A change in tone from Santorum?

posted at 12:10 pm on March 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As we move through the halftime break in the Republican nomination process, all of the campaigns have an opportunity to retool their strategies, or even rethink their possibilities.  The New York Times reports that Rick Santorum has tweaked his approach on the stump, moving away from hard attacks on Mitt Romney and focusing more on Barack Obama:

Rick Santorum has eased up on using phrases like “worst Republican in the country” when tearing into Mitt Romney. And he is no longer saying that a vote for Mr. Romney would be basically the same thing as a vote for President Obama.

Meet subdued Santorum.

After several highly publicized remarks that left many in his party questioning whether he had crossed the line in attacking a fellow Republican, Mr. Santorum has struggled to find the balance between being a tenacious underdog and leaving himself open to criticism that he is just an embittered also-ran.

He still reserves plenty of derision for Mr. Romney, mocking him repeatedly as the “Etch A Sketch” candidate whose conservative values are malleable and insincere. But in campaign speeches across Wisconsin the past few days he has directed more of that outrage at Mr. Obama, particularly over the issue of government-mandated health care.

He is now refraining from more pointed language. Mr. Romney is “uniquely disqualified,” as Mr. Santorum has mildly put it, to make the argument for conservatives that Mr. Obama’s health care plan should be repealed.

The opening lead is rather dishonest, and seems to be intended to provide cover for NYT colleague Jeff Zeleny, who got chewed out by Santorum for twisting his words on the stump.  Jeffrey Peters’ link to the source for the quote “worst Republican in the country” goes to the NYT’s Caucus Blog, which actually gets the quote correct, emphasis mine — ironically, a post written by Zeleny:

Rick Santorum urged Republicans here Sunday evening to carefully study the record of Mitt Romney, declaring: “He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama.”

That’s hardly the same thing as calling Romney “the worst Republican in the country,” and Santorum relates it directly to Romney’s health-care reform in Massachusetts in a year when Republicans can expect to attack Obama on ObamaCare.  That’s hardly outside the bounds of debate over the nomination; it’s a concern conservatives have had since the beginning of the nomination process.  That doesn’t mean Romney can’t make the case for himself, and he has — even here on my show as recently as last week — but Santorum’s criticism of Romney’s record is hardly unique within the Republican Party, and hardly the sharpest offered in that vein, either.

Still, critics of Santorum have accused him of being too shrill, especially since it appears that Romney has the only chance of winning the nomination in the primary process.  Recently, Santorum said he’d consider a running-mate slot on the GOP ticket, which means that he’d have to tone down his rhetoric sooner or later anyway.  And if a recent poll in Pennsylvania is accurate, it will have to be sooner rather than later.  Salena Zito interviewed a few political analysts (including myself) about Santorum’s prospects in the race nationally and in Pennsylvania, and what a loss in the Keystone State would mean:

Republican strategist Brad Todd said Santorum faces a tough series of contests before Pennsylvania, especially primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.

“I think with Wisconsin, it will be hard to stitch a narrative together, even by his most ardent backers, if he loses there to go on,” said Todd, noting polls show Santorum trailing Romney by 8 percentage points in the Badger State. “The support isn’t there for him. Losing another blue-collar, Catholic-rich Midwestern state to Mitt Romney isn’t a good story to tell.” ….

The campaign should end before the April 24 primary here if the former senator continues to slide in opinion polls and lose other primaries, said Ed Morrissey, editor of the widely read conservative blog, Hot Air.

“Losing in Pennsylvania not only finishes him in the race, but it may finish him for good,” said Morrissey, who caucused for Santorum last week in Minnesota.

Of course, it’s worth pointing out that the FMC poll showed Santorum still leading by two points in Pennsylvania, but that was a 13-point drop from the previous month’s poll in the FMC series.  We won’t likely see a Rasmussen, Survey USA, or PPP poll from Pennsylvania until after next week’s primaries, but a further collapse in support there should have Santorum considering whether it would be better for his future prospects to avoid an embarrassing home-state defeat by withdrawing.  Santorum will be 54 years old in May, which would make him 58 in 2016 if Republicans lose this election, and 62 in 2020 if they win.  He has plenty of time to build strength and try again later, but another home-state loss added to the 2006 result might reinforce the notion that Santorum simply can’t sustain a campaign.

Joe Trippi, who ran Howard Dean’s campaign in 2003-4, understands why Santorum may not want to consider those issues:

“It is very hard to pull out of that once you start to taste victory,” Trippi said. “I understand the human difficulty of walking away.”

If Santorum can’t win Pennsylvania, then the nomination race is over anyway.  If it looks like his support is truly collapsing after next week’s primaries, it might be time for rethinking rather than retooling.  If Santorum can win in Wisconsin, though, Pennsylvania will suddenly look a lot brighter.


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 2 3

Oh, look!

Godwin’s law proven true.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:17 PM

It isn’t Godwin’s Law if it’s true, gun-grabber.

