Tweet: Santorum, Gingrich considering “unity effort” to stop Romney

posted at 12:30 pm on April 5, 2012 by Tina Korbe

What Time’s Mark Halperin called a “unity effort” to stop Mitt Romney appears to actually be an effort by Rick Santorum supporters to convince Newt Gingrich to exit the race.

Earlier today, Halperin tweeted, “”BREAKING NEWS: Santo meeting in Virginia now w conservative leaders. Talk re the path forward, Santo-Newt unity effort to stop Romney.”

He followed that up with this: “Santor[um] source, responding to speculation: ‘He is NOT dropping out before Pennsylvania.’ [Meeting is about the] best way to proceed, not whether to.”

But Katharine Q. Seelye of The New York Times Caucus blog reports that the principal purpose of Rick Santorum’s meeting with conservative leaders was to convince Newt Gingrich to exit the race:

The conservative leaders met with Mr. Santorum and his top aides in northern Virginia. The conservative leaders sought the meeting, according to people familiar with it.

As the race narrows and Mitt Romney looks more and more like the inevitable nominee, several conservative leaders have said they still support Mr. Santorum. But Mr. Santorum has been losing some important states by small margins — in some cases, by the amount that Mr. Gingrich has been siphoning off.

The prospect that Mr. Gingrich might draw enough votes from Mr. Santorum in Pennsylvania — Mr. Santorum’s home state — on April 24 to cost him the primary has given new urgency to the task of getting him out of the race.

Reportedly, these leaders are considering “what role” Gingrich might be able to play in a Santorum victory. Given how unlikely a Santorum nomination is at this point, though, the Santorum campaign has little to offer Newt Gingrich. If it’s a position in a new Republican administration he wants, for example, he’s as likely to get it by staying in the race to make Mitt Romney “earn” the nomination as by dropping out to try to help Santorum.

Santorum’s continued presence in the race indicates that he still has a path to the nomination, though — and that path runs through the delegate-rich states that were already decided by this point in the 2008 primary process. If his supporters can convince Gingrich that his nomination is not only still possible, but even probable without Gingrich in the race, maybe they can inspire Gingrich to let go. Unfortunately, to build that case, Santorum’s supporters would have to be able to declare with confidence that the vast majority of Gingrich’s supporters would transfer their allegiance to Santorum. That wasn’t true several weeks ago when Santorum indicated he’d appreciate it if Gingrich would drop out and it’s probably less true now. Gingrich himself has stopped training his attacks on Mitt Romney, giving his supporters a chance to reevaluate Romney for themselves. The stalwarts of Rick Santorum’s coalition — very conservative evangelical voters — have even begun to warm up to Romney. Gingrich dropping out at this point might be more a boost for Mitt than for Rick.

(H/t Joel Gehrke of The Washington Examiner)


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

Newt should’ve dropped out long ago — at the latest right after he lost in Alabama and MS.

Newt’s ego has kept in the race even though he’s won nothing since SC. As much as he supposedly hates Mittens, Newt is siphoning off conservative votes and is practically handing the nomination to Mittens!

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM

good! I’m not a mittens fan but he’s our best chance – effin’ period.

Also he’s a good man…so get over it. Now call me a Mittwitt or Mittbot or whatever. Dumbazz.

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Levin’s an idiot by the way. Slightly smarter than Rush, but that’s not saying much.

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Yeah, well, what about when Reagan dropped out in the 1976 primary?

He did EXACTLY the same thing Mitt did.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM

First, I’d appreciate a link so I can read it and make my own conclusion, rather than take your word for it.

Second, for now I’ll take your word for it and assume that what you are saying is true. So, your defense of Romney is not that what he did was morally wrong (lying not once but twice), but rather that it’s OK because somebody else did it, too? That’s weak sauce. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

As election results were coming in on Super Tuesday, nobody made Romney promise to battle “all the way to the convention”. He himself chose to make that promise.

And Romney himself chose to broke that promise.

And Romney himself chose to lie about his reasons for breaking that promise.

And Romney himself chose to do something that, if replicated now by Gingrich and Ron Paul, would have his supporters screaming in anger.

Honestly, how would you feel if Gingrich and ron Paul “released” their pledged delegates to Santorum?

What Romney did in February 2008 was dishonest and unethical. And no amount of chalking it up to delivering campaign bluster”, or claiming that Reagan did the same thing, can or will undo Romney’s dishonest and unethical behavior.

And I seriously doubt that Reagan lied and claimed that terrorism had anything to do with his decision to drop out of the 1976 primary, like Romney did in 2008.

