Romney to hit PA with ad blitz this week

posted at 10:26 am on April 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

With Mitt Romney’s sweep six days ago of primaries in Maryland, Washington DC, and the battleground state of Wisconsin, the Republican frontrunner continues to build momentum in the Republican presidential nomination sweepstakes.  In the official RNC count of delegates, Romney just crossed the halfway mark to 1144 with 573 delegates, far ahead of Rick Santorum’s 202; counting all of the non-binding contests, Romney leads by a slightly larger amount, 656 to 272.  The next binding contests come two weeks from tomorrow, and Santorum will only be competitive in one — and Romney is loading up for a knockout blow there:

Republican Mitt Romney will air presidential campaign ads in most of Pennsylvania starting on Monday, when candidates return from their Easter break, a source close to the campaign said on Friday.

The $2.9 million advertising campaign will run in the Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Erie, Altoona and Philadelphia media markets until the April 24 primary election.

Within a week, the ads will run in the Pittsburgh market. The Romney super PAC Restore Our Future is airing commercials on cable channels statewide.

The campaign’s ad buy reinforces the former Massachusetts governor’s determination to win the home state of ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Santorum grew up in Butler County and owns a Penn Hills home, Gingrich spent childhood years in the Harrisburg area and Paul is a Green Tree native.

It’s not just advertising, either.  Since Romney should have little trouble winning in the other four states that go to the polls on the 24th — New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware, the latter of which is a winner-take-all primary — he can spend almost all of his time stumping in Pennsylvania.  That makes the fight uncomfortably similar to Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which Santorum was perceived as having a lead or an edge, and both of which fell to Romney in the end.

As the LA Times points out, Pennsylvania is Santorum’s firewall, at least on credibility:

The former senator from Pennsylvania has resurrected his career after a shattering 2006 reelection defeat. Dismissed as a hopeless long shot when his presidential run began, he’ll finish no worse than second for the Republican nomination. At 53, he’s one of the nation’s leading social conservatives, and his long-range future has never looked brighter.

But as he resumes a do-or-die Pennsylvania primary effort this week, he’ll need all his local connections and considerable campaign talents to survive what could be the final showdown of the 2012 GOP contest. Polls show him with a small lead over Mitt Romney, who’d like nothing more than to finish off his main rival in the April 24 election.

After a day spent traversing the state’s steeply eroded ridges, studded with redbud blossoms and trees just greening up, Santorum expressed satisfaction at returning to “familiar territory, where I can say, ‘No, no, there’s a shorter way to get there’ to the drivers.”

He’s all but said that a primary loss would end his candidacy. “We have to win here,” he told reporters during a stop at Bob’s Diner in Carnegie, a Pittsburgh suburb he represented as a young congressman in the early 1990s.

Unfortunately for Santorum, failure in Pennsylvania might spell the end of not just the current political campaign, but any future in electoral politics.  It took an extraordinary effort to bring Santorum back from that large 2006 defeat in his home state, and if it happens again in a Republican primary, it might take even longer to get past it.  That puts more pressure on Santorum to defend the state if he chooses to continue, and polls are showing mixed signals at how well he’s managing to do it at the moment.

The delegate math is becoming more and more untenable, too.  Santorum’s camp released an argument last week that the media (and the RNC, apparently) has the delegate allocations all wrong, and that he’s actually much closer to Romney.  In part, that argument was based on a claim made by Newt Gingrich in February that the RNC would force Florida and Arizona to proportionally allocate their delegates.  Even the RNC admits that they can’t dictate state allocations, and in any case they don’t appear inclined to try, as their own scorecard shows.

On Tuesday, 159 delegates will be allocated in the four other states, the vast majority of which will go to Romney, while Pennsylvania’s 72 delegates will probably be closely split between Romney and Santorum regardless of the order of the finish.  There is a good possibility that Romney can pad his delegate lead by 100 or so on the 24th in both counts.  May’s nine contests look more promising for Santorum in a vacuum, but with Romney having perhaps over 800 delegates overall or 700 in the bound-only count, this race will hit a tipping point soon regardless of whether Santorum can win a squeaker in Pennsylvania — and states like Indiana and Oregon will probably fall Romney’s way, while Texas’ big prize will be proportionally allocated anyway.