Dunedainn on March 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

This has to be the dumbest post in history. So your defending romneycare for only appointing 25% republicans because their are only 15% republicans in their legislature. You do realize meathead, that a governor/president even with an opposing party in the legistature usually get 95% of their judicial picks approved.

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Romneycare has the Hershey squirts, he needs you to lick up the mess!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Please ban this guy so he can go back to KOS.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I pity him. It must be dangerous jerking off at his keyboard with pincers for hands.

Daniel,

maybe i’m wrong about you. Maybe your problem is you haven’t been laid in a long time-or maybe ever.

Sexual frustration

lol

gerrym51 on March 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Wow! These pro-Romney arguments just keep getting better and better! I’m so persuaded!

LMAO!

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Please ban this guy because he doesn’t agree with me.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Fixed that for you, serene one.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I remember some of the Romney supporters in 2008 being downright nasty in their comments about Romney’s competitors and their supporters.

We’re seeing that same behavior again, and it ain’t pretty.

ITguy on March 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Oh hush, it’s all they have.

Dunedainn on March 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Please ban this guy so he can go back to KOS.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Now why would you want him wandering your turf, WillardBot?

Dunedainn on March 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I remember some of the Romney supporters in 2008 being downright nasty in their comments about Romney’s competitors and their supporters.

We’re seeing that same behavior again, and it ain’t pretty.

ITguy on March 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

You mean like this guy?

yeah, nothing leftie about that at all, your a dishonest shill who will keep your lips firmly on willard’s cock no matter what. funding abortions is what PP does, its what they have always done. i dont care what her intent was. any money she gave no matter what purpose it helps to keep killing babies. and if she thinks otherwise she’s either too dumb or too dishonest to be a first lady.

chasdal on January 18, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Oh wait. That was an ABRtard.

How about this guy?

What’s it like to be an ignorant dick who doesn’t want to understand the bigger point and who acts like a petulant teenager?

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Oh wait. That was an ABRtard too.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM

You do realize meathead, that a governor/president even with an opposing party in the legistature usually get 95% of their judicial picks approved.

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Do you want to have a discussion with Bill or denigrate him?

As for your claim that 95% of judicial picks being approved. Have something to back up that claim?

That certainly wasn’t true of Bush’s judicial appointments. I seem to recall that they held up a lot of appointments of his.

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Please ban this thing because it works for romneycare!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM

but but his potty mouth was becoming endearing and setting a fine example for children every where.

mittens on March 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM

ABRtards and Mittbots?

this is what you idiots have devolved into – effin’ liberals

DHChron on March 29, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Dump Willard . . . before he dumps you!

Emperor Norton on March 29, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM

And the guy who made a comment about a non-Romney supporter jerking off on his keyboard is okay, right?

Your hypocrisy is outshined only by your ignorance and stupidity.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM

This has to be the dumbest post in history. So your defending romneycare for only appointing 25% republicans because their are only 15% republicans in their legislature.

“Math is hard.”, Typical ABRtard.

Hey, MORON. In Mass BY LAW, the Gov can only choose Judges from a legislature approved list.

But you didn’t know that, because you are a stupid MORON.

You do realize meathead, that a governor/president even with an opposing party in the legistature usually get 95% of their judicial picks approved.

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Your ignorance is on display.

Governors are not dictators, they have to follow the law.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Hi, JannyMae.

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM

And the guy who made a comment about a non-Romney supporter jerking off on his keyboard is okay, right?

Hey, STUPID, I didn’t say that. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.

Your hypocrisy is outshined only by your ignorance and stupidity.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM

By your standard, Your hypocrisy is outshined only by your ignorance and stupidity, because you haven’t condemned the vulgar comments of the ABRtards.

WOW! See how that works.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I think we can all thank Dr Pepper for the ignorance on display from everyone on this thread.

DHChron on March 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Santorum would get more votes if he could change into a giant robot. Short of that, he loses and goes back to PA DC and resumes his resident historian gig.

Oh, that was Newt. What does Santorum do exactly?

antisense on March 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

The opening lead is rather dishonest, and seems to be intended to provide cover for NYT colleague Jeff Zeleny, who got chewed out by Santorum for twisting his words on the stump. Jeffrey Peters’ link to the source for the quote “worst Republican in the country” goes to the NYT’s Caucus Blog, which actually gets the quote correct, emphasis mine — ironically, a post written by Zeleny:

Rick Santorum urged Republicans here Sunday evening to carefully study the record of Mitt Romney, declaring: “He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama.”

That’s hardly the same thing as calling Romney “the worst Republican in the country,” and Santorum relates it directly to Romney’s health-care reform in Massachusetts in a year when Republicans can expect to attack Obama on ObamaCare. That’s hardly outside the bounds of debate over the nomination; it’s a concern conservatives have had since the beginning of the nomination process.

Given that the statement was made in a leadership contest, saying Romney is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama is, in context, really no different from saying he’s the worst Republican in the country.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Thank you, Dr Pepper.

