Too good to check: Gingrich and Santorum considered teaming up to defeat Romney

posted at 12:41 pm on March 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

Sounds like a dream ticket: Gingrich, with his famously poor favorable ratings, and Santorum, a punching bag for Team O’s Akin-fueled “war on women” attacks on social conservatism. Joshua Green, who broke this news for Business Week, previews the media take on the ticket from an alternate dimension in which they beat Romney:

And so, once again, we’re forced to revisit one of the most dispiriting realities of Campaign 2012. Namely, Romney probably was the best we could have done.

Why didn’t Gingrich/Santorum fusion happen? Egos, of course.

The discussions between the two camps commenced in early February, just after Gingrich got trounced in Florida. Brabender called members of the Gingrich brain trust, hoping they could persuade Gingrich to drop out and endorse Santorum, who was rising in the polls. “I’ll tell you this,” says Brabender, “If Gingrich had dropped out at the right time, Santorum would have been the nominee.” Brabender wasn’t short on moxie: He wanted Gingrich to declare in the middle of a nationally televised debate that he was dropping out and endorsing Santorum. “I couldn’t write an ad to match the political theater that would have created,” he says.

Gingrich had other ideas. He proposed that both men join forces but remain in the race, each concentrating on the states where he matched up best against Romney. Gingrich thought he could carry Georgia, Delaware, Washington, and Wisconsin (from which his wife, Callista, hails). Santorum would focus on other states in the South and the upper Midwest. But there was a catch. “The appeal of a Unity Ticket was strength in numbers,” says Kellyanne Conway, Gingrich’s pollster. “The big question was, who was going to unify with whom? Who was going to be the sheriff and who was going to be the deputy?”

Gingrich thought that he belonged on top of the ticket. “Our reasoning,” says Walker, “is that we had won a major primary at that point [South Carolina] and people like Rick Perry were coming on board. Perry had just endorsed Newt.”

To Santorum’s team, however, the Gingrich campaign was a sinking ship, and their own man was the obvious choice to lead the ticket. “At the end of the day,” says Brabender, “we won 11 states and tied two others. He won two states, which makes it only logical that Rick was the one who had earned the right to go one-on-one with Romney.”

Read it all for tales of Newt, in vintage form, making “an elaborate historical argument” to Santorum that the senior figure should lead the ticket when the party is split. It sounds goofy in hindsight to think of him demanding the top spot when he faded so quickly and sharply after getting crushed in Florida, but Dave Weigel’s right that you need to pay attention to the timeline. Newt pulled off his big victory in South Carolina on January 21; he was routed in Florida on January 31, and then discussions with Santorum started happening a few days later. It wasn’t crazy at that point to think that Gingrich, who’d recently won a major state primary, should lead the ticket with Santorum in support. But then, the fact that Newt was eager to make a deal with a guy who had yet to see any clear-cut victories (Iowa was still in dispute) was surely proof enough to Santorum’s camp that Gingrich knew he couldn’t win. He was, in fact, a “sinking ship” after Florida and he knew it, and so did Santorum’s team. And don’t forget that the story of the primary campaign to that point had been that every challenger, including Herman Cain, spent a little time leading the polls. The powerful “Anybody but Romney” current among conservatives had led them to give everyone else a look; Santorum’s camp likely figured that their turn was coming now that Gingrich had gone bust, which ended up being true, so why should Santorum settle for number two? He was the last man standing.

At least there’s now a precedent for when Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal pull this on Rubio in 2016. Exit question: Reread the excerpt above and tell me, how exactly was Newt’s strategy of both of them staying in the race supposed to work? In theory, I guess, Santorum would tell his voters to support Newt in “Newt’s states” and Newt would tell his voters to support Santorum in “Santorum’s states.” But why would a voter do that if he didn’t know who was at the top of the ticket yet? And if Newt and Santorum had settled on a ticket with one of them at the top, what would be the point of both of them staying in the race? Just have the would-be VP nominee drop out and endorse the other guy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Right, and that combination would have worked out just fabulously.

hawkeye54 on March 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM

The loss would have been much worse with a Santorum ticket.

Santorum couldn’t even deliver his owns state. (Much like Romney & Ryan couldn’t deliver theirs)

portlandon on March 22, 2013 at 12:46 PM


Right, and that combination would have worked out just fabulously.

Couldn’t possibly have performed worse than Romney. Hey, maybe a few base voters would have turned out.

casuist on March 22, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Wow, what a great idea, two big government conservatives.

Tater Salad on March 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

It’s all so stupid.

Romney fought the R rivals much better than he fought Obama.

