Adelson on Gingrich: It’s the end of the line

posted at 8:40 am on March 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Bad news for Newt Gingrich, courtesy of the Las Vegas Sun and the Jewish Journal: the big bucks behind his super-PAC says that the former Speaker has reached “the end of his line” in the nomination process.  Sheldon Adelson has bad news for Gingrich’s competitors, too, with tart words for both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.  However, Adelson wasn’t the only hope of Romney and Santorum for staying competitive in the nomination chase, either:

In some of his first public comments on the presidential race, Las Vegas Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson candidly described GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich’s dwindling chances for the nomination and said he doesn’t want Rick Santorum “running my country.”

Adelson, whose family has given more than $16 million to the super political action committee backing Gingrich, remains unimpressed with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as well, according to JewishJournal.com.

But Adelson acknowledged his favored candidate isn’t going to win the race.

“It appears as though he’s at the end of his line,” Adelson told a small group Monday at The Jewish Federations of North America’s TribeFest, held at the Venetian. “I mean, mathematically, he can’t get anywhere near the numbers.”

Most of the interview covers what Adelson doesn’t like about Gingrich’s competitors, especially Rick Santorum.  Adelson is pro-choice and dislikes Santorum’s social conservatism, although he does allow that he and Santorum are “friendly,” while insisting that “I don want him to run my country.”  Romney, Adelson says, isn’t “a bold decision-maker,” and in that sense Adelson thinks that he’s a lot like Barack Obama, attempting to keep his record blank.  That doesn’t sound like a man who’s looking to dump millions of dollars into a Romney super-PAC.

However, it also doesn’t sound like a man who wants to dump more of his cash into a losing cause.  It’s clear how much Adelson likes Gingrich, but when a successful casino owner starts talking about mathematical impossibilities, it means something.  If anyone can talk Gingrich out of the race, it’s Adelson, and perhaps he can do so just by closing the checkbook.


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

Adelson paid for this microphone!

rhombus on March 29, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Romney, Adelson says, isn’t “a bold decision-maker,” and in that sense Adelson thinks that he’s a lot like Barack Obama, attempting to keep his record blank.

He’ll have to be a bold decision-maker once in office. He won’t have a choice.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Yeah, yeah, we know…Newt’s big ego, hubris, blah-blah blah. There. I just said it for you, so don’t bore us with any more of it.

lynncgb on March 29, 2012 at 8:49 AM

He’s right. We’re being told that the only way to attract disenfranchised democrats and independents is to nominate the closest thing we republicans have to a liberal democrat. Now that’s a winning contrast (not) to Obama! No wonder this guy doesn’t want to invest in that losing strategy.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Gingrich should get out of the race, and he risks making a fool of himself the longer he stays in the race. I don’t see Callista by his side that much anymore; has she bailed on him, too?

But Ed Morrissey has dreams of Santo doing better with Newt out, and that’s a delusion too. So, don’t risk your own reputation by hoping for a disastrous resurrection of Sanctimonious Santo, Ed. ‘Cause that ain’t happ’nin’ either.

Santo is toast, and Santo should GET OUT OF THE RACE, TOO.

mountainaires on March 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

He’ll have to be a bold decision-maker once in office. He won’t have a choice.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Somebody forgot to tell that to Teh SCOAMF.

Steve Eggleston on March 29, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I don’t want Santorum running my country, either.

Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Adelson.

Syzygy on March 29, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Sounds like Adelson knows that the homophobic bigot Rick Santorum is unelectable and would be a disaster as the nominee.

bluegill on March 29, 2012 at 8:52 AM

mountainaires on March 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Regarding Callista, she was stumping through western and nrothern Wisconsin earlier this week, and they’ll be back together in southeast Wisconsin this weekend.

Steve Eggleston on March 29, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Santo is toast

mountainaires on March 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

And, Romney is milquetoast. We’re in trouble.