Plus, the Des Moines Register reports that the few superdelegates in the GOP have begun to move towards Romney:

The Associated Press has polled 114 of the 120 superdelegates, party members who can support any candidate for president they choose at the national convention in August, regardless of what happens in primaries or caucuses.

In the latest survey, conducted Tuesday to Friday, Romney has 35 endorsements, far more than anyone else but a modest figure for the apparent nominee. Gingrich has four endorsements, Santorum has two and Texas Rep. Ron Paul got one.

RNC members have been slowly embracing Romney. He picked up 11 new endorsements since the last AP survey a month ago, after the Super Tuesday contests. Over the course of the campaign, however, Romney methodically has added endorsements from every region of the country. In the U.S. territories, where voters help decide the nominee but can’t vote in the general election, Romney has dominated.

Santorum will have two weeks to decide whether he wants to roll the dice on his future in a Pennsylvania primary for a nomination in which the math looks almost impossible to overcome, or take his gains and play for the future while the opening for a gracious and party-building exit remains in play.  He’s overcome a lot of long odds to put himself in that position, and perhaps Santorum will feel that the risks are still worth taking.


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

Unless I’ve missed something, liberal4life’s comments are usually tame compared to some personal, obscene insults that come from a few Romney-bashing, so-called “true conservatives” on this site. What’s more annoying to me than the predictable taunting from an Obama supporter is when long-time HotAir commenters start treating this space as a chat room to share personal, off-topic stories, opinions about musical groups, etc.

It’s silly how that one commenter liberal4life gets you guys so worked up in a tizzy. He/she could post simply “neener, neener, we’re gonna win” and you people would be all up in arms.

bluegill on April 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Copy and paste much? Still I say. Cry me a river gilled one.

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM

America needs real conservatives in the White House.
Romney IS a real conservative. Much more conservative politically than Santorum who believes the federal government is omnipotent over the individual and states and has said so from his own mouth. Santorum is conservative only in some social issues. Politically, he is pretty much the same as Obama and believes there is no limit to the powers of the federal government over the individual and states.

crosspatch on April 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Where in Mitt Romney’s record has he shown his ‘real conservatism’? Thanks.

Pragmatic on April 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Its going to be a very long, chaotic, very vitriolic election cycle.

I’m afraid it could end up being a who can one up the mud slinging liberal.

Speakup on April 9, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Cain was more conservative than Willard and Sweatervest put together, rubberbrain, the leftist-paid character assassin s1uts notwithstanding.

MelonCollie on April 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Threw a hook in the water and totally fished out a moron.

rubberneck on April 9, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Perry/West 2012
America needs real conservatives AND men who have served their country in the military in the White House NOW!

Pragmatic on April 9, 2012 at 12:56 PM

From the Pittsburgh Tribune Review link:

Gingrich Group LLC, a health care advocacy group he founded, sought bankruptcy protection from creditors on Thursday without giving a reason. Last week, the Gingrich campaign released most staff members and said it would employ a social media strategy.
Months ago I noted that Newt (via his American Solutions for Winning the Future) was a deadbeat tenant- something which should have raised alarm bells about his candidacy. Now his Healthcare group is asking for protection from creditors. Moreover, as was widely noted, his Health Transformations Group engaged in less-than-ethical tactics, doling out “entrepreneur of the year awards” in exchange for a $5000.00 fee. For all his good work in the past with the Contract With America, this is troubling. I defended his right to have a line of credit at Tiffany’s, but leaving creditors in the lurch is a different ball of yarn.

It’s ironic that the much loved individual who pushed for the vetting of our candidates, kinda sorta endorsed Newt, and promoted the idea of a brokered convention missed this red flag which was there for anyone to see (not to mention his ties to Freddie Mac).

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Given Newt’s inability to manage his campaign finances, I’m really glad it appears he won’t be given the opportunity to experiment on a national government scale.
They just released budget estimates. It appears that if Obama is re-elected, by the time he’s done, the National debt will be about $70,000 per American. Given that only about half of Americans pay federal income taxes, that would be about $140,000 per taxpayer. And that’s to pay for prior spending-not current spending, not current entitlements, not future entitlements.