A chair could/should have beaten empty and destructive Obama.

I blame Romney and I look forward to the Mitt-kids’ reactions.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Romney wasn’t that great, obviously. But, boy, did they make him look GOOD by comparison.

thebrokenrattle on March 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Mitt should have never run. The land will suffer enormously because he did.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:49 PM

OT – check the names, as soon as they are released.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

It’s all so stupid.

Romney fought the R rivals much better than he fought Obama.

A chair could/should have beaten empty and destructive Obama.

I blame Romney and I look forward to the Mitt-kids’ reactions.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

couldn’t agree with you more…

RedInMD on March 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Santorum should also never have run. Loser in his state…go do something else which c/b very worthwhile. Same for Romney. Good men, rotten politicians.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM

But they didn’t. And the election is over. But here is HA again promoting every negative and irrelevant story about the GOP and conservatism. Of course, that’s what RINOs do…

Blake on March 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Sorry…I am laughing too hard!

CoffeeLover on March 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Blake on March 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Don’t blame HA. Blame the azzes who had egos bigger than the land necessitated in leadership. Blame the establishment, Fox, Rove, the media and assorted idiots.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Sorry…I am laughing too hard!

CoffeeLover on March 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Indeed – if it weren’t so tragic it w/b down right risible.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:56 PM

too many words…I’d just as soon stick my head up my a$$ as look back on 2012. I’ve got an idea. Let’s quit eating our own and nominate a conservative again.

DanMan on March 22, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Posted from the earlier thread on this topic

Here is a summary/recap of the 2006 Santorum-Casey Senate race.
I followed it closer than any other contest that year.

The Dems picked Casey, who was a perfect choice, in part
because he was considered a Conservative Democrat.
My family roots are in Western PA, they are all Dems.
AND, the are all very conservative on SOCIAL issues.

Casey was up on Santorum by 6-8 points all the way thru,
until Santorum ran an ad that depicted Casey being involved
with “shady” dealings with Philly underworld figures.
This ad began appearing about 3 weeks prior to the election.
(TV only) As soon as I saw it, I knew Santorum would face a huge
backlash on this…Casey may be a dimwit, but there has never
been any allegations of this type of behavior from him.
The reaction was swift, and he plummeted to 15-18 points down.
At that point the race was over.

To those (you know who you are) who think this race had
something to do with Terry Sciavo, you are truly uninformed.
The Iraq war did not help either, BTW.

ToddPA on March 22, 2013 at 12:52 PM

ToddPA on March 22, 2013 at 12:57 PM

It’s all so stupid.

Romney fought the R rivals much better than he fought Obama.

A chair could/should have beaten empty and destructive Obama.

I blame Romney and I look forward to the Mitt-kids’ reactions.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

a goddamn ham sandwich sitting on a chair across from obama in all three debates should have cleaned his clock and beaten him in Nov. but that’s what you get when you run republican after republican that doesn’t have a simple set of testicles and is too afraid to take it to scum who have had it coming for years. the GOP will put up another spineless beta male in 2016 and the mindless republican voters will eat it up and say how awesome and winning the spineless ticket is.

GhoulAid on March 22, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Actually, looking at how things played out, A Santorum-Newt ticket probably wins.

Obama was able to use Akin against Romney because the latter run and hid instead of defending whatever his actual abortion policy was, and really, what else could he have done considering his record?

More to the point, Romney’s weakness as “a rich guy”, which cost him the election, would not have played out against Santorum.

And Newt would have been a far better attack dog then Ryan was. Romney didn’t need a wonk.

18-1 on March 22, 2013 at 12:57 PM

I also blame Brit Hume. Never underestimate how much editorial and news influence Brit Hume has at Fox, even though he’s semi-retired, officially.

He, Krauthammer and many others were influential at moving Romney into the spot. Later Hume saw the demise and began harping on Mitt…it was too late, alas.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM

The loss would have been much worse with a Santorum ticket.

Santorum couldn’t even deliver his owns state. (Much like Romney & Ryan couldn’t deliver theirs)

portlandon on March 22, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Indeed. And anybody crying that Santorum was “more conservative” than Romney is mistaken. He’s a big government entitlement-expanding Bush-era Republican who was kicked out because his only conservative credentials were on abortion and gay marriage.

I’ll bet Perry could have won if he hadn’t been dealing with experimental back surgery. But Santorum/Newt? Not a chance.

Caiwyn on March 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Obama did not win.

Romney lost.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Couldn’t possibly have performed worse than Romney. Hey, maybe a few base voters would have turned out.