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I guess in your book it’s OK to publicly promise something one day, and then totally do the opposite less than 48 hours later and lie about your reasons for doing so, as long as you’re an Etch-A-Sketch politician “delivering campaign bluster”.

In my book, it’s not OK to endorse Arlen Specter.

And then get it rubbed in your face – by Arlen Specter.

Sucker.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM

good! I’m not a mittens fan but he’s our best chance – effin’ period.

Also he’s a good man…so get over it. Now call me a Mittwitt or Mittbot or whatever. Dumbazz.

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I don’t know who you think you’re talking to with your big mouth.

What’s conservative about Mittens? What’s so great about his record???

How is he so electable that he won once in MA and then didn’t run again b/c he knew he’d get blown out by Obama Jr in Deval Patrick??

And yes I’ll still support the pathetic Mittens and do what I can to drag his sorry behind across the finish line. That being said he’s the worst possible candidate for the GOP to run other than RuPaul.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM

broke break

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM
Levin’s an idiot by the way. Slightly smarter than Rush, but that’s not saying much.

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 2:26 PM

At least he’s not bats*** crazy like Savage.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM

If they’d both love their country more than themselves, they’d have done this a few months ago, alas.

None could give up the number one spot. Now they can both get Fluked.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Levin’s an idiot by the way. Slightly smarter than Rush, but that’s not saying much.

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 2:26 PM

what a surprise. A mittbot who doesn’t like conservatives.

Please tell me your thoughts on Palin, Bachmann, Goumart, Pence, DeMint… etc.

People like you are the problem. No nothing punks who think it’s ok to have Progressive big spending republicans as long as there’s a “R” next to their name.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Levin’s an idiot by the way. Slightly smarter than Rush, but that’s not saying much.

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 2:26 PM

You are an idiot for saying this. He is one of the best, if not the best constitutional lawyers in the land.

Ronald Reagan agrees.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2012 at 2:30 PM

God, I am sooooo sick of this adolescent ABO crowd coming on here every day and whining like prepubescent girls about the mean ole Romney supporters. It’s politics; it isn’t personal! Romney getting the nomination doesn’t mean Marsha who sits behind you in math class said you have a zitty face. It means Romney got more votes. From adults. Grow the hell up. Really. No one is trying to hurt your tender feelings or soothe your tender feelings because your tender feeling haven’t got a thing to do with this. If you give a rat’s ass about this country of ours, you should get down on your knees and thank God Almighty that Romney has some supporters who are “arrogant, aggressive, nasty players,” because that is what it’s going to take to beat Obama. Get on board or don’t get on board, but for God’s sake quit whining about your hurt feelings. No. One. Cares.

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM

No kidding. All I hear from these people is how they’re so butthurt from things that anonymous posters on the internet said that they’re going to sit out, vote for Obama, etc. etc. At least, that’s all I hear out of one side of their mouths. Out of the other side I hear an endless stream of haughty insults towards Romney and his supportere – mittbots, RINO’s, Etch a Sketch, flip flopper, etc. etc.

I guess the truth is that we have just as many pathos based voters on the right as they have over there on the left, and sometimes just as nasty and hypocritical.

Swerve22 on April 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM

what a surprise. A mittbot who doesn’t like conservatives.

Please tell me your thoughts on Palin, Bachmann, Goumart, Pence, DeMint… etc.

People like you are the problem. No nothing punks who think it’s ok to have Progressive big spending republicans as long as there’s a “R” next to their name.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:30 PM

“Conservatives” who do nothing but talk the talk and profit handsomely from it, have nothing but my contempt and disgust.

Run for office. DO something. Not just talk.

And not just badmouth people who actually put something on the line. Who get out there and slog through a campaign.

But Rush! Rush! He’d have to take a paycut!

That joke never gets old. Even after he’s said it a million times, which he has.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Let me be absolutely, perfectly clear.

I would have preferred for Mitt Romney to keep his word in 2008 and battle all the way to the convention.

Had Romney done that, I would have been very happy to see him on the ticket and would have been happy to vote for him.

What he chose to do, however, showed me who he truly is.

He is not a man of integrity. He, like Harry Reid, are Mormons in name only. They do not even attempt to uphold the high moral standards that are taught by the LDS. He is a politician at heart, and will say or do whatever he thinks is in his own personal self-interest. He will not stand by what he says. If the winds shift, Romney will shift with them.

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Besides that, we NEED to start focusing on Obama. The man has been making mistakes on a near daily basis for two weeks straight, but its kinda hard to capitalize on them when we’re busy shooting ourselves in the feet!