Fallon on March 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Santo is toast, and Santo should GET OUT OF THE RACE, TOO.

mountainaires on March 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

As a conservative Republican voter, I call on Rick Santorum to get out of the race if he doesn’t win Wisconsin on Tuesday. There is no plausible way for Santorum to get the 1144 delegates.

As this point, Santorum’s campaign is only helping Obama. I wonder how much Obama’s campaign is contributing to Santorum.

bluegill on March 29, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Somebody forgot to tell that to Teh SCOAMF.

Steve Eggleston on March 29, 2012 at 8:51 AM

The drive-bys are covering for the guy, so he doesn’t have to do anything about entitlements or the debt crisis or Iran. Romney won’t have that luxury. That being said, even Obama will have to deal with these issues if God forbid he were to get a 2nd term. I don’t even wanna imagine what his solutions would be.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 8:55 AM

…said he doesn’t want Rick Santorum “running my country.”

Dummy. Presidents don’t “run” the country. They run it into the ground, if anything. Freedom is what animates the country, not government and its officials.

rickv404 on March 29, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Gingrich was done since Florida. Santorum is done, too, but he won’t know it until he loses in Wisconsin. Then, they can vociferously and wholeheartedly endorse Romney and hope for some cabinet assignments, or they can keep bashing their heads against the wall. If Romney loses in November he’ll have his investments to return to and enjoy while the country burns under Obama; Santy and Newt will be nothing but discarded rejects with zero political perspective.

Archivarix on March 29, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Santo is toast

mountainaires on March 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

And, Romney is milquetoast. We’re in trouble.

Fallon on March 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Best joke of the primary season!

Mr. Arkadin on March 29, 2012 at 9:04 AM

But Mitt McCain is SOOOOOOOO ELECTABLE.

…..and just like the other squishes we’ve had leading the party since 1988.

Conservatism……….where are your leaders?

PappyD61 on March 29, 2012 at 9:05 AM

The drive-bys are covering for the guy, so he doesn’t have to do anything about entitlements or the debt crisis or Iran. Romney won’t have that luxury. That being said, even Obama will have to deal with these issues if God forbid he were to get a 2nd term. I don’t even wanna imagine what his solutions would be.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 8:55 AM

You make a good point about the drive-bys.

However, you (falsely?) surmise that Obama is calling the shots whenever a decision (or its sometimes reversal) comes out of the White House. I’m not so sure.

He’s often appeared heavily medicated to me (common for a narcissist not receiving the adulation to which he believes he’s entitled), and Jarrett seems to be the main decison-maker. [I know, cue the Twilight Zone music ...]

ShainS on March 29, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Conservatism……….where are your leaders?

PappyD61 on March 29, 2012 at 9:05 AM

There are none, let’s face it. We conservatives are being used as patsies yet again. The republican establishment has no intention of ever nominating another conservative, especially after the success of Ronald Reagan. They seem determined to avoid that “mistake” ever again. The put up liberal/moderates against strong democrats like Clinton with Bush 1 and Dole, a moderate/pseudo conservative against insane democrats like Gore and Kerry with Bush 2 and we barely made it both times, and now against an extremely vulnerable and weak democrat incumbent, look what we’re being coerced into nominating. I mean, it looks to me as if there’ll never be a time for a conservative candidate again at this rate. And all the speculation of Ryan, Rubio, etc. are just pipe dreams. 2016 will be Jeb Bush and probably Romney again.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Is anyone else surprised that Adelson hung on for so long, and still contributed so much money to the Gingrich campaign, even when it became inevitable by this month that Gingrich would never catch up with Romney? As for me, I just assumed Adelson had pulled the plug several weeks ago.

Scriptor on March 29, 2012 at 9:17 AM

(subbing)
Hang in there Newt…!!!

KOOLAID2 on March 29, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Santo is toast

mountainaires on March 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

And, Romney is milquetoast. We’re in trouble.

Fallon on March 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Well done. Well done indeed.

Lost in Jersey on March 29, 2012 at 9:17 AM

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 9:15 AM

You’re absolutely right.

