The Ricks, Rockys, and Rudys: Stories from the 2012 Trail

posted at 2:01 pm on May 1, 2012 by Elizabeth Santorum

Note: Elizabeth Santorum has joined our Green Room team as an occasional contributor.  We look forward to her perspective this season as a political observer and analyst.  Be sure to keep an eye out for more.  Today, Elizabeth discusses her experiences on the campaign trail as an introduction — Ed.

“How on earth did you guys almost pull that off?”

I answer this question multiple times a day. The people who ask this are referring to the fact that my Dad won eleven states, over 900 counties, with over three million votes cast for him. He was Mitt Romney’s primary competition for the GOP nomination. There is often a certain sense of bewilderment when they ask this, but also of respect or even admiration. And don’t worry. I get why this amazes them. Our campaign was overwhelmingly outspent in most states (sometimes more than 10 to 1), we didn’t have the organizational machine of the Romney camp, and we spent months of the race not getting any attention from the national media. In the fall, we were sitting at two percent in the polls and running a presidential campaign with a handful of incredible, dedicated staff and volunteers.  So, is it shocking that we did what we did? Absolutely. Did I believe if anyone could make this happen, it would be my Dad? Yep. We overcame the odds in this race, which is similar to every race he’s won, beating democratic incumbents in the blue state of Pennsylvania.

“But how did you do it this time? What was your secret?”

I hear ya. I could talk about how we strategized about this or that, how we worked tirelessly, or how we stretched every dollar. Fundamentally, our success came down to three things: message, messenger and movement. These aspects are essential to every race that starts at the grassroots level.

A campaign is not simply platforms and policy; it needs a message that inspires people to act. My Dad traveled the country talking about a manufacturing plan to create jobs, a fiscal policy that would lead America to prosperity, ways to make us energy independent, the looming threat of a nuclear Iran, and the importance of the family. He also talked about the importance of our founding documents, that the loss of liberty was the fundamental issue of this race.

My Dad’s message excited the base of the party and spoke to a middle America that was hungry for, well, a kid from a steel town who knows how to work hard. He visited every county in Iowa before the caucus, worked nearly 24/7 with only five days off throughout the entire campaign, and held over 800 town hall meetings nation wide. Americans still value hard work and a real person who is courageous and honest.

With that type of a messenger, we began painting our vision for America. And as any good teacher will tell you, when you begin anything, you talk about what you know. So, we started our campaign out talking about our stories – our immigrant family, our vision for the country, how we got conservative things done in DC, and how we believe in the founding principles that made America great. Then something wonderful began to happen. Our supporters and volunteers believed in the message and that belief turned into action. Money can’t buy that type of genuine enthusiasm. The campaign became about the stories of all the people who came into our lives on this journey. A movement began.

In Iowa, a guy named Chuck volunteered to drive my Dad around to all of his events in a Dodge Ram pickup truck. Chuck is a straight shooting, salt of the earth guy who loves Iowa and its caucus. Even though he’s a top politico in the state, as he’s the former director of the state party, he put the rest of his life on hold to drive the Chuck Truck for our campaign. He believed we could pull off the impossible: a win in Iowa. Hundreds of miles later, his faith was rewarded.

Wendy Jensen was the smallest wisp of a woman with one of the biggest hearts I’ve ever known. In spite of her disability, she made over 5,000 phone calls for the campaign in Iowa and passed away right before caucus night. I know she’d be proud of what we all did, together, in Iowa. That night was for Wendy.

In Oklahoma, we met our best volunteer whose name was Nathanial. He had spina bifida. Nathanial made thousands of phone calls from home for the campaign. Yet as we thanked him for his huge contribution, he thanked us for representing his voice.

While in Missouri, a woman came up to my Dad after an event and handed him eight dollars. These were her daily tips from her job as a pet groomer. She told him this was her contribution to protect freedom.

For each of these stories there’s a thousand more. People all across the nation rose up and made big things happen. We even had a song written for us, called “Game On.”

I remember several months ago when a Romney surrogate claimed that all the significant Republicans in the country had spoken about who should be the GOP nominee. There was outrage among Republicans across America, especially among the half of the country who had not voted yet. A trend started on twitter, a hashtag that said #IAmSignificant. This went viral as everyday Americans “endorsed” my Dad for president because, after all, they were significant too. When I heard the comment myself, I couldn’t help but think of Chuck, Wendy, and Nathanial. To us, these everyday Americans were significant. In fact, they were invaluable.

So when people ask me how we ran a grassroots campaign for president and re-wrote the history books on how presidential races are run, well, the answer is simple: we did it together, against all the odds. But, who doesn’t like a good underdog story? Thank goodness for the Ricks, Rockys and Rudys of this world who remind us of what’s really significant and that all things are possible.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

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

Your dad inspired soooo many people, including me! You’re doing something right when you can inspire a teenager to get involved, and he did just that for me. Thanks for all y’all did– you got our message out there and you were a huge inspiration in the process :) keeping y’all in my prayers. Say hello to the family from a teenage conservative for me? ;)

NextGenerationVoters on May 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I hesitate to post on this.Rick and his family had a herculean effort to get as far as he did.