WolvenOne on April 5, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Exactly. I’m not going to apologize for wanting a conservative instead of a moderate you have to “rebrand”, and now the Romney supporters are doing what Romney does and that is go negative on fellow Republicans. I don’t want any part of it anymore. If Romney loses by one vote, then I guess you can blame me for not voting for him, however, if he loses big then you can blame the Republican Party and Romney and his supporters for running a destructive primary campaign.

lea on April 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Oh please. Romney didn’t lie in 2008 when he dropped out, he changed his mind, and yes there is a difference! You really think he said he’d battle on when he had no intention to? Why, what possible purpose would that have served!? It seems to me that any logical rationalization for such a deception would by necessity be such twisted logic that it could not possibly have any grounding in reality.

Lets try the simple explanation. He intended to keep going, because giving up your chance at the presidency is hard. Then, he let his emotions settle over a few days, looked at the numbers, looked at his chances, looked at how much it would cost for what was a long-shot, and decided it wasn’t worth the money.

Oh forbid, he made a practical level headed decision under difficult circumstances. Fetch the pitchforks, we’s gotta run this man outta town! 9_9;

WolvenOne on April 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM

lea on April 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Because after all this election is all about positive you! ;)

Buttercup on April 5, 2012 at 2:42 PM

hahahahaha

I knew I’d finally get a response if I called Levin and idiot :)

what a surprise. A mittbot who doesn’t like conservatives.

Please tell me your thoughts on Palin, Bachmann, Goumart, Pence, DeMint… etc.

People like you are the problem. No nothing punks who think it’s ok to have Progressive big spending republicans as long as there’s a “R” next to their name.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I’m a know everything punk thank you very much! Republicans are politicians – that means they spend money…lots of it. I can’t believe you fell for the mittbot bait. It’s DUMB!

You are an idiot for saying this. He is one of the best, if not the best constitutional lawyers in the land.

Ronald Reagan agrees.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I’m an idiot for many reasons but not this ;) Levin is a fool and a fool…and also a fool.

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I’m not going to apologize for wanting a conservative instead of a moderate

If Santorum or Gingrich are your idea of a “conservative”, you’re barking up the wrong tree with this argument.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Lets try the simple explanation. He intended to keep going, because giving up your chance at the presidency is hard. Then, he let his emotions settle over a few days, looked at the numbers, looked at his chances, looked at how much it would cost for what was a long-shot, and decided it wasn’t worth the money.

WolvenOne on April 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM

… And that’s why, when he quit, he explained that he was quitting because it was a long-shot, and decided it wasn’t worth the money…

… Except that’s not at all what he said…

He falsely claimed that his decision to quit had something to do with the war on terror, which was a complete LIE.

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM

lea on April 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM

And complaining about Romney’s negative campaigning helps us beat Obama, how exactly?

Also, I would have to disagree with the assertion that Romney was the most negative. While he ran the most number of commercials after Super Tuesday his commercials were exclusively focused on his own record and Obama. Even before Super Tuesday, the vast majority of negative ads were either put out by PACS, and even then they were typically focused on his opponents voting records, which is fair game.

Besides that, it strains credibility to say Romney was most negative when Newt put out robocalls claiming that Romney forced Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher food; or when Santorum supporters distributed an e-mail distributed an e-mail which stated that Christians that voted for Mormons are like Nazi collaborators during WW2.

Yes I know that wasn’t the Santorum campaign itself, but if you can criticize Romney for ads his supporters put out then I can apply the same standard to Santorum. And yes, this e-mail is real, I’ve seen it.

In either case, it simply isn’t credible to insist that Romney was the most negative when he stuck to his opponents voting records. Yes I will agree that he put out the most ads, but quantity doesn’t make his advertisements any more negative.

So please, lets drop this particular meme and focus on, you know, actually taking down Obama? You know, just a thought.

WolvenOne on April 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You are an idiot for saying this. He is one of the best, if not the best constitutional lawyers in the land.

Ronald Reagan agrees.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I’m an idiot for many reasons but not this ;) Levin is a fool and a fool…and also a fool.

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Wrong again.

Mark Levin is a constitutional scholar who served in the Reagan administration as previously pointed out.

His lawfirm, Landmark Legal Foundation, is fighting like hell right now to defeat Obamacare, yet genuises like yourself don’t like Levin b/c he has the balls to point out what a moderate wimp Mittens is.

Moderates like you disgust me. You stand for nothing and have no backbone.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:54 PM

So the goal is to stop Romney.