We should nominate Sarah Palin, so you guys can piss and moan about how she’s not conservative enough for you either.

KingGold on March 29, 2012 at 9:24 AM

But Ed Morrissey has dreams of Santo doing better with Newt out, and that’s a delusion too. So, don’t risk your own reputation by hoping for a disastrous resurrection of Sanctimonious Santo, Ed. ‘Cause that ain’t happ’nin’ either.

Santo is toast, and Santo should GET OUT OF THE RACE, TOO.

mountainaires on March 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

No, Ed is not delusional:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/santorum-romney-tied-in-nc.html

Two weeks ago Romney had a four point lead over Santorum in the state. Romney’s support has remained pretty steady since then, but Santorum’s grown from 27% to 30%. It’s no coincidence that Santorum’s support has increased as Gingrich’s has declined from 24% to 19%. More and more conservatives are unifying around Santorum as the alternative to Romney. If Gingrich dropped out of the race Santorum would open up a 6 point lead in North Carolina with 43% to 37% for Romney and 13% for Paul.

KickandSwimMom on March 29, 2012 at 9:25 AM

He’s right. We’re being told that the only way to attract disenfranchised democrats and independents is to nominate the closest thing we republicans have to a liberal democrat. Now that’s a winning contrast (not) to Obama! No wonder this guy doesn’t want to invest in that losing strategy.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

No one who supports Romney has been telling you the only way to attract the middle is to nominate a quasi-liberal RINO. Of the three remaining serious presidential candidates, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, Romney–by any measure–has the best chance to defeat President Obama. Romney has public and private sector executive experience lacking in both of his major primary opponents. Romney has private sector business experience lacking in both of his opponents. Romney doesn’t have character issues and personal baggage weighing him down as Gingrich does, and serious personality issues as Santorum does. Santorum’s claim, for example, that he was physically nauseated by JFK’s church-and-state separation speech, for example, managed to both highlight Santorum’s essential extremism on social issues and his ability to alienate the daylights out of prospective voters, some of whom–like me–aren’t nauseated at all by JFK’s speech, and think Santorum was behaving like a dowager princess swooning with the vapors. Further, Romney has a tightly knit, well-ran campaign organization. Neither of his opponents can match his fundraising apperatus, which will be crucial in the general election.

Lastly, Romney isn’t a RINO or a liberal or a squish. He’s a traditional Northeastern Republican who governed from the middle by necessity, as do all Republican blue state governors, such as Chris Christie. Reagan, for example, governed as a moderate in California–there’s no other way to construe his record and public statements during that time. A Texas-style conservative governor such as Perry would make no headway with a hostile Massachusetts legislature. You Not Romneys must know this, at least on some level, yet you keep beating that drum. It gets tiresome.

I’m a Republican and I want to win. The leadership of the Democratic Party is a cadre of hardcore, old-school Marxist socialists intent upon a stealth transformation of the country into an authoritarian superstate. They need to be stopped. You can’t stop them with a throwaway protest vote.

troyriser_gopftw on March 29, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Ed, I know you’re a Santorum supporter, so let me ask you this—you are aware of the Gallup poll that says if Newt Gingrich drops out, Santorum will not pick up enough Newt supporters to stop Romney, right? Have you switched to Romney?

Sekhmet on March 29, 2012 at 9:26 AM

And, Romney is milquetoast. We’re in trouble.

Fallon on March 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Well done. Well done indeed.

Lost in Jersey on March 29, 2012 at 9:17 AM

This makes me smile, too! :-)

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Ed, I know you’re a Santorum supporter, so let me ask you this—you are aware of the Gallup poll that says if Newt Gingrich drops out, Santorum will not pick up enough Newt supporters to stop Romney, right? Have you switched to Romney?

Sekhmet on March 29, 2012 at 9:26 AM

You may want to see my post above. PPP is finding that if Gingrich gets out Santorum opens up a 6 point lead in N.C. over Romney. So, I don’t think it is necessarily true that most of Gingrich’s support would go to Romney.