What color is the sky in your bizarro world? It would have been FAR, FAR WORSE than Romney. Romney lost, yes, but it’s telling that he way outperformed every single losing GOP Senate candidate (with the exception of Scott Brown, natch). Santorum? Santorum would’ve cost us the EVs of MO and AZ and NC and IN, as well as probably pushing the AZ Sen seat over into the Dem column and seriously jeopardizing GOP control over the House of Representatives.

Oh, and as the capper we would have the shame and stigma of “Rick Santorum, the Face of the GOP” to drag around for the next several years. Mitt Romney isn’t really a ball and chain, “47%” and all…but do you seriously believe we wouldn’t have been tarred with the “GOP Officially Proves It Is The Party Of War On Women” brush for years and years and years given that we ‘chose’ a nutjob like Rick “Contraception Is A Moral Evil And We Need A National Conversation About Stopping It” Santorum?

Seriously, only a damn fool would even idly propose that “oh well he couldn’t have done much than Romney.” You have no idea how much worse he could have done.

Esoteric on March 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM

The 2008 and 2012 field……..LOSERS ALL AROUND.

Don’t worry though not one of them will be the 2016 nominee.

PappyD61 on March 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

GhoulAid on March 22, 2013 at 12:57 PM

On your very last point – I don’t think so. The Rs will lose until they realize that their base can not be treated with disregard/disrespect. One can get burned only so many times. If they don’t learn they can go to Hades, into oblivion, or both.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Don’t worry though not one of them will be the 2016 nominee.

PappyD61 on March 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Good thing!

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

This non-dynamic duo would have lost by an even larger margin and the GOP probably would have lost the House as well. Good decision not running.

NoDonkey on March 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Everyone,

There is a reason so many of our best candidates passed on this election. It didn’t matter that the economy stinks or any of the other stuff. Obama is not a great candidate but he has an awesome machine. Plus so many people just love that he is the rock star they want him to be and all he has to do is subtly claim racism every time and its going to work.

We are just going to have to wait until he is out and the next brother (Democrat or Conservative) in office will not get the hands off treatment that Obama gets.

I heard a local talk guy today claim that had this ticket of Gringrich/Santorum run it would have changed the election outcome.

I completely agree. I think Obama would have won 60% of the vote.

smorrow66 on March 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Gosh, what a Legion of Fail we had for 2012.

Archivarix on March 22, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Santorum = the only candidate in the race who is probably dumber than Joe Biden.

DRayRaven on March 22, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Mitt should have never run. The land will suffer enormously because he did.

The Republicans picked the one guy that couldn’t run against Obamacare, which won them the day in 2010.

Romney was the worst candidate of the lot, well, besides perhaps Ron Paul, and the Republicans let the State Media pick him for them. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

18-1 on March 22, 2013 at 1:06 PM

NEWT!

Romney didn’t have the fire in the belly. We knew he wouldn’t be able to defend himself, capitalism, his business, wouldn’t connect with people, and wouldn’t bring the fight to Obama and Obamacare.

El_Terrible on March 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Biden’s One-Night Paris Hotel Tab: $585,000.50…
$459,388.65 Hotel Bill in London…

–Drudge

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Fiddlesticks that they didn’t. They would have kicked his little progressive fanny.

MelonCollie on March 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Romney was the worst candidate we could have picked to fight Obama.

El_Terrible on March 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Santorum = the only candidate in the race who is probably dumber than Joe Biden.

DRayRaven on March 22, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Yep! And that would have made it all the more embarrassing for the GOP’s newest poster boy!

MelonCollie on March 22, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Namely, Romney probably was the best we could have done.

Have to disagree, Allah. Palin was the best we could have done — had the establishment RINOs supported (right!) her instead of (correctly) viewed and thus attacked her as the threat to their power that she is …

ShainS on March 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Romney was the worst candidate we the GOPe could have picked to fight Obama.

El_Terrible on March 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM

GhoulAid on March 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Too good to check: Gingrich and Santorum considered teaming up to defeat Romney

And here I thought that the person to defeat was Barack Obama.
$3.00 gasoline, 8% unemployment (more like 15%), 4 years of economic misery, a second term of Jimmy Carter, and the GOP was busy manning the circular firing squad. There’s a reason it’s called the Stupid Party.

rbj on March 22, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Don’t blame HA. Blame the azzes who had egos bigger than the land necessitated in leadership. Blame the establishment, Fox, Rove, the media and assorted idiots.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM

I’ll blame who I want to blame. No good comes from constantly and repeatedly linking every negative article HA can find. It’s a different day, SOS at HA. And always a hat tip to their journolista friends.