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Why don’t you have a look at some of the extreme liberal judges romneycare has appointed and tell me how someone who can appoint such leftist could possibly appoint a conservative judge. Another souter, yes!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2855830/posts

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I’m certainly not perfect and I devolve into name calling on occasion but at least try to ignore the #ricks Bill. i’m trying to turn over a new leaf…

Does name calling open up the minds of others to where they can hear you or does it close their minds such that what you need to say gets muted by the name calling?

Everyone, relax a little.

Ideas can be discussed but name calling raises it to a whole other level don’t you think?

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You do realize meathead, that a governor/president even with an opposing party in the legistature usually get 95% of their judicial picks approved.

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Do you want to have a discussion with Bill or denigrate him?

As for your claim that 95% of judicial picks being approved. Have something to back up that claim?

That certainly wasn’t true of Bush’s judicial appointments. I seem to recall that they held up a lot of appointments of his.

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM

He is not here to have a discussion. He is simply here to spew bovine feculance.

ABRtards are impervious facts.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I remember some of the Romney supporters in 2008 being downright nasty in their comments about Romney’s competitors and their supporters.

We’re seeing that same behavior again, and it ain’t pretty.

What is it about Willard supporters that makes them so nasty, immature, and obnoxious?

It’s as if they’re all youths on a Mormon mission–but never were taught what to do if the person they’re trying to convert rejects their message, even with hostility.

Yes, that’s it. Imagine the Willard supporters, all male, no older than 18, in sleeveless white shirts with a little black ceramic name tag that says, “ELDER WHITEBREAD” and telling us how our religion is not good enough because it won’t get us into the very highest level of heaven.

They won’t take “no” for an answer. That’s why they like baptizing the dead. The dead can’t argue with them.

Emperor Norton on March 29, 2012 at 1:35 PM

What does Santorum do exactly?

antisense on March 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

he loses incumbency by 16 points

DHChron on March 29, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

As I understand it, Governors put forward those they want, and the legislature approves.

Since 85% of the Massachusetts legislature is Democrat, how do you think that’s gonna go down?

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM

This is entertaining. It’s like having two waiters each with a crap sandwich on their plate trying to convince a bunch of diners that their crap sandwich is actually a delicious monte cristo.

gravityman on March 29, 2012 at 1:39 PM

None of the above. He will blame it on Satan.

gravityman on March 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Yeah, but he’d have a point there- I’ve little doubt that Satan voted multiple times in Illinois.

Hollowpoint on March 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I concur gravityman. I was thinking both waiters have Greek food, but that just ends up as a crap sammich five minutes later.

DHChron on March 29, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Yeah, but he’d have a point there- I’ve little doubt that Satan voted multiple times in Illinois.

Hollowpoint on March 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Well, in Illinois I am sure Thomas Aquinas, Pope Leopold I, and Mother Theresa also voted, so it all balanced out. :)

gravityman on March 29, 2012 at 1:42 PM

What is it about ABRtards that makes them so nasty, immature, and obnoxious?

Emperor Norton on March 29, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Fixed it for you.

You are welcome.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Please ban this guy because he doesn’t agree with me. there are no limits on his filthy language.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Fixed that for you, serene one.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Please, if you must play the childish game of ‘correcting’ me, instead of altering my statement, try to show a little class and use the strike feature.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:27 PM

You mittbot are so full of it!

This is the law in massachusetts in appointing judges

http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/methods/selection_of_judges.cfm?state=MA

Method of Filling Interim Vacancies
Supreme Judicial Court: gubernatorial appointment with governor’s council approval*
Appeals Court: gubernatorial appointment from nominating commission with governor’s council approval*
Superior Court: gubernatorial appointment from nominating commission with governor’s council approval*

Selection of Chief Judge/Justice
Supreme Judicial Court: gubernatorial appointment with governor’s council approval*
Appeals Court: gubernatorial appointment from nominating commission with governor’s council approval*
Superior Court: selected by chief justice for administration and management

idiot, who appoints supreme court juctices A GOV., Who appoints appeal court Gov.

So moron it starts with the gov. They keep nominating till approval. They appoint the Gov. council

WHERE EXACTLY IS THE LEGISLATURE INVOLVED!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Where exactly is the legislature involved! What
is your problem! What is the noise in my
head! Why do I think exclamation points
are question marks!!! I’m Danny Devito?

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

No mittbot, it’s not childish, it’s an opinion opposed to yours. Is that allowed in your mittbot world, differing opinions!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Is that not allowed!

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 1:51 PM

let me get this straight:

I realize Rick is a completely unelectable, whiny and petulant jerk face whose conservative credentials end with stopping teh ghey agenda. I’m a mittbot.

I also realize mittens is a deplorable flip flopping Big Government pseudo severe conservative.
I’m an ABRtard.

got it.