Please keep that in mind at election time and pull the lever for the Republican nominee. Any Republican will do somewhat better on spending than Obama.

talkingpoints on April 9, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Honestly, I don’t think Romney needs to run negative ads against Santorum in PA to get a solid win.

As it gets closer to the actual voting, PA voters are remembering what a one-note socon Santorum was and how he lost a winnable Senate seat to Casey in a landslide because of his focus on beside-the-point issues like abortion and Terri Schaivo. The Party itself in PA is solidly behind Romney, and they’re terrified about what a Santorum nomination would mean not only for the WH (he’d single-handedly deliver PA into Obama’s hands), but for down-ticket races, as well.

Santorum is toast in PA. He should drop out now rather than suffer the public humilation of losing his home state.

DRayRaven on April 9, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Look, I get that you are a Romney supporter and simply must tear down the opposition, but this post is utter B.S. Santorum did not lose Pennsylvania because of his stance on abortion. As you know, Pennsylvania is heavily democrat, but they are by and far pro-life. Casey, Santorum’s opponent in 2006, was a pro-life democrat so he was a natural fit for the constituency there. The other main reason Santorum lost is because he stood strong with the Bush administration in support of the Iraq war. A very unpopular position in 2006.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

he told reporters during a stop at Bob’s Diner in Carnegie, a Pittsburgh suburb he represented as a young congressman in the early 1990s.

But…but…Romney’s the “establishment” candidate!

bigdubs on April 9, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Cain was more conservative than Willard and Sweatervest put together, rubberbrain, the leftist-paid character assassin s1uts notwithstanding.

MelonCollie on April 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Cain was a totally unprepared lightweight clown who wasn’t ready for prime time. At times he made even Sarah Palin look good. Later we found out that he was (allegedly) also a disgusting, dishonorable liar. That Cain would even run for president thinking he could hide and lie about his (alleged) personal failings shows that he cared more about self-promotion and his own ambition than helping the party defeat Obama.

The fact that Cain was Black was what made him especially popular. Yes, he also had a jovial personality that attracted people, but what really impressed a lot of Republicans, I think, was that he was a Black man willing to think independently and criticize Obama.

bluegill on April 9, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The other main reason Santorum lost is because he stood strong with the Bush administration in support of the Iraq war.
KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if many PA voters simply didn’t want to re-elect an embarrassing homphobic bigot like Santorum with extreme social views not shared by most in the state.

bluegill on April 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Copy and paste much? Still I say. Cry me a river gilled one.
Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Frankly, she has a point about the one-sided furor over what are deemed “offensive” comments. I didn’t approve of her tedious use of the “bigot” word, but I’m not keen on commenters labeling those they disagree with “haters”. But to your comment: What did she copy and paste? Rmoney® ?

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 1:10 PM

What did she copy and paste? Rmoney® ?

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I didn’t copy and paste anything. I simply posted some similar comments in the other thread where Ed announced the l4l ban.

Sidenote: Yes, I know I’ve been annoying, and I do feel bad that people tried to associate me with you. sorry! I just get very worked up and want Romney president already! hehe. You are a great contributor here and I hope you continue doing what you do. anyway, I’m done for the day… carry on!

bluegill on April 9, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if many PA voters simply didn’t want to re-elect an embarrassing homphobic bigot like Santorum with extreme social views not shared by most in the state.

bluegill on April 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Your constant repetition doesn’t make the lies you tell any more truthful.

Fact: Santorum had an openly gay staffer who worked for him for 10 years. The guy said in an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball that Santorum was terrific towards him and treated him with the utmost respect. He really liked Santorum.

So, shut your piehole liar.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Where in Mitt Romney’s record has he shown his ‘real conservatism’? Thanks.

Pragmatic on April 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM

It is in some of his speeches. He is severely conservative do you not know? Outside of that, all I see in his record is accomplishments any dyed and true progressive would be absolutely totally proud to tote around.

astonerii on April 9, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Perry/West 2012
America needs real conservatives AND men who have served their country in the military in the White House NOW!

Tampa Bay, Florida will be the ‘moment of truth’ for the Republican Party (and Romney is NOT the answer).