Blake on March 22, 2013 at 1:15 PM

What states did Romney win that Gingrich or Santorum would have lost?

None.

Which Senate seats did the GOP win that they would have lost with Gingrich or Santorum on the top of the ballot?

None.

Would the GOP still have held the House?

Yes.

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 1:15 PM

And so, once again, we’re forced to revisit one of the most dispiriting realities of Campaign 2012. Namely, Romney probably was the best we could have done.

Well, no, it wasn’t the best we could have done, but the establishment beltway Republicans certainly left “us” with little alternatives. That Romney allowed the media and Obama to control an entire summer of lambasting the rich white guy—WITH NO RESPONSE—proved he wasn’t “the best”. But thanks for the “forced” regurgitation—simply delightful.

Rovin on March 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM

And here I thought that the person to defeat was Barack Obama.

rbj on March 22, 2013 at 1:15 PM

You really don’t understand how primaries work, do you?

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Gosh, what a Legion of Fail we had for 2012.

Archivarix on March 22, 2013 at 1:05 PM

.
For sure,
Romney wasn’t Conservative enough for America. Plus, his resume was paper thin and lacking experience compared to the great accomplishments of the Magnificent Obama. Plus Romney was busted for hating minorities, poor people, gay people and women. Hell- he even killed a woman- And he wanted take away the poor peoples money and not raise taxes -while he didn’t pay taxes himself ! And he was too rich, so he couldn’t connect to us little people like the rich career politicians we know and love. And that large, happy stable family life was way too white and way too phony. He didn’t even have one rap star to pal around with. Yes, a train wreck.

Why would a guy like that think he could be President.

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/22/you-were-born-stupid-trump-goes-after-michelle-malkin-gets-throttled/

if you care.

Donald Trump ,you know the gop primary candidate in 2012………oh wait.

PappyD61 on March 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

A Gingrich-Santorum Ticket MIGHT have toppled Romney. But a Gingrich-Romney Ticket WOULD have toppled Obama. Which would you have rather had?

potkas7 on March 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM

What states did Romney win that Gingrich or Santorum would have lost?

None.

Which Senate seats did the GOP win that they would have lost with Gingrich or Santorum on the top of the ballot?

None.

Would the GOP still have held the House?

Yes.

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 1:15 PM

$1 billion and the only additional states that Romney won were Indiana and North Carolina.

Romney was a pathetic candidate. No fight, and all that money and organization flamed out in incompetence on election day. At least someone else would have turned out the base.

El_Terrible on March 22, 2013 at 1:19 PM

A turd and a twerp.

jake-the-goose on March 22, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Well, no, it wasn’t the best we could have done, but the establishment beltway Republicans certainly left “us” with little alternatives. That Romney allowed the media and Obama to control an entire summer of lambasting the rich white guy—WITH NO RESPONSE—proved he wasn’t “the best”. But thanks for the “forced” regurgitation—simply delightful.

Rovin on March 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM

EXACTLY! and while he sat on his dudley do-right ass all summer, people here and there said, “oh, he’s really gonna drop a bomb on obmama the last weeks of the campaign!” all romney did was let out a wet fart.

GhoulAid on March 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Why would a guy like that think he could be President.

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Romney didn’t run on his record, he didn’t defend his record, he didn’t explain why his experience was important. He dodged and let Obama show him as cold and heartless.

El_Terrible on March 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Why would a guy like that think he could be President. Why would a guy like that allow those charges to stand, while letting his wife drive the jet ski, to produce the best John-Kerry-like photo of the ages?

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Fixed, for accuracy.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Biden’s One-Night Paris Hotel Tab: $585,000.50…
$459,388.65 Hotel Bill in London.
.

-Drudge. .Only –Drudge

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

crickets fify

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Romney didn’t run on his record, he didn’t defend his record, he didn’t explain why his experience was important. He dodged and let Obama show him as cold and heartless.

El_Terrible on March 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

This, and, most importantly, 3 more items:

1. He didn’t tell America why he should be president, why they should follow him, the leader, fixer, inspirere, not just the “I’m not Obama”.

2. He didn’t fight the charlatanic thug and the media. Such impertinent propagandist charlatanry can Never be beaten with silky gloves, or by ignoring them.

3. His team just sucked.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:24 PM

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Thanks

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

What states did Romney win that Gingrich or Santorum would have lost?

Really now? NC, IN, MT, AZ, possibly MO. And now I would like you explain how a Santorum/Gingrich ticket would have brought us VA, PA, CO, IA, OH, WI, etc.