DHChron on March 29, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Corrosion, your getting a bit testy! maybe, you need to use romneycare’s vacation home, be sure to take the elevator for your car and park it on the lower level!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM

aren’t exclamation points question marks!

whoo hoo?

DHChron on March 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM

This is the law in massachusetts in appointing judges

http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/methods/selection_of_judges.cfm?state=MA

Method of Filling Interim Vacancies
Supreme Judicial Court: gubernatorial appointment with governor’s council approval*
Appeals Court: gubernatorial appointment from nominating commission with governor’s council approval*
Superior Court: gubernatorial appointment from nominating commission with governor’s council approval*

Selection of Chief Judge/Justice
Supreme Judicial Court: gubernatorial appointment with governor’s council approval*
Appeals Court: gubernatorial appointment from nominating commission with governor’s council approval*
Superior Court: selected by chief justice for administration and management

WHERE EXACTLY IS THE LEGISLATURE INVOLVED!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Hey MORON!

Tell us what exactly is the governor’s council that has to APPROVE ALL of the appointments.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Is the point of an elevator to elevate? No room left on the lower level, it’s occupied by you and your ilk.

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM

let me get this straight:

I realize Rick is a completely unelectable, whiny and petulant jerk face whose conservative credentials end with stopping teh ghey agenda. I’m a mittbot.

I also realize mittens is a deplorable flip flopping Big Government pseudo severe conservative.
I’m an ABRtard.

got it.

DHChron on March 29, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Yup. That pretty much covers it.

Objectivity and the ability to recognize the faults of both candidates… well… we dun tolerate that thar kinda reason’d thunkin’ in these here parts!

gravityman on March 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM

DHChron on March 29, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Nope, you’re a rational adult.

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Here’s a wacky theory. Santorum’s campaign for president was really an attempt to raise money and support for a rematch against Bob Casey for his old Senate seat.
EricW on March 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM

When he loses PA next month his political career is really over in that state. It is already over nationwide. There are too many new faces waiting for 2016 to take on Hussein’s successor. Perhaps he can run for Pope when the post becomes vacant.

Annar on March 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM

This is entertaining. It’s like having two waiters each with a crap sandwich on their plate trying to convince a bunch of diners that their crap sandwich is actually a delicious monte cristo.

gravityman on March 29, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Well, except that most of the non-Romneys seem to be capable of realizing that all the candidates suck. The Mittwits, not so much.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

What is it about Willard supporters that makes them so nasty, immature, and obnoxious?

It’s as if they’re all youths on a Mormon mission–but never were taught what to do if the person they’re trying to convert rejects their message, even with hostility.

Yes, that’s it. Imagine the Willard supporters, all male, no older than 18, in sleeveless white shirts with a little black ceramic name tag that says, “ELDER WHITEBREAD” and telling us how our religion is not good enough because it won’t get us into the very highest level of heaven.

They won’t take “no” for an answer. That’s why they like baptizing the dead. The dead can’t argue with them.

Emperor Norton on March 29, 2012 at 1:35

PM

You have a very blinkered view. The nastiness started with the ABRs, and early on it was easily 10-1 against Romney. It’s started to level out. You can dish it out. Apparently you can’t take it.

And no, we won’t take no for an answer. And neither will you. So stop your whining. If you attack the nominee or his supporters be prepared to be attacked.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Some questions for Mr. Santorum:

If Obamacare (the whole enchilada) is ruled unconstitutional, is Mitt Romney still uniquely disqualified to serve? Can the argument still be made that “We cannot afford to give this issue away?”

rogaineguy on March 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM

So moron, the dems put a gun to a govenor’s head to appoint someone after that indiviual just won a statewide race.

Are you this hopeless, my god, are all mittbots as dumb as you. Now I see why we are screwed.

By the way, way to win conservatives over to your liberal side!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

You have a very blinkered view. The nastiness started with the ABRs, and early on it was easily 10-1 against Romney. It’s started to level out. You can dish it out. Apparently you can’t take it.

And no, we won’t take no for an answer. And neither will you. So stop your whining. If you attack the nominee or his supporters be prepared to be attacked.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

YUP!!!

That sums it up right.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Please ban this guy because he doesn’t agree with me.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Fixed that for you, serene one.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

There is a difference between not agreeing with a Romney supporter and telling him to lick up Romney’s diarrhea, as Danielvito did.

Do you understand that?

Gelsomina on March 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Jeffrey Peters’ link to the source for the quote “worst Republican in the country” goes to the NYT’s Caucus Blog, which actually gets the quote correct, emphasis mine — ironically, a post written by Zeleny:

Rick Santorum urged Republicans here Sunday evening to carefully study the record of Mitt Romney, declaring: “He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama.”

That’s hardly the same thing as calling Romney “the worst Republican in the country,” and Santorum relates it directly to Romney’s health-care reform in Massachusetts in a year when Republicans can expect to attack Obama on ObamaCare.

Congratulations – and THANKS, Ed - for getting that very important quote RIGHT!

