with an open mind, and made my conclusions. If you have some new evidence that Romney is more conservative than his opponents, bring it on. But his record doesn’t show it, and his proclamation that he rejected being associated with Reagan and Bush (I note that Bush 41 was hardly an extreme conservative) means that the burden of proof is on him.

tom on March 26, 2012 at 4:05 AM

almosthandsome on March 26, 2012 at 3:30 AM

LOL — Ol Santy is melting down very publicly. He seems so much like the HA 35 who have decided to be statistically insignificant and vote for Obama.
Rick’s childish behavior is almost identical; churlish, bitter, cynical and most of all desperate.
I’ll give them credit for doing a good impersonation of their latest hero Rick Santorum. Too bad for Rick he needs to win 74% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination.

ABR: “Romney care, Romney care, etch a sketch, brokered convention – Palin,,,,,” is what comes spilling out of their comments like a bad case of the runs. They care no more about Santorum than they do Romney — it all goes to the fantasy that they will carry SP onto the convention floor on a dais while chanting Cuda! The delegates will all prostrate themselves and immediately nominate her. She will go on to win 98% of the vote in an epic 50 state blowout.

“HA 35 time to wake up dearies. You’ve got Politics 101 finals today.”

Bradky on March 26, 2012 at 6:23 AM

Okay, let’s try an anology that everyone here can relate to.

You’ve been suffering great pain for a long time and you feel like there’s no relief in sight.

You been told of medication that can relieve your symptoms. But, there’s possible side effects. Some could be mildly uncomfortable. Some could themselves cause you pain. There’s nothing saying that you, yourself would experience these side effects. You just have empirical data and information saying that other who have taken this medication have experienced them. You have no other info other than that about the side effects. Seriously, how many times have we all taken medication, been warned of possible side effects, only to never once experience them.

So what we have here, is truly, the lesser of two evils.

do you:

a) Take the medication to relieve your pain and suffering knowing of the potential side effects, intending to deal with them if and when they happen?

or

b) refuse to take the medication in fear of the side effects and prolong your pain and agony knowing there may never be any relief in sight at that point?

Now, I know some of you geniuses will say “I’ll just go with holistic medicine. Seriously? Everyone knows it doesn’t work, you’re insurance won’t cover it, and you might as well throw your money away. But I guess you can always try.

But those are your main options. The lesser of two evils. What would you do?

Pcoop on March 26, 2012 at 6:57 AM

My, my, my, my MY! Rick Santorum trounced Romney in Louisiana and you wouldn’t know it from the headlines on Drudge. Old Drudge seems to be having a hissy and doesn’t even try to show any kind of journalistic professionalism or fairness anymore – all his headlines and reporting are kinda skewed against Santorum, wouldn’t you say? Talk about negative advertising – sheesh! But then we aren’t the dupes they expect us to be. It’s funny how Romney wins and it’s all over, he’s won decisively and insurmountably, but when Rick wins it’s just dumb luck and yet he should drop out? Plus he won over many moderates and independents in Louisiana, but you wouldn’t know it from FOX or Drudge reports – I actually had to go to another (enemy) news source to find that out. I hate to see ugly and distorted politicking used against our fellow republicnas, especially one working against incredible odds and handicaps. That’s so “democrate”. But Rick Santorum keeps on going and you can tell the RNC is starting to have a meltdown.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Pressed further, Santorum clarified that he meant Romney was the worst candidate “to run against Barack Obama on the issue of health care, because he fashioned the blueprint. I’ve been saying it in every speech. Quit distorting our words. If I see it [in print], it’s bull(expletive). C’mon man, what are you doing?”

The exact opposite is true. People on here are saying how hard it will be for Romney to run against Obama on the issue of health care, but Romney’s experience with the issue will be to his advantage, BIG TIME, in the general election. Romney knows the issue inside and out, and he has the ability to explain very clearly why Obamacare needs to be repealed, while pointing out how what Mass did was different. It won’t be difficult for voters to understand. Romney can’t easily be branded as some cold, uncaring Republican who doesn’t care about the uninsured. He’ll be seen as someone who knows better than most what’s wrong with Obamacare and what kind of reform should be in its place. For these reasons, I actually think Romney is one of the BEST Republican candidates to run against Obama on this issue.