What about stopping Obama?

Gunlock Bill on April 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

You’ve never been concerned with that before. You’ve called every other Republican and anyone who supports them some of the most vile names imaginable. Surely you weren’t courting them.

Portia46 on April 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM

“Conservatives” who do nothing but talk the talk and profit handsomely from it, have nothing but my contempt and disgust.

Run for office. DO something. Not just talk.

And not just badmouth people who actually put something on the line. Who get out there and slog through a campaign.

But Rush! Rush! He’d have to take a paycut!

That joke never gets old. Even after he’s said it a million times, which he has.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM

What a stupid argument!

So only politicians should be allowed to have opinions or be able to speak out??

You have displayed how incredibly ignorant you are! Rush is the father of conservative talk radio which has informed millions of conservatives the news that the lamestream media won’t.

Rush had the balls that few others did when he said “I hope he fails” and all the moderate wimps in the GOP were outraged by it.

We need more people like Rush.

And you sound like a socialist whining about the money Rush makes. Unlike Maobama and many others, Rush is a self made man who’s earned every penny.

People like you are turning Hotair into the Huffington Post.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM

During the 2008 Democratic Primary, both Clinton and Obama were running on a platform which, if they had enacted, WOULD have severely hampered our ability to deal with middle eastern terrorism. Since being elected Obama has stepped back from many of those positions, but that is pure hindsight. At the time it was wildly believed that Obama would be disastrously weak in the war on terror, and it is still widely believed that long primaries hurt a candidates chances.

With these facts in mind, the given reason for Romney dropping out were perfectly reasonable. What isn’t reasonable is your insistence that candidates keep fighting regardless how much it hurts their finances, personal prospects, and party.

WolvenOne on April 5, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Santorum is a joke and Newt is just having fun pontificating
conservative values. Not that anyone listens since Romney and
the media have written him off as a joke. They are labeling
Santorum a religious zealot.

And now we have Romney, whom Obama wanted to run against all along. I am sure Obama thinks Romney’s state health care plan
equals out the disgust over Obama’s national plan. I don’t believe that, however, one must admit that many voters are somewhat
inattentive if not outright stupid. If Obama and the media frame
it that way, then that is what many will believe.

Conservatives need to find reasons to encourage the voters to
back Romney. Palin probably says it best; “anyone but Obama”,
however, sooner or later republicans need to circle their wagons
around Romney, protecting him from himself. This should be
interesting.

Amjean on April 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I’m an idiot for many reasons but not this ;) Levin is a fool and a fool…and also a fool.

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 2:42 PM

You want to go against that “fool” one on one? That “fool” is PD bright. You think perhaps you could put together a book explaining the development of Western philosophy up to the American Revolution? You get back to us on that.

I’ve tried to find the brilliant Romney’s favorite book. He dismissed a question during an interview about what he was now reading so I tried to find it on the internet. Bush read about 80 books a year, so surely Mitt read as voraciously. The only reference I could find to his actually reading a book was his enthusiasm for Scientology’s founder’s notoriously bad novel, Battleship Earth.

So, you keep on calling the authentic brainiacs “fools”…it’s an impressive argument.

Portia46 on April 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Again I’ll fight like hell for Mittens, but he’d be a bad President.

He’d big another big gov’t Establishment Repubican, just like George W. Bush. Still better than the socialist currently occupying the White House, but we needed a real conservative to cut a ton of programs and it’s not gonna happen.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

You want to go against that “fool” one on one? That “fool” is PD bright. You think perhaps you could put together a book explaining the development of Western philosophy up to the American Revolution? You get back to us on that.

I’ve tried to find the brilliant Romney’s favorite book. He dismissed a question during an interview about what he was now reading so I tried to find it on the internet. Bush read about 80 books a year, so surely Mitt read as voraciously. The only reference I could find to his actually reading a book was his enthusiasm for Scientology’s founder’s notoriously bad novel, Battleship Earth.

So, you keep on calling the authentic brainiacs “fools”…it’s an impressive argument.

Portia46 on April 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Just another example of a Mittbot moderate showing off their ignorance and hatred of conservatives.

Sadly these moderates are ruining this country. We need more conservative reformers, instead we get business as usual moderate wimps like Mittens, Boehner, Cantor…etc.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 3:17 PM

If you believed that Newt wouldn’t do his usual “get out in front of the Right and drag them over to the Left by a meathook to the throat” bit, his claimed positions would make him a good Cabinet Secretary for the EPA, Energy or Interior posts, all of which are actively obstructing domestic energy resources.