But(there’s always a but) he would have gotten pasted in a general
election.

His extreme social views( at least to the middle we need to win the general election would have killed him) with all Ricks Bits being run constantly over and over.

Mitt may have many of the same views-but the middle(and the far right) don’t believe him. Santorum they do believe.

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Your dad was not my choice (though husband and father-in-law were all in for him). That said, Mr. Santorum did indeed display breathtaking stamina, passion, and force of will that finally made me sit up and take notice. I’m pretty positive that, come 2016, we’ll all get the chance for a second look. Fine effort, Elizabeth, welcome to Hot Gas, and happy trails to yall!

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 1, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Elizabeth:Could you please give your sister, Bella, a hug from HA’s ‘Momma Twerp’*That’s me. LoL*
Thanks!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 1, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I hesitate to post on this.Rick and his family had a herculean effort to get as far as he did.

But(there’s always a but) he would have gotten pasted in a general
election.

His extreme social views( at least to the middle we need to win the general election would have killed him) with all Ricks Bits being run constantly over and over.

Mitt may have many of the same views-but the middle(and the far right) don’t believe him. Santorum they do believe.

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Name one social conservative who’s lost a presidential general election, please.

vegconservative on May 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Note: Elizabeth Santorum has joined our Green Room team as an occasional contributor.

the vest was fully booked?

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Yes, yes, and how did Huckabee “almost pull that off” in 2008? And how did McCain “almost pull that off” in 2000? And how did Buchannan “almost pull that off” in 1996?

In every primary somone has to “almost pull that off”. Kudos to your dad. Let’s all not forget the forest because we saw some mighty fine trees along the way. Obama Been Lyin’ must be defeated. It’s time to focus on the future.

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

That’s nothing but your opinions, which have little value.

We will see what Obama does with Romney’s “extreme” positions, as November approaches. I think you’re dreaming, if you think the moderates won’t fall for his propaganda.

Santorum had a remarkable campaign, and I have come to the opinion that he did for two reasons.

1. He wasn’t the despicable person a lot of conservatives thought he was

and

2. Many people perceive Romney i\as a lousy candidate, and they have been looking for a viable alternative

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Welcome to HotAir, Elizabeth. My dad and sister were pulling for your dad in the primaries. While I agree it was surprising, and even impressive, that your dad’s campaign was as successful as it was, I think it had less to do with his campaign than a series of fortunate events.

The truth is that he was the last ABR candidate to be vetted, and by that time, the primary was in full-swing. Tim Pawlenty pulled out early, then Michelle Bachmann had her flash-in-the-pan. Then came Herman Cain Hatchet Job, followed by a remarkable case of Newt-Amnesia. By the time the Primaries were really rolling, your dad was the only one whose last name wasn’t Romney left to vote for. As a result, the ABR crowd rallied around him.

This sentiment was evident on HotAir, and was even expressed by my family members who supported him. My dad said (I think mistakenly) that “Anybody we nominate is going to beat Obama in November, I’d prefer to get the most conservative nominee we can get.”

So congrats to your dad for his success in the campaign, and congrats to him for getting out while the getting was good.

Exit question: Is he EVER going to endorse and campaign for Romney?

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Name one social conservative who’s lost a presidential general election, please.

vegconservative on May 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Last 60 years: RINOs – 4, Social Cons – 1

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Hi Elizabeth,

I VOTED FOR YOUR DAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eph on May 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM

My Dad’s message excited the base of the party and spoke to a middle America that was hungry for, well,

…anyone not named mitt. alas, it soon dawned on them that daddy was a religious fanatic with zero chance of winning.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Last 60 years: RINOs – 4, Social Cons – 1

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Names?

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Names?

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Do youre own research. You obviously have a computer.

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:27 PM

My Dad’s message excited the base of the party and spoke to a middle America that was hungry for, well,

…anyone not named mitt. alas, it soon dawned on them that daddy was a religious fanatic with zero chance of winning.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I have to agree. Does it make me a liberal troll, too?

Archivarix on May 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

One thing i’ve learned from this thread.

The people who hate Mitt still hate Mitt.

Oh well.

gerry-mittbot-learning his lesson

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Welcome aboard, Elizabeth. The strength of your family is a shining example to us all. You all have a lot to be proud of.
Assuming the ‘Powers that be’ here is Texas don’t figure some way of keeping his name off the ballot, I’ll be voting for your Dad. I need to be able to sleep at night. I didn’t necessarily agree with everything your Dad had to say, but he is a decent man who holds his convictions tightly. And your family gives him the strength to do that.