People in the Lying Mainstream Media and “Other Places” have been spinning that quote for DAYS, trying to parse it to say what THEY wanted it to!

It’s important in Media Battles like this to NOT LET Truth be the First victim – and YOU have done a Brilliant job here of telling the truth and setting everyone else STRAIGHT!

God Bless you!

williamg on March 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Some questions for Mr. Santorum:

If Obamacare (the whole enchilada) is ruled unconstitutional, is Mitt Romney still uniquely disqualified to serve? Can the argument still be made that “We cannot afford to give this issue away?”

rogaineguy on March 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Yes! Because if we don’t get a solid republican majority in Congress, and it looking more and more like we’ll lose seats in the Senate, then Romney will cave when the democrats resurrect Obamacare under some other guise and he caves rather than fights. The SCOTUS may rule it unconstitutional but it won’t be dead forever. We need someone who is guaranteed to stand up against democrats not appease them and rolls over.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Please, if you must play the childish game of ‘correcting’ me, instead of altering my statement, try to show a little class and use the strike feature.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Wow, somebody who personally insults people right and left, and calls for banning people who don’t agree with him, is lecturing me about class.

You have become a parody of yourself, serene one.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

These are among the Official JannyMae Approved Ad Hominems®:

“Psycho” and “Aberrant”. And since she didn’t object when her BFF Blake used the term, I infer it’s okay to call two terrified elderly people who are in hiding thanks to Spike Lee, “That Odd Couple”.

PS: Do not express a negative reaction if she calls you a name. You see, if you do that it means you’re not taking her “friendly advice” to “learn to not take comments on a political blog so personally”.

Buy Danish on March 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

WHERE EXACTLY IS THE LEGISLATURE INVOLVED!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:44 PM

The procedure in MA is that the governor nominates candidates selected by the judicial nominating commission, which evaluates candidates based on qualifications without knowing political affiliation. In MA, that gives a statistical likelihood that the pool of candidates will be approximately 10% Republican, 40% Democrat and 50% independent.

Once the governor has nominated a candidate, it has to be approved by the Governor’s Council, the members of which are chosen by the MA legislature (by the way, the other name for the legislature in MA is the general court, which is a holdover from Colonial times).

So although the legislature does not directly approve judicial appointments, it does select the body that does. When Romney was governor, 8 out of the 9 members of the Governor’s Council were Democrats.

It is also helpful to remember that Romney made no appointments to the MA Supreme Court at all. His picks were all for lower positions, where political affiliation (even if it were known) isn’t important.

HTL on March 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

There is a difference between not agreeing with a Romney supporter and telling him to lick up Romney’s diarrhea, as Danielvito did.

Do you understand that?

Gelsomina on March 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

How about the comment about another commentator jerking off on his keyboard?

I pity him. It must be dangerous jerking off at his keyboard with pincers for hands.

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Basilsbest didn’t call for his banning. We both know why, don’t we?

You might want to review the whole thread before you criticize.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

“Romneycare” (as it has now been dubbed) was developed by a coalition of Labor, Management, Democrats and Republicans (especially the conservative Heritage Foundation), who collaborated on its makeup, its contents, and represented the people of the state of Massachusetts—at that time in history. That is how a representative democracy works, and as a state they have the right to deal with it however they see fit. If Romney disagreed with parts of the Massachusetts law, and he clearly did by wielding 8 vetoes against it which effectively cut out 8 sections of the bill, those objections were ultimately overcome by the 85% Democratic legislature.

Did you know that Romney wielded over 800 vetoes while he was Governor of Massachusetts? Out of those 800 vetoes, more than 700 were overturned by the Massachusetts Legislature. There are clearly aspects of the Massachusetts law that he didn’t agree with. Furthermore, the next Governor, Deval Patrick who is a Democrat, changed the law and the Massachusetts healthcare system is not even how Romney designed it. So any similarities that exist today are due to the changes that have taken place since it was first enacted. Read the actual bill, I have. It’s only 70 pages long.

The biggest difference between the two laws is the 10th Amendment… Romneycare is constitutional by virtue of the “numerous and indefinite” powers reserved to the states by the Constitution whereas Obamacare is unconstitutional because it overreaches the limited powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. Obamacare was over 2700 pages long, Romneycare was 70 pages long and Romneycare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts, Obamacare was a one size fits all mandate imposed on all states.

Obamacare expands the size and power of the Federal government beyond the few and defined powers delegated by the Constitution, thus diminishing state powers; in contrast, Romneycare invokes numerous and indefinite powers to require that citizens be insured, thus preventing what was already a reality in most every state today and that was that some people were gaming the system… People who had the means to pay for their own healthcare but used the already in place system to get free healthcare,

With Obamacare, a public option of sorts was available to those in need. In Romneycare, subsidies were given to those in need to go get private insurance. He did not create or expand some public health insurance pool but kept things private. Those who could not afford it would get help.

The only similarity between the laws is that there is an individual mandate to buy health insurance. If you don’t have it, you get fined. The idea was to make people accountable. No free riders so to speak.