Even better, Ron Paul would IMHO, make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury especially as most of the complaints of intrusiveness and Bill of rights violations are not powers of the IRS, but Sixteenth Amendment authorities of the Treasury Secretary and only delegated by that person with a stroke of a pen to the IRS and could be withdrawn or limited by another stroke of a pen of a different Treasury Secretary. Not to mention that there are limited Fed audit authorities that just have never been used on the Fed by any Treasury Secretary.

Another good fit, and Rep Paul might, to paraphrase Vn Jones” give up the radical talk about ending the Fed, ending US military presence anywhere outside the US (irrespective of treaties or US interests in restricting piracy or foriegn nationalization of US owned elements in foriegn countries), and feeding Israel bound and gegged head first to the practicioners of the “Religion of Peace” head first in the hopes that the Islamic Supremacists will kill US last. for the actual position and duties that offer some oversight of the Fed, the ability to restrain the rabid activities of the IRS, have the actual numbers of where the Social Security Trust is, and to have and have authority to publically release the real numbers of what the real US debt is, and where it is going.”

jhnone on April 5, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Conservatives need to find reasons to encourage the voters to
back Romney. Palin probably says it best; “anyone but Obama”,
however, sooner or later republicans need to circle their wagons
around Romney, protecting him from himself. This should be
interesting.

Amjean on April 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM

You circle the wagons for this guy, his Mormon mafia will shoot you in the back. Read ANY thread where Mitt’s people are out making friends and influencing people. They are relentlessly vicious, and I can’t imagine what they learn at their church, but civility and humility ain’t on the menu. Name calling 401 maybe.

Portia46 on April 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

his Mormon mafia will shoot you in the back

Sure brings out the religious bigots, or people pretending to be religious bigots.

I also notice the phrase “mormon mafia” is pretty popular over at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.

I think I’ll go look for a Republican leaning site to hang out at for a while.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I think I’ll go look for a Republican leaning site to hang out at for a while.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Good riddance. Have fun on David Frum’s site!

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Why would Newt want a position in a Romney administration, which pays chump change, compared to what he’ll be able to earn giving speeches and selling books?

JPeterman on April 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

To be in the game. Why is he still running when he will not win? To be in the game. It is important to some people to matter. I think Newt has always wanted to matter.

KW64 on April 5, 2012 at 4:09 PM

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Whatever. I’m tired of his schtick and can think for myself. I grew up and stopped listening.

I don’t need a guy who never served in the military, who has countless wives, who has never fathered a child, to tell me what a conservative is or is not.

I’m happy he’s made money and is successful. I don’t dislike the guy, he just has nothing to say to me that’s interesting.

We need more than talkers. We need doers. The time for talking is over.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Whatever. I’m tired of his schtick and can think for myself. I grew up and stopped listening.

I don’t need a guy who never served in the military, who has countless wives, who has never fathered a child, to tell me what a conservative is or is not.

I’m happy he’s made money and is successful. I don’t dislike the guy, he just has nothing to say to me that’s interesting.

We need more than talkers. We need doers. The time for talking is over.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Then don’t listen. Good for you.

In the fight to stop socialism, we need as many people with a spine like Rush as we can find.

Rush advocates for conservative principles on a daily basis and educates millions.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Yeah, well, what about when Reagan dropped out in the 1976 primary?

He did EXACTLY the same thing Mitt did.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Reagan did not drop out of the 1976 primary. He fought all the way to the convention and lost there after trying to get a few delegates to switch by saying he would make a moron his VP candidate. If anything, Reagan lost support as a result but he certainly was not a quitter and even made desparate last minute moves to try to win.

KW64 on April 5, 2012 at 4:26 PM

his Mormon mafia will shoot you in the back
Sure brings out the religious bigots, or people pretending to be religious bigots.

I also notice the phrase “mormon mafia” is pretty popular over at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.

I think I’ll go look for a Republican leaning site to hang out at for a while.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Ahhhhh. You people call others vicious names for supporting a candidate other than your own and the bigotry card comes out. Even when someone is copying and pasting DIRECTLY from your own scriptures and history, you yell bigotry. Why is that bigotry? You aren’t proud of the words of your own prophets? You could copy and paste the Nicene Creed or anything whatsoever from the Book of Common Prayer or even discuss the bloody bits from the reformation or any period of church history and I wouldn’t deny it or call you a bigot for merely repeating history or scripture. That makes no sense. Totally illogical and seems awfully similar to the race card.