My family was highly political too; mt first campaign work was at 5am at the age of 8 , putting literature on downtown businesses doors for a young Bob Dole. That was followed with working Goldwater booths at the local State fair. Those were great times and memories.
Look forward to reading what you have to say, including your opinion on things. We primarily have to save this country for YOUR generation, not mine. My generation of Baby Boomers have really screwed things up and it is imperative WE pay the price, not your generation.

michaelo on May 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM

One thing i’ve learned from this thread.

The people who hate Mitt still hate Mitt.

Oh well.

gerry-mittbot-learning his lesson

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

But it’s nothing personal, he’s just a symbol. heh!

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Name one social conservative who’s lost a presidential general election, please.

Eisenhower-rino-win
Eisenhower-rino-win
goldwater-conservative-lost
nixon-rino-won
nixon-rino-won
ford-rino-lost
reagan-rino-won
reagan-rino-won
Bush 1-rino-won
bush 1-rino-lost
Bush 2-semi conservative-won
Bush 2-semi conservative-won

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Roe v. Wade: 1973

1976: Ford/Pro-abortion: Lost

1980: Reagan/Pro-Life: Won
1984: Reagan/Pro-Life: Won 49 state landslide

1988: GHWB/Pro-Life in name only: Won
1992: GHWB/Pro-Life in name only: Lost
(He only became Reagan’s veep because he agreed to Reagan’s pro-life plank and what he had called Reagan’s “voodoo economics.” He blew it when he decided to go his own route on taxes and raise them.)

1996: Dole/Pro-Life in name only: Lost
He was ready to insert abortion “tolerance” into the plank, but Platform Committee rejected it. His loss had nothing to do with this issue.

2000: Bush/Pro-Life: Won
2004: Bush/Pro-life: Won

2008: McCain/Pro-life: Won
His loss had nothing to do with this issue.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Jeffrey Bell:

In the six general elections since Ronald Reagan, social issues became prominent in the fall campaign twice: in 1988 (furloughs, Pledge of Allegiance, membership in the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). These also happen to be the only two post-Reagan elections when the GOP won a majority of the popular vote.

The last two Republican victories in the Electoral College, in 2000 and 2004, were composed exclusively of socially conservative states with the single exception of New Hampshire (carried by George W. Bush in 2000 but not 2004). The 31 states carried by Bush in 2004, all of them socially conservative, today have 292 electoral votes. Moreover, a number of states that went Democratic that year (e.g., Pennsylvania) are socially conservative as well.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:49 PM

This is remarkable, I don’t remember the last time I saw a story posted in the main blog feed be so entirely immune to community comment. Any theories as to why?

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Name one social conservative who’s lost a presidential general election, please.

Eisenhower-rino-win
Eisenhower-rino-win
goldwater-conservative-lost
nixon-rino-won
nixon-rino-won
ford-rino-lost
reagan-rino-won
reagan-rino-won
Bush 1-rino-won
bush 1-rino-lost
Bush 2-semi conservative-won
Bush 2-semi conservative-won

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Did you miss the word “social” in front of the word “conservative?”

Your analysis is absolutely laughable.

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, “The Case for Polarized Politics,” has a winning track record for the GOP. “Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” he observes. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”

The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to “end welfare as we know it” and make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). “Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority,” Mr. Bell says. “It isn’t coincidental.”

Mr. Bell, 68, is an unlikely tribune for social conservatism. His main interest has always been economics. He was “an early supply-sider” who worked on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns of 1976 and 1980 and Jack Kemp’s in 1988. In 1978 he ran an anti-tax campaign for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey, defeating Republican incumbent Clifford Case in the primary but losing to Democrat Bill Bradley.

Even now his day job is to advocate for the gold standard at the American Principles Project. But he’s been interested in social issues since the 1980s, when “it became increasingly clear to me . . . that social issues were beginning to be very important in comparison to economic issues,” in part because “Reaganomics worked so well that the Democrats . . . kind of retired the economic issues.”

In Mr. Bell’s telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had “its center of gravity in social issues” since the French Revolution, he says. “Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we’ve had a good illustration of it in the last month or so.”

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:52 PM

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Wow – abortion on the mind much? It was hardly an issue in almost all the elections you cite. In fact, having voted in 10 presidential elections, I can’t think of one election where that was the number one issue.

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:52 PM

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

So you are the official arbiter of whether a conservative is pro-life or “pro-life in name only?” Well then OF COURSE the results are going to come out the way you want them to.

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Did you miss the word “social” in front of the word “conservative?”

Your analysis is absolutely laughable.

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 2:50 PM

What’s your point beyond mockery? Who is your social conservative champion here? If not Reagan then who?

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Actually, no. If you checked out my links, then you would see that I’m reporting facts.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222152/reincarnating-reagan/richard-v-allen#

http://www.rnclife.org/reports/2004/fall2004/

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:55 PM

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Haven’t we gone a wee bit off topic here? This seems like just sour grapes that your guy didn’t get the nod.

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:55 PM

The first link I embedded earlier.

The second is a history of the RNC pro-life plank.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:56 PM

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

it seems that the definition of Social conservative seems to be 1 issue. whether its pro-life or pro-abortion.