KickandSwimMom on March 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM

You may want to see my post above. PPP is finding that if Gingrich gets out Santorum opens up a 6 point lead in N.C. over Romney. So, I don’t think it is necessarily true that most of Gingrich’s support would go to Romney.

KickandSwimMom on March 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM

PPP = LOL

Also, we are talking about margin of error leads here when we are talking about NC.

Sekhmet on March 29, 2012 at 9:33 AM

I don’t want a Las Vegas casino mogul running my country. However, he knows his Willard.

wraithby on March 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Also, we are talking about margin of error leads here when we are talking about NC.

Sekhmet on March 29, 2012 at 9:33 AM

You laugh at PPP, but your source is Gallup – a left-leaning outfit according to many on HotAir.

KickandSwimMom on March 29, 2012 at 9:39 AM

There are none, let’s face it. We conservatives are being used as patsies yet again. The republican establishment has no intention of ever nominating another conservative, especially after the success of Ronald Reagan. They seem determined to avoid that “mistake” ever again. The put up liberal/moderates against strong democrats like Clinton with Bush 1 and Dole, a moderate/pseudo conservative against insane democrats like Gore and Kerry with Bush 2 and we barely made it both times, and now against an extremely vulnerable and weak democrat incumbent, look what we’re being coerced into nominating. I mean, it looks to me as if there’ll never be a time for a conservative candidate again at this rate. And all the speculation of Ryan, Rubio, etc. are just pipe dreams. 2016 will be Jeb Bush and probably Romney again.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 9:15 AM

The whiny Republican establishment complaint is tiresome.

The Republican establishment does not control the results in the primaries. The people who vote do. You lack respect for other Republicans whose views are not as extreme as yours. Most Republican voters understand the importance of replacing Obama. The Republican establishment supports that objective.

Santorum and Gingrich are not Reagan. There is no ultra conservative White Knight in the race or on the horizon.

Romney is obviously the most qualified candidate who has the best chance to defeat Obama. Those who are grounded in reality understand this.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM

You may want to see my post above. PPP is finding that if Gingrich gets out Santorum opens up a 6 point lead in N.C. over Romney. So, I don’t think it is necessarily true that most of Gingrich’s support would go to Romney.

KickandSwimMom on March 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I read the same thing somewhere with Nebraska and some other states? This is what the establishment is worried about – the more the candidates are being vetted, the more the electorate fluctuates away from their candidate when the truths are exposed. They’re trying to use the “Obama technique” of deflecting away from and ignoring Romney’s record and instead negatively focusing on Rick Santorum ala super pacs. At least in this area where we have our primaries April 3rd and are getting bombarded with negative ads.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 9:43 AM

It’s clear how much Adelson likes Gingrich, but when a successful casino owner starts talking about mathematical impossibilities, it means something.

Quite true. Here’s the latest odds:

Barack Obama 1/2

Mitt Romney 15/8
Rick Santorum 33/1
Hillary Clinton 66/1
Jeb Bush 66/1
Ron Paul 66/1
Newt Gingrich 100/1

RadClown on March 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Not to question a guy who has made billions by swindling many low and middle-income Americans (and now Asians in all of his casinos in Asia) into leaving much of the money they earn in his casinos, but what exactly does he think Mitt Romney needs to be doing?Attractive cocktail waitresses at the Post Office? 2 for 1 passport special Wednesdays? Free Sunday car give-aways at your local federal court house?