I studied Mormonism because its history and theology is pretty interesting and it’s also fascinating because it’s so secretive. When one of you takes aim at Gingrich’s “ego” or his divorces, I think it’s totally fair to mention Mitt’s beliefs. It’s that glass house, stone thing. Mormon mafia seemed appropriate since you all attack anyone and everyone with vile personal attacks and if we fight back, you call us even more filthy names, including bigot. During one of the most outrageous hate fests I’ve ever read, I seriously came to the conclusion that being amongst Mormons would be dangerous.

I hold no political party higher than I hold liberty. The politics of personal destruction were the tools of the left, and now, the tools of Mitt Romney and his supporters.

Portia46 on April 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

So the whiny petulant children are gathering to see if there is any way to be even whinier and more petulant? At this stage the only thing they are asking for is not to be taken seriously. Have “conservative leaders” always been this out of touch with reality and this bad at math, or is the brain rot that goes along with Romney Derangement Syndrome entering its final stages?

Whatever the case here’s the hoping the condition is reversible after November.

alchemist19 on April 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Put me in the “acceptance” phase for Romney. I went through grief, anger and denial.

Marcus on April 5, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Me too.

cheetah2 on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Portia46 on April 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

aren’t you late for your thu meeting with David Duke?

Bradky on April 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM

With these facts in mind, the given reason for Romney dropping out were perfectly reasonable.

WolvenOne on April 5, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Oh, really?

Here’s what Mitt said late in the evening on February 5, 2008:

If there was any doubt, Mitt Romney cleared it up. The former Massachusetts governor is not giving up his fight for the Republican nomination tonight.

“Ann came to me, and she said, ‘You know, the one thing that’s clear tonight is that nothing’s clear,’” Romney said to hundreds of cheering supporters in Boston. “But I think she’s wrong. One thing that’s clear is this campaign’s going on!

Romney trails John McCain and Mike Huckabee in two states he hoped to win: Georgia and Missouri. But the former Massachusetts governor is showing greater success in western primaries and caucuses, including wins in Utah, Colorado, Montana, Minnesota, North Dakota and his home state of Massachusetts.

I think there’s some people who thought it was all going to be done tonight, but it’s not all done tonight,” Romney said. “We’re gonna keep on battling. We’re gonna go all the way to the convention. We’re gonna win this thing, and we’re gonna get in the White House.”

Romney returned to his home in Belmont, Massachusetts, tonight to await results from California, where polls showed him in a tight contest with Sen. McCain. A win for Romney in the Golden State would go a long way toward backing up his argument that his candidacy is still viable.

Then, somehow, something about the War on Terror mysteriously changed in less than 48 hours, and this is what Mitt said on February 7, 2008

Now if I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention — (cheers, applause). I want you to know I’ve given this a lot of thought. I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No! Boo!

MR. ROMNEY: Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. (Cheers, applause.)

So, why was it not “being a part of aiding a surrender to terror” when, just two days earlier, he promised to battle all the way to the convention?

Nothing changed in the War on Terror in those less than 48 hours. Mitt decided to break his promise, quit, and lie about his reasons for quitting.

… and then a week later to “release” his delegates to McCain… something that would drive him through the roof if Gingrich and/or Paul were to do now and “release” their delegates to Santorum!

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Hilarious. Someone comes out with vicious names (Morman mafia) and then complains about vicious names (religious bigot).

I think that anyone who believes “his Mormon mafia will shoot you in the back. ” is pretty much along the same lines as someone who might want to say something about an “Evangelical mafia” shooting people in the back or a “Jewish mafia”. It’s religious bigotry. It isn’t calling “vicious names” to expose bigotry when it is seen. It is just about religion this time instead of about race or national origin.

The clearly implied message of that statement was that Mormans gang up, hang together, operate conspiratorially, and aren’t to be trusted because they shoot people in the back. That is CLEARLY the implied message of that statement. That is called being a bigot. Say those same words about a race and it will likely get you fired from your job or banned from a website.

The same poster then goes on to make ANOTHER comment about religion because of reading a scifi book that was written by the founder of Scientology. Heck, a lot of people have read those scifi books and didn’t know at the time that they were written by the founder of Scientology.

Point is this is typical. The Santorum supporters say the most hateful, mean, bigoted, nasty things and they while that they are being treated badly when they are called on it. Well, tough. It is what it is, and the post was religious bigotry.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 5:55 PM

And to imply that Romney doesn’t read is absolutely crazy on the face of it. He got a Juris Doctor and a Masters of Business Administration from Harvard … AT THE SAME TIME. Do you have even the slightest clue how hard that is to engage in BOTH of those degree programs at the same time?