If thats the case as far as I know ALL of the republican candidates since roe versus wade have been pro-life.

so it’s NOT social conservative its the abortion question.

Romney is on record as pro-life. Just because you don’t believe him does not mean he really is not.

also- as I’ve posted before-abortion is legal in this country per the supreme court. a president Santorum will not change this and neither will president Romney

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:56 PM

This is remarkable, I don’t remember the last time I saw a story posted in the main blog feed be so entirely immune to community comment. Any theories as to why?

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:49 PM

What’s to comment on? Basically the story says “we had a hell of a run”. Uh… OK.

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Actually, no.

If you go back to my comment, you’ll see I was replying to gerrym51.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/01/the-ricks-rockys-and-rudys-stories-from-the-2012-trail/comment-page-1/#comment-5792314

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:57 PM

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:56 PM

My quotes from Jeffrey Lord bring in other issues to complete my reply.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM

What’s to comment on? Basically the story says “we had a hell of a run”. Uh… OK.

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:56 PM

We’ll have to thank INC for injecting something for us to comment on… Abortion; always a topic for comment fodder.

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:59 PM

No, check out mark’s comment. He brought this in.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Sorry, not mark, gerrym.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM

The second is a history of the RNC pro-life plank.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Right, I saw that, but I’m not sure where this link demonstrates the “fact” that the republican nominees who lost were “pro-life in name only.”

Even if that could be shown to be the case, I think you’re using a logical fallacy. Correlation is not causation.

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 3:02 PM

On, and rhombus challenged me as well.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I fully explained myself. I said their loss had nothing to do with the issue.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 3:03 PM

No, check out mark’s comment. He brought this in.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM

gerrym didn’t start this:

Name one social conservative who’s lost a presidential general election, please.

vegconservative on May 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM

gerrym simply responded to this with his list of RINOs and Conservatives and their election records. You then responded with your pro-life-centric list at:

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

So yeah, I’d say we’ve gone a bit far afield, and I’d say you had something to do with it.

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Sorry, not mark, gerrym.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM

its nice to be fought over.

gerry-mittbot

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Social Conservatism is fine, Rick went beyond that, at least rhetorically. The left wanted to caricature him and he helpfully provided some sound bites to make their job easier. He is a nice guy but never had a serious chance. His role was being the last non-Mitt to be in the race.

echosyst on May 1, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Next time, though, he needs a better SuperPac zillionaire than loose-cannon (and worst Batman villain evah!) Mr. Friess.

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 1, 2012 at 3:19 PM

This is remarkable, I don’t remember the last time I saw a story posted in the main blog feed be so entirely immune to community comment. Any theories as to why?
Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Yes. Because it was written by a candidate’s daughter and commenters are reluctant to express themselves freely. Santorum is to be commended for working very hard on a shoestring and garnering significant support.

I remember several months ago when a Romney surrogate claimed that all the significant Republicans in the country had spoken about who should be the GOP nominee. There was outrage among Republicans across America, especially among the half of the country who had not voted yet. A trend started on twitter, a hashtag that said #IAmSignificant. This went viral as everyday Americans “endorsed” my Dad for president because, after all, they were significant too.

I don’t recall that. Can’t find it via Google either…Would appreciate more context. Who was the surrogate and what did he or she say? #IamSignficant trended about a month ago. That’s all I can find…

I do know statements were made to the effect it was mathematically impossible for Santorum (or Newt) to win, but this appears to be a reference to something else.

Buy Danish on May 1, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Elizabeth, maybe I’m a little late to the party, but are you really comparing your dad to Rocky Balboa and Rudy Ruettiger?! One important note… they won.

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Of course she’s going to see her father and his campaign in the best light.(ps. Ed of course is a Santorum supporter) will he let a Mitt blogger on?

gerry-mittbot-oh wait that’s me

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Elizabeth, maybe I’m a little late to the party, but are you really comparing your dad to Rocky Balboa and Rudy Ruettiger?! One important note… they won.

actually rocky lost the first fight won the second. Rudy i’ve never seen

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Um, no. You’ve obviously never seen Rocky or Rudy.

blink on May 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I’ve seen them both. Rudy is one of my favorite movies. Rocky and Rudy both succeeded against all odds. Rick Santorum lost, albeit in somewhat-unexpected fashion. Am I the only one who thinks this is the analogy she’s drawing with the title of the post?

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 3:28 PM

He is your father, not God Himself.
You should spell dad dad.

tmchugh on May 1, 2012 at 3:29 PM

He is your father, not God Himself.
You should spell dad dad.

tmchugh on May 1, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Nice catch, though probably more of her using it as a name or a title. To her, Rick isn’t Rick, he’s “Dad.”

Though I must say it does kind of play into the my dad is like Rocky and Rudy and… yeah.

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Now that this thread has been totally hijacked lets talk about abortion. I am pro-life like most of you.

But my opinion is that most politicians DO NOT wnat roe versus wade overturned-especially redstate politicians.