He wants to donate 15 million to Mitt Romney, I am sure Romney’s super-pac would gladly accept it. But if people have no solutions, they need to STFU and stop with the critique of the one guy who has a chance to defeat President Obama.

milcus on March 29, 2012 at 9:46 AM

KickandSwimMom on March 29, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I’m not sure who’s more delusional, you or Ed. Romney clobbers Santorum in 80 percent of the states and you keep picking the few where because of evangelical demographics Santorum is ahead

Sigh!

gerrym51 on March 29, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Adleson doesn’t have a large ego or anything. This one billionaire thinks he get’s to decide who the next president of the united states is going to be. He’s not the only billionaire in this country and he certainly isn’t the only donating to campaigns and PACs. I expect Mitt Romney isn’t thinking to himself it all hinges on Adleson LOL! Sheldon you are number #14 and you aren’t the only game in town. I wonder who Gates #2 and Buffet #3 are donating to…..I don’t really wonder/

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 9:47 AM

KickandSwimMom on March 29, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Why not post something about Santorum leads dissappearing in wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

LOL

gerrym51 on March 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM

So, if he doesn’t like Santorum because of abortion, what does that say about Gingrich? Or even Romney?

osborn4 on March 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I don’t want a Las Vegas casino mogul running my country. However, he knows his Willard.

wraithby on March 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Typical ABR reasoning. Las Vegas casino moguls don’t know what they’re talking about if they say anything negative about Santorum….however, if they say something negative about Romney? Right on, right on , right on!

Priscilla on March 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Romney doesn’t have character issues and personal baggage weighing him down
troyriser_gopftw on March 29, 2012 at 9:26 AM

you are kidding right ….
character issues … the fact that he changes his mind more then some people change their socks … that he has no core beliefs … that isn’t issues …
look I am going to vote for the nominee … however if it is Romney we are gonna lose … (heck with any of the four that are left we are probably gonna lose) ..
as long as we nominate self described “progressives” we are toast …
history repeats itself again …. anti Obama fever is the only thing any of these four have going for em and that alone MAY drag em across the finish line first …

conservative tarheel on March 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

you are kidding right ….
character issues … the fact that he changes his mind more then some people change their socks … that he has no core beliefs … that isn’t issues …

conservative tarheel on March 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I grew up in a Democratic household and was a pro-choice, Left-leaning liberal until my late thirties. I was also an atheist and thought capitalism was selfish and inhumane. My poltical views remained fairly constant until Bill Clinton’s second term, when the American Left sacrificed its longstanding principles on the altar of political expediency, forcing me to question beliefs instilled since earliest childhood. At its heart, Leftist ideologies are about the acquisition of power for its own sake, a central truth obscured by a flimsy utopian veneer, but I didn’t think it through in-depth at the time. Religious faith came later, the result of a profound and life-changing personal experience.

Does changing my views over time mean I have no core beliefs? Of course not, which is why I believe Romney when he says his position changed on abortion because of a private revelation and moment of clarity and decision. That’s how change generally happens. And again: Romney governed as a Republican in Massachusetts, the bluest blue state in the Union. Thinking he would be able to govern effectively as a Rick Perry-like conservative is delusional.

Seems to me you folks who claim the ‘true conservative’ mantle (and I hate that term ‘true conservative’) need to rethink what you mean when you invoke conservativism. You’ve supported candidates such as Newt Gingrich, a big believer in big government solutions to, well, everything and claimed him as one of your own if only because, in your view, Gingrich (and now Santorum) was opposed to the Evil Republican Establishment.

News: Gingrich and Santorum, both former lobbyists, now-permanent residents of Virginia and all-around Beltway Insiders, are as much part of the Evil Republican Establishment as Romney is presumed to be.

troyriser_gopftw on March 29, 2012 at 10:48 AM

conservative tarheel on March 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Boggles the mind, don’t it? We all have to rally around Romney now and ignore his record, yeah right! We might as well all rally together and hit each other on the heads with hammers over and over again. It would be just as productive and successful as past liberal/moderate republicans running for president, and for me it would hurt a lot less than having to vote for another one.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Boggles the mind, don’t it? We all have to rally around Romney now and ignore his record, yeah right! We might as well all rally together and hit each other on the heads with hammers over and over again. It would be just as productive and successful as past liberal/moderate republicans running for president, and for me it would hurt a lot less than having to vote for another one.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