The man is brilliant and can walk and chew gum at the same time. He just isn’t much of a drama major. He can’t stand up there and pretend a bunch of phony emotion like many other politicians can, nor should he be expected to.

That isn’t what this country needs right now.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Mitt Romney is probably the brightest man we have had running for the office of President in my lifetime.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM

If I personally got to pick between Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich… I think I’d go Gingrich. So him dropping out would force people like me to pick another candidate; that’s true.

However if I get to pick between Santorum and Romney… I’m picking Romney. I’m not convinced Santorum gets all of Gingrich’s votes… or even most of them.

gekkobear on April 5, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Portia46 on April 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Very well said.

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 6:13 PM

let me try to explain this to you…I don’t like Romney. He couldn’t write a children’s book, and if he did it would be about global warming.

I’m smarter than you…I’m smarter than Romney…I’m smarter than Levin. effin. period. I’m also smarter than portia. sorry :)

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 6:20 PM

bring it portia! effin’ pvssy

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Very well said.

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 6:13 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

also hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

and additionally HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Crosspatch is probably the dumbest poster we have had running his mouth on hotair in my lifetime.

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 6:31 PM

DHChron = internet tough guy, typing all those big words!!!

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM

What planet is Team Santorum living on??? Do they honestly think that Newt Gingrich’s exit would bring them the 74% of remaining delegates they would need?

His refusal to deal with reality is just SAD at this point. I mean, while I was never a Santorum supporter, I didn’t dislike the guy or anything like that. But I’m starting to get there. The last thing we need in a swing state like PA is a no-holds-barred brawl. Santorum is NOT going to emerge as the nominee, and what he’s doing right now is damaging to the guy who WILL.

It’s time for Rick to pull on his big boy pants and act like he’s still got a little dignity left.

Murf76 on April 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Not sure why you’re re-posting an article from 2008, I think I’ve made it quite clear that I followed the 2008 primary and remember it well.

As for Romney, its quite clear that in 2008 externally nothing changed, rather Romney simply re-evaluated his campaign and decided that continuing it would have been foolish. Frankly, I agreed with the assessment.

It was clear Romney wasn’t going to win, yes he could’ve won several states out west, but those states alone would not have been enough to give him the nomination. In essence, you wanted Romney to wage a war of attrition against McCain, despite the fact that he could not have won, and despite the fact that doing so WOULD have weakened McCain going into the general election.

Yes Romney indeed said that this is what he was going to do, but continuing would’ve been a mistake. So he took a few days to clear his head, and after re-evaluating things carefully decided to end his campaign for very well thought out reasons.

I’m sorry, but his decision was both intelligent and ethical. He bowed out before things became too bitter, then campaigned enthusiastically for McCain for the rest of the year. Yes he changed his mind in doing so, but changing your mind isn’t lying.

WolvenOne on April 5, 2012 at 6:48 PM

If Romney had kept his word in 2008, I believe that McCain would have had a very hard time competing against both Romney and Huckabee, because McCain was getting hoisted by his own campaign finance petard. If Romney and Huckabee had split a majority of the remaining states, McCain would have fallen short of the nomination, and we could have had a brokered convention in 2008. That likely would have led to a much more conservative candidate than McCain. And if Romney had ended up on the ticket, either on the top or the bottom of that ticket, I could have enthusiastically supported him.

But after seeing Romney break his promise and lie about his motivations, I simply cannot believe another word that man says.

Romney simply re-evaluated his campaign and decided that continuing it would have been foolish. Frankly, I agreed with the assessment….changing your mind isn’t lying.

If he had simply said on February 5, 2008 that his campaign was going on, and then on February 7th said that he had re-evaluated his campaign and decided that continuing it would have been foolish, that would have been fine. But that’s not what he did. He chose to say his campaign was going on AND THAT HE WOULD BATTLE ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTION. And when he changed his mind, he was not honest and up front about his reasons for quitting. The War on Terror had NOTHING to do with his decision to quit.

He lied, because for some reason he was embarassed to tell the truth.

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Mitt Romney is probably the brightest man we have had running for the office of President in my lifetime.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Why are you here?? We here, at HotAir, try to be a bit more analytical. What the hell does “the brightest” mean?? Can he hornswaggle enough true conservatives to get the numbers he is seeking. This pseudo-man is a disgrace. He is feeding ding-dongs like you with just enough BS to get your vote. You, and your ilk, need to find your way. Concentrate!!!! Santorum and Newt have the real message. It’s a shame that it has been split for these months, but let’s not leave the real “Tea Party Movement” to die. Get it together!!!