WHY may you ask.Cetoinley(kudos to curley).

BECAUSE this way they can expound on being pro-life and DON”T have to do anything about it. they can say the court says so.

Just imagine the redstates elections if politicians actually have the power to do something about this. Pandemonium

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM

He was Mitt Romney’s primary secondary tertiary quaternary competition for the GOP nomination.

Fixed it for you.

You are welcome.

Gunlock Bill on May 1, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I will be voting for Rick Santorum in the NC primary.

ITguy on May 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I will be voting for Rick Santorum in the NC primary.

ITguy on May 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Why on earth? Just flipping the bird at the winner?

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Social Conservatism is fine, Rick went beyond that, at least rhetorically. The left wanted to caricature him and he helpfully provided some sound bites to make their job easier. He is a nice guy but never had a serious chance. His role was being the last non-Mitt to be in the race.

echosyst on May 1, 2012 at 3:13 PM

You may be correct that many people supported Santorum simply because he was the “last non-Mitt” in the race.

However, there may also be many out there who really wanted Santorum to succeed but were told by the pundits and media that he could not. Then, as others dropped out of the race and the field narrowed, Santorum became more and more viable. I fall in that camp.

I believe Santorum’s surge was based upon two big things: his supporters liked him and the narrative that he couldn’t win started to dissolve.

His fall was also based on two things: successfully painting him as a spy in the bedroom and attacks that he was both “big government” and yet “not moderate enough” in order to win the general election.

Vintage on May 1, 2012 at 4:04 PM

What’s your point beyond mockery? Who is your social conservative champion here? If not Reagan then who?

rhombus on May 1, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Reagan was listed by Gerrym51 as a RINO. His was the comment that II was responding to, and apparently you shouldn’t be commenting, because you have no idea what’s going on, and YOU have no point.

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Now that this thread has been totally hijacked lets talk about abortion. I am pro-life like most of you.

But my opinion is that most politicians DO NOT wnat roe versus wade overturned-especially redstate politicians.

WHY may you ask.Cetoinley(kudos to curley).

BECAUSE this way they can expound on being pro-life and DON”T have to do anything about it. they can say the court says so.

Just imagine the redstates elections if politicians actually have the power to do something about this. Pandemonium

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Apparently you have been living in a cave and you’ve missed the numerous pro-life state bills that have passed in just the last few years?

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 5:04 PM

What a waste of pixels.

Rick Santorum was never a serious candidate, any more than Mike Huckabee was. They were both able to create a momentary stir in Iowa, ONLY because it’s a caucus state and turnout is under 5% so results can effectively be jiggered.

Santorum bought Iowa by paying off Mr. Pantaloons to the tune of a million dollars and they bussed in the unsuspecting to vote for him. After that he appealed to single issue voters until he was faced with once again getting his political head handed to him in Pennsylvania.

Goodbye Rick. Good riddance Rick. Hope we never see your face again. I would love for Romney to deny him prime time at the convention, we don’t need a redux of Pat Buchannan at this year’s convention.

Oh, and Rick’s support is so solid in the caucus states that Ron Freaking Paul is rolling up the delegates in those states. Rick’s “big wins” in Iowa and Minnesota are going to yield him single digits in actual delegate votes.

mbecker908 on May 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM

We’ll have to thank INC for injecting something for us to comment on… Abortion; always a topic for comment fodder.

Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Looks to me like you need to learn how to follow a conversation on a thread. It was Mittwit gerry who started talking about social conservatives.

We all know, probably including Elzabeth Santorum, that Santorum has been ripped up one side of HotAir and down the other, for supposedly wanting to “legislate his religious beliefs.” There has never been any evidence whatsoever for this, except for people’s “feelings” about that “icky bigot,” Santorum. Abortion is a very important issue for most social conservatives, including this one. You seem to have the same proclivity for deciding what social conservatism is all about, that you claim INC has. Interesting…..

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM

However, there may also be many out there who really wanted Santorum to succeed but were told by the pundits and media that he could not. Then, as others dropped out of the race and the field narrowed, Santorum became more and more viable. I fall in that camp.

I believe Santorum’s surge was based upon two big things: his supporters liked him and the narrative that he couldn’t win started to dissolve.

His fall was also based on two things: successfully painting him as a spy in the bedroom and attacks that he was both “big government” and yet “not moderate enough” in order to win the general election.

Vintage on May 1, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Spot on! +100

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Apparently you have been living in a cave and you’ve missed the numerous pro-life state bills that have passed in just the last few years?

Janeymae. I’m resisting the temptation to say something ugly. all those bills are around the edges. Parental informing,partial birth abortions,ultrasounds before aborting.

None of them outlaw abortion. thats the terror a repeal of Roe/Wade
has for redstate politicians

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Rick Santorum was never a serious candidate, any more than Mike Huckabee was. They were both able to create a momentary stir in Iowa, ONLY because it’s a caucus state and turnout is under 5% so results can effectively be jiggered.