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

So moron, the dems put a gun to a govenor’s(SIC) head to appoint someone after that indiviual(SIC) just won a statewide race.

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Nah, the dems get to reject the Governor choices if they don’t like them. Because the dems have no fear about getting re-elected in a lib state. But Romney was able to squeeze through a more conservative ratio than the state as a whole.

That is what happens when a real conservative is a Governor in a VERY liberal state.

But MORONS like you can’t seem to grasp that.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Please, if you must play the childish game of ‘correcting’ me, instead of altering my statement, try to show a little class and use the strike feature.
Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Wow, somebody who personally insults people right and left, and calls for banning people who don’t agree with him, is lecturing me about class.
You have become a parody of yourself, serene one.
JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Ha!! Oh the irony! I went back and read this entire thread. Basilbeast has not made a single comment which can be called “offensive” by any stretch of the imagination. Nope, he objected to a disgusting scatological comment which by some bizarrely incomprehensible “logic” is exactly the time for JannyMae to jump in and attack, not the filthy-mouthed perpetrator, but …..>Basilbeast.

Buy Danish on March 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I’ll second Buy Danish… I just did as well and Basilsbest had one comment at the very end of page one, the next comment was…

Romneycare has the Hershey squirts, he needs you to lick up the mess!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Please ban this guy so he can go back to KOS.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Try again Jannymae

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

In addition to what you stated…but let’s not let FACTS get int the way of those that cannot stand Romney like many on HA…

MA Healthcare differed from what Romney wanted/signed
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68606_Page2.html#ixzz1e23x9FNH

“We knew the next governor was likely going to be a Democrat,” said John McDonough, who at the time was the executive director of Health Care For All, a consumer advocate group. “So Democrats in the state decided to put off key decisions around implementation until a new administration came in.”

And in his book “No Apologies,” Romney concedes: “Even the best written legislation is subject to rulemaking and interpretation by political appointees and it can be adjusted by subsequent administrations.”

Another key difference is that the final bill included a “play-or-pay” provision for small businesses, something Romney had been opposed to from the beginning.

The House added the employer mandate provision — fines for small businesses that did not offer health insurance — and Romney subsequently vetoed the measure. The Legislature overrode his veto, and as a presidential candidate, Romney has been able to defend himself on this point.

Additionally, Romney notes in “No Apologies” that expensive insurance mandates like in vitro fertilization and dental care in “low-cost” insurance plans were also added to the final package despite his vetoes.

McDonough said that every stakeholder in the state, including Romney, ended up agreeing on the pillars of the law that are still in place today, but concedes that the law doesn’t reflect exactly what Romney had in mind for the state.

“The key components from Romney’s original proposal to what was in the final law are all there: insurance market reforms, the individual mandate, subsidies, the exchange,” McDonough said. “But yes, the Legislature filled in the blanks, and it’s markedly different than what he had in mind.”

g2825m on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Well, in Illinois I am sure Thomas Aquinas, Pope Leopold I, and Mother Theresa also voted, so it all balanced out. :)

gravityman on March 29, 2012 at 1:42 PM

lool :-)

jimver on March 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM

There’s a clue here for JannyMae, which explains why she is totally off-base to be attacking Basilbeast. Let’s see if she can figure it out:

I pity him. It must be dangerous jerking off at his keyboard with pincers for hands.
Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Right. Because statesmen are usually angry. You win today’s prize for humor.
Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Hint: It has something to do with making “assumptions”, which is doubly fun since it’s germane to discussions at the Spike Lee thread.

Buy Danish on March 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Yep. I think you got it. Let’s see if JannyMae csn wrap her braincells around it…

Buy Danish on March 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM

csn=can

Buy Danish on March 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM

He’s so good at burning bridges that even the river disappears.

Ward Cleaver on March 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM

You’re talking about Mittens right? The guy has blown up more bridges than a retreating German division.

angryed on March 29, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Nope, Santorum. I liked him at first, but the robocalls to Dems in Ohio ruined it for me.

Ward Cleaver on March 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM

g2825m on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

It’s refreshing to hear rational minded people like you and Buy Danish (plus many more) still inhabit the dungeons of HA’s comment threads.

It’s funny, conservatives pride themselves on being level headed people who don’t get emotional… They leave the emotional appeals and hyperbole to the Democrats and socialist liberals…

Yet here we find ourselves on what is touted as a conservative website, with supposedly conservative commenters, who regularly use emotional appeals and crassly worded posts to try to denigrate someone who supports someone else in the primary.

don’t get me wrong, I sometimes devolve into name calling as well but it’s usually out of frustration and anger at the inanity of those attacking my position and the candidate I have supported since the beginning of this process while most of those who fling the crap my way have jumped from one Not Romney to the other, and sometimes back again.

Grow up people, and ACT like conservatives and drop the hyperbolic invectives and lets talk, not fight.