So what is it you believe, ‘true conservative’, that separates you from ‘non-true conservatives’? I’m genuinely curious. Where is the yawning chasm that divides you from those you consider impure? Define your terms.

troyriser_gopftw on March 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

News: Gingrich and Santorum, both former lobbyists, now-permanent residents of Virginia and all-around Beltway Insiders, are as much part of the Evil Republican Establishment as Romney is presumed to be.

troyriser_gopftw on March 29, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I understand your position …. and glad you “saw the light” and left liberalism
and found your faith …. :D those are GOOD things …
your right … IMHO all four stink ….

Boggles the mind, don’t it? We all have to rally around Romney now and ignore his record, yeah right! We might as well all rally together and hit each other on the heads with hammers over and over again. It would be just as productive and successful as past liberal/moderate republicans running for president, and for me it would hurt a lot less than having to vote for another one.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

amen …. it is possible with the stakes as high as they are … anti Obama fever may give us a win …. it not … it is gonna get ugly …. buy more ammo ….
and stock up on food ….

conservative tarheel on March 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM

@mozalf in all fairness to Romney you’d be ignoring Santorum’s record if you were trying to vote for the “perfect” conservative. Beyond being religious (WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A CONSERVATIVE)he has a very similar record to gingrich and any other senator.

Zekecorlain on March 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

@conservative tarheel remember how everyone worried about anti-gun legislation in 2008 and it never materialized?

Zekecorlain on March 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

@mozalf in all fairness to Romney you’d be ignoring Santorum’s record if you were trying to vote for the “perfect” conservative. Beyond being religious (WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A CONSERVATIVE)he has a very similar record to gingrich and any other senator.

Zekecorlain on March 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I respectfully and STRONGLY disagree especially when I vet and look at the 3 candidates I’m going with the “strongest” conservative IMO and maybe not the purist or perfect in this election. Of the 3, Rick is #1, Newt #2, and Romney a distant – way distant not even 3rd. That’s why the strong push back against Romney.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

@mozalf he lost me in 2008 when he veered strongly right after being a reasonable centrist for me. But i was a gay republican so there’s that.
I just can’t see anything in Rick’s record that says anything except “i don’t like abortion” he didn’t lower the debt, didn’t raise revenue, and didn’t control the president’s military spree which cost us trillions and still didn’t achieve any of the stated goals. I see a strong “don’t elect a mormon” vibe going on ignoring the normal baptist aversion to catholic’s. But there is a reason the catholic’s don’t vote for Santorum, they don’t trust him and they think he’s to dogmatic.

Zekecorlain on March 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I am probably gonna write in Rand Paul’s name ( or Sarah’s or even possibly
Duncan Hunter’s name ) …. in the general I will break the lever voting for the nominee ….

conservative tarheel on March 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Zekecorlain on March 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Well then, we agree to disagree because a lot of what you state I agree with except I change the Ricks and Santorums to Mitts and Romneys and strengthen my resolve for Santorum over Romney. Plus the religious zealotry you’re trying to brand Rick with has already been discounted and disproved so that’s a tired argument. Plus my Catholic bretheren haven’t exactly had a very good track record in picking and backing politicians so I tend to ignore their trends.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Ed, I know you’re a Santorum supporter, so let me ask you this—you are aware of the Gallup poll that says if Newt Gingrich drops out, Santorum will not pick up enough Newt supporters to stop Romney, right? Have you switched to Romney?

Sekhmet on March 29, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Gingrich has not enough money, there’s just no way around that.

Gelsomina on March 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

He’ll have to be a bold decision-maker once in office. He won’t have a choice.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Somebody forgot to tell that to Teh SCOAMF.

Steve Eggleston on March 29, 2012 at 8:51 AM

+100

Also, someone needs to sit Adelson down and point out that Obama’s policies are pro-Islamist and not friendly to Israel. Mr. Adelson, do you want to risk the future of Israel on Obama?