Santorum bought Iowa by paying off Mr. Pantaloons to the tune of a million dollars and they bussed in the unsuspecting to vote for him. After that he appealed to single issue voters until he was faced with once again getting his political head handed to him in Pennsylvania.

Goodbye Rick. Good riddance Rick. Hope we never see your face again. I would love for Romney to deny him prime time at the convention, we don’t need a redux of Pat Buchannan at this year’s convention.

Oh, and Rick’s support is so solid in the caucus states that Ron Freaking Paul is rolling up the delegates in those states. Rick’s “big wins” in Iowa and Minnesota are going to yield him single digits in actual delegate votes.

mbecker908 on May 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM

This is what pisses off conservatives and wonder why the likes of Romney can’t even muster majority support. Can’t even be a good sport maybe some of us should stay home on election day if your going to be that way…immature yes…but conservatives don’t owe you or Mitt anything.

If Mitt was so wonderful and the candidate to beat Obama then how come he could only squeak by wins from his home state of Michigan by 3%, Wisconsin 4% and lose eleven other states to a guy who ran his Presidential campaign from the back seat of his car?

Romney had tens of millions of dollars, the full backing of the establishment and barely wins in most states. Sounds like he’s pretty weak…especially for the fact he’s been campaigning for 5 years and can’t relate to anyone.

Mitt didn’t run on his record in the primary yet out spent his opponents 5 to 1 running attacks ads on them while they did not have the bank to respond. Now Mitt gets to face Obama and his money machine so he’s about to get eat crow.

I’m not donating to Mitt’s campaign. So far…I will vote for him. I’m going to see what kind of a show Mitt puts on to convince conservatives why he is the person. After all he and the establishment has fractured the Republican party with all the back stabbing negative ads without demonstrating his qualifications as a candidate. What’s he going to do to put it back together?

If Romney wins, I wonder what his successor will be? We all know Bush’s.

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Eisenhower-rino-win
Eisenhower-rino-win
goldwater-conservative-lost
nixon-rino-won
nixon-rino-won
ford-rino-lost
reagan-rino-won
reagan-rino-won
Bush 1-rino-won
bush 1-rino-lost
Bush 2-semi conservative-won
Bush 2-semi conservative-won

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Reagan a RINO? That’s a laugh.

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Reagan a RINO? That’s a laugh.

reagan today would be considered a rino. live with it

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 5:38 PM

This is what pisses off conservatives and wonder why the likes of Romney can’t even muster majority support.

What an immature comment.

FYI Romney beat all comers.

Can’t even be a good sport maybe some of us should stay home on election day if your going to be that way…immature yes…but conservatives don’t owe you or Mitt anything.

Only the immature will stay home. What a bunch of cry babies.

If Mitt was so wonderful and the candidate to beat Obama then how come he could only squeak by wins from his home state of Michigan by 3%, Wisconsin 4% and lose eleven other states to a guy who ran his Presidential campaign from the back seat of his car?

At least he won his home state. Unlike his competitors.

Romney had tens of millions of dollars, the full backing of the establishment and barely wins in most states. Sounds like he’s pretty weak…especially for the fact he’s been campaigning for 5 years and can’t relate to anyone.

So, he had more support than his competitors. Is that why he won?

Mitt didn’t run on his record in the primary yet out spent his opponents 5 to 1 running attacks ads on them while they did not have the bank to respond.

Neither did he run away from his record.

Now Mitt gets to face Obama and his money machine so he’s about to get eat crow.

Yeah, that is why Obama is in a panic and making stupid mistakes. DUH!

I’m not donating to Mitt’s campaign. So far…I will vote for him. I’m going to see what kind of a show Mitt puts on to convince conservatives why he is the person. After all he and the establishment has fractured the Republican party with all the back stabbing negative ads without demonstrating his qualifications as a candidate. What’s he going to do to put it back together?

Keep on whining, it is so mature.

If Romney wins, I wonder what his successor will be? We all know Bush’s.

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM

?????

Gunlock Bill on May 1, 2012 at 5:45 PM

reagan today would be considered a rino. live with it

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 5:38 PM

“tru-cons” have tried to rewrite history, excising all of the non-conservative actions of Reagan.

You are raining on their parade and making them cry. You are so MEAN!

Gunlock Bill on May 1, 2012 at 5:48 PM

reagan today would be considered a rino. live with it

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Care to elaborate?

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Care to elaborate?

whats a conseravative. Is it someone who’s pro-life. all since roe/wade pro life.

How about taxes. Reagan raised taxes.thats a good one.

How about making many deals with tip oneal.

How about increasing deficit.

Now reagan did many good things-i voted twice for him- but if you look objectivly at his record he’s a rino right/center Not a deep conservative.

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Looks to me like you need to learn how to follow a conversation on a thread. It was Mittwit gerry who started talking about social conservatives.

proud to be a mittwit

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 5:59 PM

What an immature comment.

FYI Romney beat all comers.