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM

You might want to review the whole thread before you criticize.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I read the entire thread. It was an X-rated back and forth between Romney supporters and non-Romneys. There is no need to turn one side into martyrs.

All you do is endlessly complaining about Romney supporters while completely ignoring that the non-Romneys aren’t exactly civil as well.

The mutual name-calling is sometimes even kind of funny, but this passive-aggressive martyr game is annoying.

Gelsomina on March 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM

g2825m on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

It’s refreshing to hear rational minded people like you and Buy Danish (plus many more) still inhabit the dungeons of HA’s comment threads.

It’s funny, conservatives pride themselves on being level headed people who don’t get emotional… They leave the emotional appeals and hyperbole to the Democrats and socialist liberals…

Yet here we find ourselves on what is touted as a conservative website, with supposedly conservative commenters, who regularly use emotional appeals and crassly worded posts to try to denigrate someone who supports someone else in the primary.

don’t get me wrong, I sometimes devolve into name calling as well but it’s usually out of frustration and anger at the inanity of those attacking my position and the candidate I have supported since the beginning of this process while most of those who fling the crap my way have jumped from one Not Romney to the other, and sometimes back again.

Grow up people, and ACT like conservatives and drop the hyperbolic invectives and lets talk, not fight.

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Yeah, I am not a name caller like several on here are…I think the harshest word I have used is WINGNUT.

As far the “others” claiming it is ALL the Romney supporters that fling mud I strongly disagree as they have been on Romney supporters from Day One of the Iowa Caucuses. They were upset that Romney was using the other candidates records and it was dragging them down in the polls and also some could not put coherent thoughts together. All the while mad that the Hot Air polls were NOT matching how people were ACTUALLY voting because they LIKE Romney and proven out in the polls. It is hilarious to read some of the other articles out there and actual voters will say “You know I really liked Romney and he was down to earth and not what all the media says about him”…cracks me up because so many people here on HA believe he is some robot, out-of-touch, liberal…not even close.

g2825m on March 29, 2012 at 2:54 PM

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Well, except that most of the non-Romneys seem to be capable of realizing that all the candidates suck. The Mittwits, not so much.

As long as you vote for the republican nominee in the general election thats all that matters to me

Gerry-mittbot-rombot-mittwit-mittler youth-mittler old-botbot-mittmot

gerrym51 on March 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Gelsomina on March 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM

There’s also something else JannyMae missed in her eagerness to attack Basilbeast. The clue (which even the idiot Inspector Clouseau could not miss) can be found here.

Buy Danish on March 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

It’s funny that JannyMae now wants to rise above the fray and claim that transcendent beings such as herself view all of the candidates with distain. Those of us who support a candidate ate just rude, uninformed trolls. Yet just days ago, criticizing santorum would draw immediate response from the same JannyMae that now see’s things more clearly.

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM

g2825m on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

what is the source (or secret) of your patience? :-) just curious…I’ve seen you countless times posting/linking facts and well researched articles on this forum, explaining and debunking in great detail and with minutiae every single misconception about Romney, romneycare, his MA term, Bain Capital, etc…I wouldn’t think that it changed a single mind of the non-persuadable crowd here, but the research effort and patience that goes into your comments is most refreshing and what I admire the most about your posts, while it is so much more facile and instantly gratifying to go ad hominem and call people names :-)…

jimver on March 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I said ate

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I said ate
Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 2:59 PM

We only eat “rude, uninformed trolls”. The rest we throw back into the sea in an act of mercy:)

Buy Danish on March 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

g2825m on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

what is the source (or secret) of your patience? :-) just curious…I’ve seen you countless times posting/linking facts and well researched articles on this forum, explaining and debunking in great detail and with minutiae every single misconception about Romney, romneycare, his MA term, Bain Capital, etc…I wouldn’t think that it changed a single mind of the non-persuadable crowd here, but the research effort and patience that goes into your comments is most refreshing and what I admire the most about your posts, while it is so much more facile and instantly gratifying to go ad hominem and call people names :-)…

jimver on March 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM

haha Thanks!

truthfully, it is these wars (AFG-IRAQ) I have been involved in since 2005. There are soooooo many more important things to cherish such as LIFE itself than to get all worked up about candidates and what names we call each other. Seeing death all around you can be humbling and so that is likely why I can for the MOST part remain calm on here. :o)

g2825m on March 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Thanks for saving my diatribe (:

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 3:04 PM

g2825m on March 29, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Romney’s opponents, and Romney’s opponents supporters try to distort his record and use it against him… But when Romney himself, and then the Super PAC supporting him, started pointing out the hypocrisy of his opponents own records while in office he was somehow being a dirty campaigner.

I know and realize that that is my characterization of how things went down but the facts are facts, and no matter how emotional you get about it, facts aren’t changed by our feelings/characterizations about them.

I donated $200 a few months back to his campaign and just upped the ante the other day with another $750.

He’s really who we need right now… He’s who we needed back in 2008.