The real danger to Romney regarding his experience with this issue was during the primary season, and Romney has already more than cleared the biggest humps (winning Florida, Illinois, Ohio) towards winning the nomination. His biggest vulnerabilities regarding the health care issue are now behind him.

bluegill on March 26, 2012 at 8:49 AM

The update sub-heading should say,

“Winning candidate picks up 5 whole delegates against front-runner.”

Droopy on March 26, 2012 at 8:55 AM

But Rick Santorum keeps on going and you can tell the RNC is starting to have a meltdown.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 8:43 AM

No, what’s happening is that people are starting to get very sick of Rick Santorum. He is really starting to wear out his welcome. We’ll be willing to tolerate him a LITTLE bit longer, even though we know he has virtually no chance of getting the nomination, but in the coming weeks expect many more people to be increasingly vocal about directing him to the exit.

Rick Santorum seems to think the election is about Rick Santorum. It’s not. Perhaps Santorum is just trying to position himself for future races, or maybe he wants to increase his profile for a talk show? Or perhaps he’s just too delusional to understand that he needs to drop out soon. If Santorum refuses to accept reality and do what is necessary for the good of the party and the country, then voters will have no choice but to give him the hook and yank him off the stage. Because of Rick Santorum’s ego, this damaging Republican primary season in-fighting continues.

bluegill on March 26, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Wow, these establishment republicans hate being contradicted. Now they’re crowing about how Rmoney won in Louisiana among the over 220K and “well-educated” crowd. Again, they’re morphing into democrats. Well, as a member of the unwashed and un-educated masses I don’t have time to spend my time getting coiffed, manicured or spending my days in the tanning salon like Rmoney. I’m more the working class, over weight person like pool side Santorum in Puerto Rico. I can identify more with him and what a contrast he’ll make with Obama, another country club politician like Rmoney, in the general election. Come August, we’ll be able to bull doze over the democrat slime machine and clobber them with our conservative principles and credentials. No more mealy-mouthed moderate milquetoast candidates, PLEASE! On Wisconsin!

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM

I’m more the working class, over weight person like pool side Santorum in Puerto Rico. I can identify more with him and what a contrast he’ll make with Obama, another country club politician like Rmoney, in the general election. Come August, we’ll be able to bull doze over the democrat slime machine and clobber them with our conservative principles and credentials. No more mealy-mouthed moderate milquetoast candidates, PLEASE! On Wisconsin!

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM

I don’t support a given politician because I identify with him or her, because he or she is most like me. I want, as much as possible, a politician who best shares my political goals and represents my philosophical outlook.

Santorum is no more working class than Romney. Santorum grew up in a nice, upper-middle class home. His father, Aldo Santorum, was a clinical psychologist. His mother was a nurse. So no, it isn’t correct to think Santorum grew up in any deprived or somehow poverty stricken, although Santorum’s constant references to being a ‘son of immigrants’ seems to imply humble circumstances.

Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, started out as a plasterer and laborer and eventually worked his way up to Chairman and President of American Motors Corporation and Governor of Michigan. George Romney was, by all accounts, an extraordinary man. That Mitt Romney enjoyed a privileged childhood isn’t in question, but upon reaching adulthood he refused to take any of his father’s money, preferring to make it on his own. I find that admirable, not ‘Country Club’ at all.