Pragmatic on April 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Why Santorum lost. Also click on link to 2006 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania for more details, including info about a negative ad he ran which allegedly backfired.

Granted his seat was targeted for special attention by the Dems, but he was not without fault…

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I hear a lot of whining about Romney’s negative ads, but I just don’t see them. What I saw in Florida was standard political fare. If Romney’s ads were that bad we’d have them on full display on HotAir, among many web sites, and we’d be hearing them on talk radio, where most of the hosts have been in the tank for anyone but Romney. So I have to conclude they’re actually tame, and that talk about them is ignorant, exaggerated and possibly manufactured. I sincerely hope the PA ads actually are vicious, because I want this over with. I’m sick of Santorum’s face and punk mouth.

jan3 on April 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Where in Mitt Romney’s record has he shown his ‘real conservatism’? Thanks.

Pragmatic on April 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM

It is in some of his speeches. He is severely conservative do you not know? Outside of that, all I see in his record is accomplishments any dyed and true progressive would be absolutely totally proud to tote around.

astonerii on April 9, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Now wait just one second. We can’t hold his actual record against him, remember? Because he was governor of Massachusetts. And no Republican can govern effectively in Massachusetts, because there are a lot of Democrats here. And no Republican governor can have good job approval/favorability ratings, also because there are a lot of Democrats here. So we have to give Romney credit for his experience as governor, but we must not consider anything that he actually did as governor. Unless it was good, in which case he was responsible for it. Or something. /s

Just Sayin on April 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Look, I get that you are a Romney supporter and simply must tear down the opposition, but this post is utter B.S. Santorum did not lose Pennsylvania because of his stance on abortion. As you know, Pennsylvania is heavily democrat, but they are by and far pro-life. Casey, Santorum’s opponent in 2006, was a pro-life democrat so he was a natural fit for the constituency there. The other main reason Santorum lost is because he stood strong with the Bush administration in support of the Iraq war. A very unpopular position in 2006.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Well said! The criticism of Santorum’s campaign back then was that he was out-conservtived by the democrat, Casey. When the republicans start acting like democrats in elections, they lose. And we’re reliving history (2004) now where the popular president incumbent will have a republican who is John Kerry

mozalf on April 9, 2012 at 1:32 PM

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

That’s what I get while trying to type while eating lunch – we’re re-living history (2004) now where where the unpopular incumbent president is up against a John Kerry-like republican.
As long as there are Romneys, Lisa Murkowskis, Susan Collins types the republican party gets weaker because if voters want democrats they’ll choose the real thing.

mozalf on April 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM

When the republicans start acting like democrats in elections, they lose. And we’re reliving history (2004) now where the popular president incumbent will have a republican who is John Kerry

mozalf on April 9, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Are you saying Romney is acting like a Democrat? You must be or you have no argument. If you actually think he is, then you’ve got a real perception problem.

jan3 on April 9, 2012 at 1:38 PM

FTR: I also disavow the word “homophobic”. It’s a made-up word for a made-up “disorder”.

Coined by George Weinberg in the 1960s,[7] the term homophobia is a blend[8][9][10] of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes such as in television, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning “fear” or “morbid fear”.

and -

Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias, neither in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD); homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense.[19]

I put the word in a similar category as Kwanza, the made-up Marxist holiday.

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Where in Mitt Romney’s record has he shown his ‘real conservatism’? Thanks.

Pragmatic on April 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Lets see …

How many do you want? How about when he vetoed legislation that would have allowed the morning-after pill to be available over the counter in Massachusetts or when he vetoed legislation that would have allowed illegal aliens to get in-state college tuition?

He has said that Roe v Wade should be overturned so that states can decide abortion laws. Federal money should not be used to support abortions. Cloning of human embryos is morally wrong.