Immature to point out the establishment picks our candidate and were suppose to be SUCKERS and support him?

Only the immature will stay home. What a bunch of cry babies.

Kind of like those cry babies who theorized a president Santorum was going to spy on people in their bedrooms? Santorum was some BIG government Republican(never mind Romneycare)?

At least he won his home state. Unlike his competitors.

WEll Duh…He out spent Santorum 6 to 1 telling everyone how bad he is. Never mentioning Mitt’s own record. Not hard to fathom so Mitt walked away with a 3% win in his home state…not exactly a slam dunk.

So, he had more support than his competitors. Is that why he won?

Sounds like you answered your own question. Could hardly beat out a guy pulling a U-haul behind his car running for president.

Neither did he run away from his record.

Yes…so defend Romneycare.

Keep on whining, it is so mature.

Gunlock Bill on May 1, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Your man won you should be very euphoric AND should helping to facilitate the rebuilding of the Republican party. Your at a good start buddy keep it up. What away to attract conservatives.

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 6:01 PM

whats a conseravative. Is it someone who’s pro-life. all since roe/wade pro life.

Reagan was pro life from beginning to the end.

How about taxes. Reagan raised taxes.thats a good one.

When? He cut taxes in 1981, simplifying the tax code down to three brackets. His tax cuts brought support from 20 deomocrats in congress.

In his second term taxes went up a little because he made a deal to cut spending that taxes would go up. He went along with it and congress reneged on their part and kept the out of control spending. Not RINO material just a bad political move on his part at the time.

How about making many deals with tip oneal.

Tip O’neal was not like the Democrats of today…he had his issues but Reagan got what he wonted for the most part and steam rolled over Tip O’neal.

How about increasing deficit.

How? He rebuilt the Military. He was facing the Soviets…remember? He defeated the Soviets without firing a shot…sounds like money well spent. BTW, congress controls the money, Reagan tried to cut deficits and shut government down three times but couldn’t prevail.

AND all of Reagan’s budgets were DEAD on Arrival. So how was Reagan to cut spending?

Now reagan did many good things-i voted twice for him- but if you look objectivly at his record he’s a rino right/center Not a deep conservative.

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I’m glad you did but he was no RINO and the establishment despised him(Bush SR.) You need to know Reagan because I’m afraid you don’t know him that well.

Get “Reagan in his own hand” book. It’s just his writings…no authors just Reagan. A very good read.

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Keep on whining, it is so mature.

Gunlock Bill on May 1, 2012 at 5:45 PM

How about giving us a reason to support Romney and why he deserves my vote rather then take the easy road and “throw” the “whine” accusation?

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 6:11 PM

we will have to disagree.

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 6:16 PM

tru-cons” have tried to rewrite history, excising all of the non-conservative actions of Reagan.

You are raining on their parade and making them cry. You are so MEAN!

Gunlock Bill on May 1, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Bill, your assertions are getting ridiculous here…need to tone it down.

First and foremost, who is re-writing history to cover up Reagan’s mistakes? Name names.

I just pointed out a couple of his mistakes to my response to gerrym so I wasn’t running interference for Reagan. Reagan said his going along with democrats with tax raises to cut spending, amnesty for illegals were mistakes and fooled by congress in going along with them.

So am I covering up for Reagan like your asserting or you just don’t like conservatives…is that your problem?

But what ever you do Bill…don’t rain on my parade…that would break my heart Bill!

BTW, can you defend Romenycare?

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 6:20 PM

we will have to disagree.

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Then do so.

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 6:21 PM

I’m glad to see you’ll be contributing Elizabeth! Ignore the flak you’ll catch from your father’s detractors, and don’t let ‘em give you any crap.

I’d pass the same advice on to your father when dealing with Romney about a potential endorsement. Your father’s a good man, and I was proud to have supported him for POTUS. I hope to do so again in 2016.

Stoic Patriot on May 1, 2012 at 6:21 PM

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You mean Reagan did not sign abortion legislation in CA BEFORE Roe v. Wade?

Kermit on May 1, 2012 at 6:31 PM

I will be voting for Rick Santorum in the NC primary.
ITguy on May 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Me, too!

Why on earth? Just flipping the bird at the winner?
Longing4Lincoln on May 1, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I’ll let ITguy speak for himself, but for me it is because my vote goes to the person who best represents my views. That person is Rick Santorum. Romney is not. And Romney is only the “presumptive” nominee right now. He doesn’t need my vote right now. But the Republican nominee will get my vote over Obama in November.

BPinNC on May 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Almost makes me forget about Meghan McCain… almost. :) Great job, Elizabeth! ~ RD

RumblinDurango on May 1, 2012 at 8:27 PM

2008: McCain/Pro-life: Won
His loss had nothing to do with this issue.

INC on May 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Nice list. But I seriously doubt McCains Pro Life credentials but that matters little he was Social Liberal overall (pro amnesty, gay rights etc.). He was also Fiscal Liberal. These two assured his lost.