PaCadle on April 5, 2012 at 7:58 PM

He will not stand by what he says. If the winds shift, Romney will shift with them.

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM

That’s funny, I don’t remember Romney “shifting” with the winds when he was passing out hundreds of vetoes left and right in Mass.

Swerve22 on April 5, 2012 at 8:02 PM

In his last year as Governor he issued 250 vetoes of line items in the state budget. Every single one of those vetoes was overturned by the legislature.

The legislature overturned 800 Romney vetoes.

He vetoed legislation that would have allowed illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition … and surprisingly that one was not overturned.

Romney vetoed increases in minimum wages, vetoed a bill making the morning-after pill available over the counter, vetoed embryonic stem cell research. All of those were overturned by the legislature.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 8:11 PM

In the second half of his term the legislature was close to 90% Democrat. There really wasn’t much he could do.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 8:13 PM

We here, at HotAir, try to be a bit more analytical.

That time for that analysis is gone, over, finished, done. That was six months ago, even three months ago it would have been useful. Not now.

The country doesn’t need another President with no track record in the private sector who has nothing but rhetoric. Santorum isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Who is Santorum’s foreign policy team? Who is his primary energy adviser? Does he have a position on anything except abortion, gay rights, and contraceptives? Those are not the primary problems facing this nation today. What experience has Santorum had with managing a large budget of anything beyond his household?

The point is, if you actually DO the analysis, Romney comes out looking pretty good, in my opinion.

He’s got my vote. I wasn’t at all convinced six months ago. Hell, I was rooting for Perry over Romney at one point. But I am convinced now. Romney will make the best President we have seen since Reagan if we can give him a Republican Congress.

I am not at all convinced I can say the same about Santorum.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM

If they’d both love their country more than themselves, they’d have done this a few months ago, alas.

None could give up the number one spot. Now they can both get Fluked.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Bullhockey. If Romney loved this country more than himself he would have dropped out before Florida, seeing as how the party was clearly rejecting him. He stayed in. So should his opponents.

alwaysfiredup on April 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM

In the second half of his term the legislature was close to 90% Democrat. There really wasn’t much he could do.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 8:13 PM

“Vote for me!! I was a powerless state executive!! Just trust me that things will be different next time!”

No, thanks.

alwaysfiredup on April 5, 2012 at 8:29 PM

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Well there’s no indignation like fake indignation.

You keep insisting that Romney lied, but why would he lie? What conceivable purpose would there be in lying, why tell supporters that you’re going to stay in when you have no purpose of doing so whatsoever.

Answer, there is none, there is no conceivable reason why somebody would mislead people in the manner you’re suggesting. On the other hand there are ample reasons why somebody would change their mind, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out and as you’ve repeatedly ignored. On of that, even the reasons he gave for dropping out were demonstrably valid, as you’ve again ignored.

The explanation for all of this, is glaringly simple. Giving up a chance for the presidency is hard, and Obama was seen as a weak foreign policy candidate. So of course it’d take time to come to grips with ending the campaign, and citing the war on terror was a perfectly valid reason for ending the campaign.

It was a straight forward, honest, rational, and ethical decision. Repeatedly saying that he lied over and over ad-nauseum doesn’t change that one bit.

WolvenOne on April 5, 2012 at 10:47 PM

You keep insisting that Romney lied, but why would he lie? What conceivable purpose would there be in lying, why tell supporters that you’re going to stay in when you have no purpose of doing so whatsoever.

You misunderstand.

I’m not saying that what Romney said on February 5, 2008 was a lie. It wasn’t. It was a public statement of what he was claiming he was going to do. (Battle “all the way to the convention”)

Quitting on February 7, 2008 was breaking his word from less than 48 hours earlier.

The LIE is that instead of telling the truth about why he was quitting (he didn’t think he could win the nomination outright, and wasn’t willing to truly fight all the way to the convention if it meant a brokered convention) he instead told people what he thought would sound good (oh, he’s quitting because he’s so patriotic, and if Huckabee and Paul don’t also quit, then they are “letting their campaigns be part of a surrender to terror”!)

The reason Romney gave for quitting was not the truth.

You and I know the reason why he quit. But he wasn’t man enough to tell the truth.

ITguy on April 5, 2012 at 11:07 PM

DHChron = internet tough guy, typing all those big words!!!

LevinFan on April 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM

thanks Levin Fan! you’re the bestest!

DHChron on April 5, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2