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 3:04 PM

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Typical Mittbot, very selective,! i’ve been taking a wee bit of romneycare incoming!

So in the romneycare world name calling is only when they do it, not when when you do.

You proved my experience, lib.

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 3:05 PM

SauerKraut537 on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Typical Mittbot, very selective,! i’ve been taking a wee bit of romneycare incoming!
So in the romneycare world name calling is only when they do it, not when when you do.
You proved my experience, lib.
Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Have you been drinking?
what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 3:08 PM

It’s funny that JannyMae now wants to rise above the fray and claim that transcendent beings such as herself view all of the candidates with distain.
Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM

yeah, she’s so transcendent and ethereal, almost like a breeze or an elf from the Norse mythology (the dark kind I mean :)…

jimver on March 29, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Let me know when you give up JannyMae and I’ll explain it to you…

Buy Danish on March 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM

By the way, way to win conservatives over to your liberal side!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

So, by this ABRtard’s logic all Romney supporters are liberals.

Just more proof that he is a stupid MORON!

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Corosion allen, You are truely a moron! I can see why you are named after corosion!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Truely.

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

So, by this ABRtard’s logic all Romney supporters are liberals.

Just more proof that he is a stupid MORON!

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

So now you Mittbot azz your picking on special needs. You are despicable. This is like the third time you used ABRtard’s

Their is a special place in hell for people like you mittbot!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

The SCOTUS may rule it unconstitutional but it won’t be dead forever.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

It’s dead forever if it’s ruled unconstitutional. Don’t you remember what it took to get it passed? A sizable majority in the House and 60 (59?) seats in the Senate. And still they had all kinds of trouble getting it through. If it’s struck down, it’s dead. Dead.

rogaineguy on March 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Their is a special place in hell for people like you mittbot!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

it’s ‘there’ not ‘their’, genius…

jimver on March 29, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Too late, Rick. You’ve let the mask slip and damaged the party’s chances in November. The damage is done, and it’s your own fault.

flataffect on March 29, 2012 at 3:29 PM

At some point conservatives begin to realize Santorum isn’t remotely close to being qualified for the office. He can’t even run a campaign – failed to qualify for all or parts of the ballots in Virginia, DC, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, all states even Alan Keyes managed to qualify for in 2000. The guy has never run anything bigger than his Senate staff, and since getting his butt handed to him by 18% in his last election, has been earning up to $1 million per year for a lobbying law firm.

And don’t ask him how he financed the house he lives in now.

The ONLY reason Santorum is even still in the race is that conservatives tried out every other possibility for the “Not Romney” role first. Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich all had their turn at trying out for the role first. Even most Santorum voters aren’t “for” him, they just wish there were a viable conservative alternative.

Don’t worry about Rick. Lobbyists always manage to land on their feet.

Adjoran on March 29, 2012 at 3:30 PM

So now you Mittbot azz your picking on special needs.

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

You are special needs.

That explains a lot.

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 3:31 PM

They’re is a special palace for you Mittbots?

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 3:33 PM

jimver on March 29, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I notice mittbot, you didn’t comment on your pal’s term ABRtard’s. typical, romneycare hack, let’s see which is more improper, a spelling error or attacking special needs people. That’s right, I’m a mittbot, spelling is more important than attacking the special needs.

Jim join your pal in hell!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I read the entire thread. It was an X-rated back and forth between Romney supporters and non-Romneys. There is no need to turn one side into martyrs.

All you do is endlessly complaining about Romney supporters while completely ignoring that the non-Romneys aren’t exactly civil as well.

The mutual name-calling is sometimes even kind of funny, but this passive-aggressive martyr game is annoying.

Gelsomina on March 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM

No. You missed my point. My point was the same as yours, that both sides do it, and neither side has any reason to complain. Basilsbest was complaining about a comment someone he disagrees with was making, while ignoring equally vile crap from people who agree with him. Later, he claimed that when this us vs. me them started, it was 10-1 Romney “haters.”

I am not immune from hypocrisy myself, but that doesn’t mean that while pointing it out that makes me a self-appointed “martyr.”

Try again.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Corrosion allen, does the palace have an elevator garage for my car!

Your so easy, seamus!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Your?

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Is thirtyandseven your IQ mittbot!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I’m a Paultard, or, alternatively, Paulistininian… if you’re gonna name call, at least do it right.

Also, PRO-TIP: Don’t try to criticize a guy’s IQ right after you use “their” instead of “there”, and right before you resort to pontificating about Romney’s “Hershey squirts”.

thirtyandseven on March 29, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 29, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Are you trying to be funny about special needs people. Dod, you mittbots are sick. Picking on is no problem, but when you have to use special needs people to get the upper hand it tells EVERYONE more about you mittbots than anything I can say,

I’m sure you have no experience with special needs people, but take it from me, they are a gift.

You are a piece of sh*t!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I think it’s time to leave Danny Devito alone. Something is clearly not right with it. It’s under the influence of strong drink and illiteracy.

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3