Note: I’m assuming Adelson is either Jewish or cares about Israel if he’s giving a speech to The Jewish Federations of North America’s TribeFest.

Gladtobehere on March 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Zekecorlain on March 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Nobody ever polled this Catholic and only an idiot would think there’s a monolithic Catholic vote. You can barely get two Catholics to agree on the validity of recent changes to the wording used during mass. Whatever concerns I have about Santorum pale to insignificance in the face of Romney’s history of duplicity and doublespeak.

swinia sutki on March 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

@mozalf lol my boyfriend is Catholic and hates me arguing about it, I think he’s going to back Obama, I probably will as well this time simply because I don’t care for the congressional democrats that much but Obama hasn’t done much that moderate republican wouldn’t anyway plus I don’t have to worry about him stoking anti-gay animus just to get votes like Bush did in 2004.

I am curious if you discount Santorum’s statement that moral law trumps civil law for him? that and his countless speeches morality remind me to much of my fundamentalist brother. To much religion not enough respect for freedom from religion.

But I guess no one ever gets exactly what they wanted I was hoping Huntsman, or Johnson would put together a campaign but it just never materialized.

Zekecorlain on March 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

@swinia sutki I just don’t like moralists. I’m to much of libertarian to let that fly.

Zekecorlain on March 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Zekecorlain on March 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

You know what they say about mixing politics and religion with your better half.

As for Rick, personally, I wish he would be more agressive with social issues because they need to be addressed so we don’t end up with more Obamacare-like issues infringing on our freedoms in the future. As for gay activism, I’m afraid that’s always a back and forth with the Log Cabin republicans anyway. But Rick’s already stated that the Constitution comes first in all things governmental and I believe him. And as with JFK, the Vatican will not be an influence in a Santorum presidency. Now I don’t know anything about the Mormon church but the religious bigots plaguing the sites have been wondering about Romney’s position as a high priest or bishop in his church and where his loyalties may lie. Also, his charitable giving has been to Mormon groups so I’ll leave that to the religious experts to sort and fight out. I’m staying away from that. I go with what’s at the core of the person and what my gut tells me and it’s Rick all the way.

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

character issues … the fact that he changes his mind more then some people change their socks … that he has no core beliefs
conservative tarheel on March 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Its a good thing no one stopped or complained about democrat Ronald Reagan from changing his mind. 2008 truly was a game changer.

Wisdom comes only with age. But not for everyone though.

FlaMurph on March 29, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Sounds like Adelson knows that the homophobic bigot Rick Santorum is unelectable and would be a disaster as the nominee.

bluegill on March 29, 2012 at 8:52 AM

He also knows that Mitt will be a disaster.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I like Rick…I don’t want him to run my country.

I don’t like Rick. I don’t want him to run my country.

captn2fat on March 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM

G-d bless you MR. Adelson, thanks for all of your help. I see exactly what you see in Newt, he would have been one hell of President. Maybe Mitt will take your advise, he would be a great VP as well.

DDay on March 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM

What’s more disturbing and troubling within the millionaire’s club is why Donald Trump would come out on Greta Van Susteren’s show on FOX and endorse Hillary Clinton for 2016!?!? What does he know that we don’t? Obviously that Romney has no chance in this election or that he’d be such a disaster that he’ll be a one termer also guaranteeing a return of that nightmare?!?!

mozalf on March 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Intrade:

Mitt Romney – 93.5%
Rick Sanctimonious – 1.1%

VorDaj on March 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Although I am not exactly his biggest fan, I think I might rather enjoy seeing Gingrich appointed as SecDef if he took a broom, or even better a baseball bat, to those oath breaking, dereliction of duty, troop hating, pro islam, sorry excuses for generals we now have in the army and marines. It would be glorious and Patton would much approve.

VorDaj on March 29, 2012 at 1:59 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 29, 2012 at 10:48 AM

+1

And, well said I might add!

uhangtight on March 29, 2012 at 6:36 PM