“Abortion is taking human life. There’s no question but that human life begins when all the DNA is there necessary for cells to divide and become a human being. Is it alive? Yes. Is it human? Yes. And, therefore, when we abort a fetus, we are taking a life at its infancy, at its very, very beginning roots, and a civilized society, I believe, respects the sanctity of human life.” (2007)

You might also look at this column he wrote that was published in NRO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221291/stem-cell-solution/mitt-romney

On Global Warming:

“Scientists are nearly unanimous in laying the blame for rising temperatures on greenhouse gas emissions. Of course there are also reasons for skepticism. The earth may be getting warmer, but there have been numerous times in the earth’s history when temperatures have been warmer than they are now. Climate cycles with great variations in temperature predate the greenhouse gas emissions of the past three centuries, and they even predate the rise of human populations. In fact, climate change has been going on from the beginning of the world; it is certainly not a new phenomenon. Even the apparent unity among scientists is not a sure indicator of scientific fact.”

There is a REASON why Rick Santorum endorsed Romney as a “true conservative” in 2008. Because he IS!

crosspatch on April 9, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Granted his seat was targeted for special attention by the Dems, but he was not without fault…

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Nobody said Santorum wasn’t without fault. However, my response was to a poster who flat-out mislead in his post about Santorum’s 2006 loss.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Fact: Santorum had an openly gay staffer who worked for him for 10 years. The guy said in an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball that Santorum was terrific towards him and treated him with the utmost respect. He really liked Santorum.

So, shut your piehole liar.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Gee hate to think how much Santorum would have lost by if not for that one gay staffer to prove how tolerant he is.

Buttercup on April 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM

talkingpoints on April 9, 2012 at 12:59 PM

And, this is how we know the GAG rule was in place during his four years as SoTH and the ‘balanced’ budget was a scam. You can’t have a balanced budget if there are deficits. My 25 years of Accounting and Finance in the Private Sector tells me that is false.

Now, you know the rest of the Story: Newt knows nothing about a balanced budget. He does not Government Accounting Gimmickry (GAG).

This does not work in the Private Sector, however, something Newt does not know as he has never been in the Private Sector. He is the true Establishment Candidate.

uhangtight on April 9, 2012 at 1:56 PM

*does know* GAG

UGH

uhangtight on April 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Buttercup on April 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Well gee, Buttercup, I guess we’ll never know because this gay staffer was only recently on Hardball as we didn’t have Mitt-witt republican supporters making it an issue in 2006 like we do now, do we. Romney and his minions are only good at tearing their own side down it seems.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Nobody said Santorum wasn’t without fault. However, my response was to a poster who flat-out mislead in his post about Santorum’s 2006 loss.
KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM

But you claimed bluegill “lied”. She expressed an opinion she “wouldn’t be surprised” if blah blah blah was the reason he was defeated”. I think it’s a silly, impolitic statement but it’s hard to call it a lie as she wasn’t stating a fact, just a speculative opinion.

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 2:11 PM

The other main reason Santorum lost is because he stood strong with the Bush administration in support of the Iraq war.
KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

oh yeah it was Bush’s fault. Whose fault will it be when Santorum loses PA this time? Certainly not his own.

Mittbot Mittwitt Romney Minion

Buttercup on April 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Unless I’ve missed something, liberal4life’s comments are usually tame compared to some personal, obscene insults that come from a few Romney-bashing, so-called “true conservatives” on this site. What’s more annoying to me than the predictable taunting from an Obama supporter is when long-time HotAir commenters start treating this space as a chat room to share personal, off-topic stories, opinions about musical groups, etc.

Frankly, she has a point about the one-sided furor over what are deemed “offensive” comments. I didn’t approve of her tedious use of the “bigot” word, but I’m not keen on commenters labeling those they disagree with “haters”. But to your comment: What did she copy and paste? Rmoney® ?

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Three separate treads. Still using bigot to describe one of the GOP candidates. I ended up going with Rmoney™. Personally I was partial to the Rmoney®, but I allowed input and that input decided Rmoney™ was slightly better then Rmoney®. For the record per your request I have discontinued the use of the term haters when describing haters.

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Oh and Buy Danish, in case you would like to see for yourself. bluegill on April 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM Game on….Message off. thread.

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

But you claimed bluegill “lied”. She expressed an opinion she “wouldn’t be surprised” if blah blah blah was the reason he was defeated”. I think it’s a silly, impolitic statement but it’s hard to call it a lie as she wasn’t stating a fact, just a speculative opinion.