No reason to list only one issue you are right about Social Conservative Goldwater was liberal here and lost.

I so wish Santorum had won.

Steveangell on May 1, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Eisenhower-rinomoderate-win
Eisenhower-rinomoderate-win
goldwater-social libertarian moderate-lost
nixon-rinomoderate-won
nixon-rinomoderate-won
ford-rinomoderate-lost
reagan-rinoConservative-won
reagan-rinoConservative-won
Bush 1-rinoConservative-won
bush 1-rinomoderate-lost
Bush 2-conservative-won
Bush 2-conservative-won

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Reagan a RINO? That’s a laugh.

b1jetmech on May 1, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Obviously his definition of Conservative is spelled Libertarian.

I fixed his list. Nixon really poisoned the well for Moderates. Since him every Moderate has lost. You are either Social Conservative or you lose. But then to the winners were also fiscal and military conservatives.

Huge hill for Romney to win. I do not expect him to.

Steveangell on May 1, 2012 at 10:06 PM

But(there’s always a but) he would have gotten pasted in a general
election.

His extreme social views( at least to the middle we need to win the general election would have killed him) with all Ricks Bits being run constantly over and over.

Mitt may have many of the same views-but the middle(and the far right) don’t believe him. Santorum they do believe.

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Supposition. There’s still no reason to believe that Romney will be a stronger candidate in the general election than Santorum.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 2, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Name one social conservative who’s lost a presidential general election, please.

Eisenhower-rino-win
Eisenhower-rino-win
goldwater-conservative-lost
nixon-rino-won
nixon-rino-won
ford-rino-lost
reagan-rino-won
reagan-rino-won
Bush 1-rino-won
bush 1-rino-lost
Bush 2-semi conservative-won
Bush 2-semi conservative-won

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I guess you can ‘prove’ anything if you’re willing to be ridiculous enough in your definitions.

So Reagan was a RINO, and Bush 43 was a semi-conservative?

Let’s just correct your list a little bit.

Nixon was a moderate, but ran a campaign aimed at, as he called it, the “Silent Majority.” And won. Moral: conservatism wins.

Ford ran as a RINO against a conservative (Reagan) in the primary, and lost in the general election. He did NOT target the “Silent Majority.” Moral: conservatism beats RINO.

Reagan ran as a conservative and won twice. Moral: conservativism wins.

Bush 41 ran as the heir to Reagan on a Reagan platform and won. Moral: conservatism wins.

Bush 41 then folded to the Democrats like the classic RINO — as Mitt would probably do — and raised taxes after pledging not to, and lost. Moral: betraying conservatism loses.

Dole: RINO. Lost. Moral: Do I even need to say it?

Bush: Not truly a conservative, but certainly more conservative than Gore. Won, but just barely. Ran against Kerry in time of war, and won more decisively. Moral: conservatism wins

McCain: Granted, more conservative than Romney, but also sabotaged the Bush administration. Even Sarah Palin couldn’t coax enough people to vote for him. RINO loses again.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 2, 2012 at 12:23 AM

McCain: Granted, more conservative than Romney, but also sabotaged the Bush administration. Even Sarah Palin couldn’t coax enough people to vote for him. RINO loses again.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 2, 2012 at 12:23 AM

True.

RINO’s must be certifiably nuts.

They think Mitt can win.

Really?

Steveangell on May 2, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Reagan a RINO? That’s a laugh.

reagan today would be considered a rino. live with it

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 5:38 PM

That’s a load of crap, no matter how many Romney supporters try to spin it that way. Reagan would be painted as a nutty extreme right hate-monger, exactly as he was painted from at least 1976 through 2000. Including by Romney, who ran as far from Reagan as he could.

What’s really going on here is that you know people don’t buy the ridiculous claim that Romney is conservative, so you have to paint real conservatives as extremists to make Romney look moderate. And since Reagan’s name is too good to dismiss him as an extremist, you have to try to make him a RINO.

Honestly, you people rewrite the truth about as much as Pravda. Guess progressive Republicans aren’t all that different from other progressives.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 2, 2012 at 12:36 AM

My Dad’s message excited the base of the party and spoke to a middle America that was hungry for, well,

…anyone not named mitt. alas, it soon dawned on them that daddy was a religious fanatic with zero chance of winning.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I have to agree. Does it make me a liberal troll, too?

Archivarix on May 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Agreeing with sesquipedalian always brings your credibility into question. Does that surprise you?

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 2, 2012 at 12:40 AM

One thing i’ve learned from this thread.

The people who hate Mitt still hate Mitt.

Oh well.

gerry-mittbot-learning his lesson

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I nearly passed this by, because I see it so often.

But if you’re dismissing all people who see no reason to vote for a progressive Republican instead of a conservative as “haters,” then you haven’t learned anything at all.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 2, 2012 at 12:45 AM

BTW, props to Karen Santorum. This is a far better column than anything we ever say from Meghan McCain. Granted, a low bar.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 2, 2012 at 12:53 AM