Maybe you should rethink that Santorum schlubbing by the pool in Puerto Rico image. Santorum lost Puerto Rico’s delegates by deliberately alienating the daylights out of the entire island by zeroing in on the one issue–bilingualism–sure to do it. His loss in Puerto Rico speaks to poor political skills. That isn’t exactly a selling point for his nomination.

troyriser_gopftw on March 26, 2012 at 10:34 AM

troyriser_gopftw on March 26, 2012 at 10:34 AM

And I couldn’t disagree more. I’m no political junkie I just call them as I see them and I see a guy with little money going up against all odds, a huge, moneyed retread politician who can’t win substantially without outspending his opponents and instead is getting beaten by a scrappy fighter with a message. And that stokes my enthusiasm over a metrosexual phony who is trying to get pawned off on all of us before it’s too late and then we’ve got to bend over backwards or into pretzels trying to support and defend. And that’s why I’m enthused now because if it’s Rmoney…can’t do it.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

And that’s why I’m enthused now because if it’s Rmoney…can’t do it.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Romney isn’t being beaten by Santorum, at least not by the only measure that matters in a primary, which is delegate count. Insofar as money is concerned, fundraising ability is key to beating Obama in the general election. It speaks to depth and professionalism of campaign management and organization.

I don’t begrudge the rich man his money. Let the rich be rich and let others have the opportunity to be rich. I believe in a government that largely leaves its citizens alone and allows people to succeed or fail on their own merits.

But just so I’ve got this straight: you’re not voting for Romney if he’s the eventual nominee because he’s a rich metrosexual? Okay, he’s rich, yes, but metrosexual? I’m glad you’ve thought this through, explored the philosophical aspects and examined the possible socioeconomic ramifications. Nothing like an informed non-voter.

troyriser_gopftw on March 26, 2012 at 11:15 AM

The short answer is, yeah. I don’t like the sense of entitlement around Rmoney and that we all have to fall in line because that’s the way it is. I didn’t become a republican to vote for democrats – I’d be a democrat instead. And I may not be as intelligent as most of you on here. I go with what I know, someone I trust with my future and the future of my children, can identify with, who speaks and communicates to me. Someone I’d have a beer with instead of a martini. So in answer to your question, that’s who I’d support over a metrosexual phony.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I go with what I know, someone I trust with my future and the future of my children, can identify with, who speaks and communicates to me. Someone I’d have a beer with
mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Anti-mormon bigotry noted.

Alberta_Patriot on March 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM

There’s some overlap. But most user fees are in exchange for services rendered by government–for use of a public golf course, for instance, or to use facilities in a public park. Hiking these a bit to balance a budget is seldom a cause for public resentment. Most people recognize the difference between a voluntarily paid fee for a service rendered and a coercive tax. That is, unless they’re trying somehow to distort Romney’s actual record.

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 2:24 AM

All taxes pay for services rendered. You are beyond any help.

For example, is it remotely possible that it costs the government $100 to find and make 4 copies of your birth certificate? Each and every single copy costing the government the same amount of money? Then when you go to have those three certificates mailed to you they charge you $18. The USPS can overnight those for $4.90 and add in signature confirmation for $2.10 more it comes to $7.00 even. Sorry buddy, but that is a tax for having a baby. You need it to get insurance, to take to the hospital, to get a passport which somehow costs in excess of $100.00, for an infant. Now I can understand needing to background check someone aged 13 and over, but 8 months?

If a company were providing these services, they would be significantly less expensive. Now lets just get this straight away. These things I just stated, are the CORE of what the government should be providing. CORE.

astonerii on March 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Anti-mormon bigotry noted.

Alberta_Patriot on March 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM

snort! thanks for the laugh :-)

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

What boggles my mind is these people who know that another Obama term will destroy America, yet they are seriously saying that they will cross the aisle and vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee for no other reason than to stop Romney from becoming President.

It’s as if they think that if Romney becomes POTUS and somehow does manage to reverse the suicidal debt spiral, that America will become tainted by having had Romney as President and will be no longer worth saving.

I can’t imagine what would cause that kind of thinking.

Oh… wait… nevermind. I know exactly what causes that kind of thinking.