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 2:11 PM

You need to read the thread more carefully. I responded to you after you responded with a Wiki link to my post to Dr. Ray Raven. The post I made to Bluegill is a separate post about the constant lies calling Santorum a homophobe.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Buttercup on April 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Are you really as dim as you post? Nobody is blaming Bush–except, of course, the largely democratic voters of PA who voted Santorum out in 2006 partly because he stood strong with Bush in continuing to support the Iraq war at a time when things were going badly there.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Oh and Buy Danish, in case you would like to see for yourself. bluegill on April 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM Game on….Message off. thread.

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

In the future it would be nice if you would provide a link to the comment rather than assume it’s my job to hunt around finding it.

Anyhoo, I don’t understand what point you’re making. I already stipulated I disapprove of the use of the word “bigot”. Your bff (iykwimaityd) say things directly to and about me which actually are “lies” and are just as offensive as how this commenter chooses to define a candidate who is not part of the “Hot Air Community”.

As for liberal4life, she spouts idiotic propaganda, but I don’t recall anything ban-worthy she’s said – not that I read all her comments or threads here so it’s very possible I missed it. I’m just saying there is a double standard without any consistent application of what’s acceptable and what isn’t, with a lot of hypocrisy from the ABR camp.

Buy Danish on April 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Whatever you say Buy Danish.

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Oh, I’m leaving this thread, Bye.

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Sanctimonious was an open enemy of the Tea Party before his Quixotic run for higher office. I guess the TPer’s who support him figure that they’d rather have an clear Republican enemy than a dishonest backstabbing “ally” come November.

ebrown2 on April 9, 2012 at 11:22 AM

That’s not true. Santorum opposed redefining conservatism as libertarian, and his statement was about a movement “within” the Republican Party and the Tea Party. I attended many a tea party rally, including the ones at the Capitol. The entire focus of those rallys were Obamacare, the stimulous and the 20% raise across the board of federal spending.

Portia46 on April 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I’m leaving this thread, whaaaaa, whaaaaa!
Mittbots!! Whahhhhhh

Rusty Allen on April 9, 2012 at 4:20 PM

KickandScreamMom on April 9, 2012 at 3:14 PM

You’re big on name calling and telling people to shut up. Does that make you feel better about yourself? Whatever we can do to improve your self-esteem Mom. I can only imagine how hard it must be to defend a loser like Santorum all day while combatting such a severe case of RDS.

Dim Mittwit Minion Mittbot Zealot

Buttercup on April 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Buttercup on April 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Sorry Buttercup, but I have little patience for those who interject themselves into a conversation they were not a part of and then post snark about it that is basically inaccurate.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Don’t be sorry, I was humoring myself at your expense.

Buttercup on April 9, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Don’t be sorry, I was humoring myself at your expense.

Buttercup on April 9, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Whatever floats your boat.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Romney to hit PA with ad blitz this week

Bombs or leaflets to surrender?

ray on April 9, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Yeah it started, saw the ad at the gym while on a workout. But whoever is running our end of the Santorum campaign they are carpet bombing Erie.

Hope they wise up.

ProudPalinFan on April 9, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Now he’s really lost all credibility.

Being from PA, if you want a shorter way, move somewhere else.

In PA, the shorter way is either blocked by traffic, by road construction or by potholes that could swallow a Fiat.

NoDonkey on April 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM


You live near me? ROFL!

ProudPalinFan on April 9, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Look, I get that you are a Romney supporter and simply must tear down the opposition, but this post is utter B.S. Santorum did not lose Pennsylvania because of his stance on abortion. As you know, Pennsylvania is heavily democrat, but they are by and far pro-life. Casey, Santorum’s opponent in 2006, was a pro-life democrat so he was a natural fit for the constituency there. The other main reason Santorum lost is because he stood strong with the Bush administration in support of the Iraq war. A very unpopular position in 2006.

KickandSwimMom on April 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM

You are right that Casey successfully leveraged his pro-life position as well as the general war-weariness of voters in 2006. But, honestly, the residency issue and Santorum’s negative attacks on Casey as being soft on terrorism were huge factors in his defeat, as well as a general sense that Santorum was too preachy and that he worried more about his career than about the people of PA. Even people who had once liked and supported him turned against him, primarily because they stopped liking him.

Priscilla on April 9, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2