Alberta_Patriot on March 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Alberta_Patriot on March 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

That’s why we’re pushing back so hard to prevent Obama’s automatic re-election. If the republican establishment won’t nominate a reliable and trustworthy candidate then we the people will do it for them. It’s up to them and if they don’t, they shouldn’t whine and complain that support goes luke warm and we get McCained/Doled yet again. It’s way beyond the etcha sketch problem now.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM

snort! thanks for the laugh :-)

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Anytime. :D

Seriously though… you aren’t voting for a guy you can have a beer with, you’re supposed to be voting for someone who can reverse the US debt spiral before America turns into the last days of the Wiemar Republic.

And there’s just no better man for the job than one who already balanced a state budget in one term with his boot firmly on the throats of 200 democrats (Massachusetts democrats too, arguably the lowest and worst form of democrat).

Alberta_Patriot on March 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Anytime. :D

Seriously though… you aren’t voting for a guy you can have a beer with, you’re supposed to be voting for someone who can reverse the US debt spiral before America turns into the last days of the Wiemar Republic.

And there’s just no better man for the job than one who already balanced a state budget in one term with his boot firmly on the throats of 200 democrats (Massachusetts democrats too, arguably the lowest and worst form of democrat).

Alberta_Patriot on March 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

It all boils down to trust and I don’t trust Romney at all. Contrary to what you state above I don’t think he’s the man to do it and deep down, I don’t think he will. Especially if the democrats increase their influence in Congress which it looks like they will in the Senate. Why replace one flawed politician with another loose cannon when we can change things before it’s too late. Hence the primary battles.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 2:57 PM

If you want someone to hear you out, don’t tell obvious falsehoods. I’ll note that you didn’t just claim that Romney was conservative. If you’re loose enough with the definition of “conservative,” you might be able to defend such a claim.

But you claimed that Romney was more conservative than Santorum or Gingrich. This is a nonsense position.

Maybe you should start reading the entire posts of those who disagree with you instead of closing your mind to what they have to say. Then perhaps you’d discover that neither Santorum nor Gingrich are genuine conservatives, that both are statists who have supported liberal policies in ways that have gone beyond what Romney ever did. Here’s the record:

1. Santorum supported national standards for “every school in America” and voted for No Child Left Behind. This expanded the federal government’s reach into local education.

2. He pushed for a new federal entitlement–Bush’s prescription drug plan–which added to the annual budget and made our dangerously overburdened fiscal situation far worse.

3. He pushed to raise the minimum wage and voted to protect the federal government’s wage-fixing Davis-Bacon law.

4. He voted against NAFTA.

5. He voted to protect subsidies and to introduce new tariffs.

6. He voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, and defended earmarks.

Gingrich’s record is just as bad, if not worse. His dismissal of Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan as “right-wing social engineering” exposed his kneejerk tendency to take positions to the left of Romney. Here’s the real record:

1. Like Santorum he stumped hard for Bush’s prescription drug bill, which expanded government entitlements.

2. Like Romney, he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance. But he did so by praising Obama’s “openness” in pushing for a health bill, something Romney never did and was right out of the leftwing play book.

3. He pushed for cap and trade and was a strong vocal advocate for the need to do something about global warming, even posing with Nancy Pelosi in an ad on the subject.

5. He peddled influence on behalf of Freddie Mac, furthering government intrusion into the real estate market and further undermining the free enterprise system.

6. He attacked Romney from the left as an opponent of capitalism generally and Bains Capital specifically.

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Ok, you have your laundry list against Santorum’s and Gingrich’s conservatism, but we have yet to see the laundry list where Romney is more conservative than either… Bueller? Bueller??

We want the most conservative of the remaining candidates and that’s why Santorum is winning there and Romney is not. And ironically that’s even with “conservative” endorsements for Romney. He should run as what he is, a liberal republican.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 3:37 PM

And I couldn’t disagree more. I’m no political junkie I just call them as I see them and I see a guy with little money going up against all odds, a huge, moneyed retread politician who can’t win substantially without outspending his opponents and instead is getting beaten by a scrappy fighter with a message. And that stokes my enthusiasm over a metrosexual phony who is trying to get pawned off on all of us before it’s too late and then we’ve got to bend over backwards or into pretzels trying to support and defend. And that’s why I’m enthused now because if it’s Rmoney…can’t do it.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

The fact that Santorum has so little money should scare you, not stoke you. To win in the fall it’ll take money and organization–and Santorum has neither. Romney is by far our strongest and most competent candidate. The idea that he’s “getting beaten” by Santorum is simply contrary to the facts. He’s way behind in delegates with no chance of overtaking Romney.

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 3:53 PM

For example, is it remotely possible that it costs the government $100 to find and make 4 copies of your birth certificate? Each and every single copy costing the government the same amount of money? Then when you go to have those three certificates mailed to you they charge you $18. The USPS can overnight those for $4.90 and add in signature confirmation for $2.10 more it comes to $7.00 even. Sorry buddy, but that is a tax for having a baby. You need it to get insurance, to take to the hospital, to get a passport which somehow costs in excess of $100.00, for an infant. Now I can understand needing to background check someone aged 13 and over, but 8 months?

If a company were providing these services, they would be significantly less expensive. Now lets just get this straight away. These things I just stated, are the CORE of what the government should be providing. CORE.

The cost of a fee is not the point. Asking for a printout of your birth certificate or getting a passport or using a facility in a public park are occasional outlays that citizens choose to make for whatever reasons. Sales taxes and property taxes and school taxes and income taxes are forever and mandatory.

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM

That’s why we’re pushing back so hard to prevent Obama’s automatic re-election. If the republican establishment won’t nominate a reliable and trustworthy candidate then we the people will do it for them. It’s up to them and if they don’t, they shouldn’t whine and complain that support goes luke warm and we get McCained/Doled yet again. It’s way beyond the etcha sketch problem now.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM

But the opposite of what you say is true. What you consider “the establishment” is mythic. There is no establishment. Yeah, there are pundits and politicians–but they come from both sides of this debate. Drudge is from one side, Rush Limbaugh is from another. McCain is for Romney, but so is DeMint.

As for getting “McCained/Doled yet again,” it’s just the reverse. Both McCain and Dole were legislators–like Santorum. Neither had much in the way of experience outside of Congress. Like Santorum they were Washington insiders and part of the problem. Their solutions were generally to initiate more government programs. Romney is much different–a businessman and an executive with real experience in the free enterprise system. As governor he understands the intricacies of governing–but as an ex-businessman he has a much broader perspective. He’s also smarter and more articulate than either Dole or McCain ever were and would give Obama a run for his money in any debate–not to mention having sharper elbows than either Dole or McCain. He won’t be the pushover those others were.

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 4:31 PM

And ironically that’s even with “conservative” endorsements for Romney. He should run as what he is, a liberal republican.

mozalf on March 26, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Are liberal Republicans pro-life? Do they veto embryonic stem cell research? Do they refuse to raise taxes to balance budgets and eliminate deficits? Are they endorsed by Club for Growth or The American Conservative Union? Do they get support from Senator DeMint or Senator Toomey?

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Ok, you have your laundry list against Santorum’s and Gingrich’s conservatism, but we have yet to see the laundry list where Romney is more conservative than either…

To give one example for each–Romney is certainly far more opposed to union influence than Santorum whose voting record includes countless instances of pushing to increase the size and power of unions. Santorum has no qualms either about accepting campaign donations from unions. As for being more conservative than Gingrich–Romney never pushed for embryonic stem cell research as Gingrich once did. In fact as governor he vetoed proposals for such research.

These are just two examples of areas where Romney is clearly more conservative–but there are others issues that reveal this. Romney’s role as governor was to act as a brake to progressivism by limiting government, however limited his options were, given the liberal legislature he was forced to work with. Both Santorum and Gingrich, on the other hand, bought into some programs that greatly expanded an already bloated big government–No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug addition to Medicare come to mind. These programs were pushed by Republicans, not Democrats, and Santorum and Gingrich led the way. And of course there’s the Freddie Mac debacle…

writeblock on March 26, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11