One of the most annoying tics of some of the True Cons around here is that they ask provably stupid rhetorical questions that demonstrate how divorced from political reality they are (I mean, did you even think about those states before asking?) and then fail to even acknowledge that they were acting foolish.

Esoteric on March 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

This is all an exercise in futility. It also serves to mention two losers, who’re just trying to be relevant, sell books, or whatever programs they have going.

The fact is that America has Obama. All who brung/kept him, from all sides, may he scrooom you and yours, royally. Relatively free people deserve their ‘leaders’ every time.

The frogs in the pan are dead. They just don’t know it, yet.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:27 PM

This, and, most importantly, 3 more items:

1. He didn’t tell America why he should be president, why they should follow him, the leader, fixer, inspirere, not just the “I’m not Obama”.

2. He didn’t fight the charlatanic thug and the media. Such impertinent propagandist charlatanry can Never be beaten with silky gloves, or by ignoring them.

3. His team just sucked.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:24 PM

4. when they attacked his wife for dressing horses or whatever when it was therapy for her he really didn’t say much to defend his wife. what a friggin’ wimp.

GhoulAid on March 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Obama did not win.

Romney lost.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM

The fact that Hillary Clinton’s popularity is in the 60′s , even after her pathetic testimony on Benghazi, proves just how out of touch you are from reality.

Romney ran ahead of the GOP and maximized the vote any Republican could have obtained.

Basilsbest on March 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Esoteric on March 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

I think it’s more a case of them believing there has been no change in the electorate in the last 30 years so a playbook from that long ago works the same as it always did.

alchemist19 on March 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Esoteric = abstruse, arcane, cryptic, enigmatic.

Good luck winning with your coalitions. The base will hardly ever again pull a Romney-trigger. It was tough the last time. It was nearly hurl-inducing, were the other not Obama. Alas, there is only one despicable charlatanic thug-Obama in the world.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM

VA, PA, CO, IA, OH, WI, etc.
(I mean, did you even think about those states before asking?)
Esoteric on March 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Romney didn’t.

El_Terrible on March 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Fixed, for accuracy.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:22 PM

.
You’re right, I forgot that- at 6’2″ 200lbs Romney was a 64 yr homely, pencil necked – old wimp who probably couldn’t control his wife or the Oval Office. And He throws like a girl, and wears effeminate blue jeans. This guy was everything you could hate in a President.

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I also blame Brit Hume. Never underestimate how much editorial and news influence Brit Hume has at Fox, even though he’s semi-retired, officially.

He, Krauthammer and many others were influential at moving Romney into the spot. Later Hume saw the demise and began harping on Mitt…it was too late, alas.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Don’t forget Ann Coulter was tooting his horn all along

KBird on March 22, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Just because the Pats lost the Super Bowl with Tom Brady as starting Quarterback doesn’t mean Justin Bieber should have been in his place.

What was a winnable race would have been relegated to a joke ticket that would have destroyed downticket races for the GOP with those clowns.

Romney and Pawlenty were really the only viable candidates that were willing to run. But our Party went full retard and considered all sorts of ridiculous candidates.

Had 1.5 points shifted in the general election, Romney would have been President. That’s one of the smallest margins for reelection in about 100 years.

BradTank on March 22, 2013 at 1:34 PM

GhoulAid on March 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM

All that water went under the bridges…it’s futile to even rehash, except that the culprits learned nothing, nada. Let them be and let it burn. No, the grandkids don’t deserve it but the fools do. Free people get what they elect. Let them be scroomed royally. One can only starve the Looters/moochers and watch the insanity, with lots of schadenfreude. It’s self-inflicted and thus not to be blamed on Russia.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:34 PM

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 1:31 PM

You’re not reading. You need to be more observant, as we all know that you can. Romney was horrific, were it not for the scum of the Earth that you described. We all know that.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Why would a guy like that think he could be President.

FlaMurph on March 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Romney didn’t run on his record, he didn’t defend his record, he didn’t explain why his experience was important. He dodged and let Obama show him as cold and heartless.

El_Terrible on March 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

His camp also spent alot of time early on trashing Palin.

KBird on March 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Basilsbest on March 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Touch is indignant and says that you should call.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Really now? NC, IN, MT, AZ, possibly MO.

No GOP candidate would have lost IN, MT, AZ, or MO. NC is debatable (although I’m pretty sure Gingrich would have pulled it off). What difference does it really make anyway? Romney still got us Obama in the White House.

And now I would like you explain how a Santorum/Gingrich ticket would have brought us VA, PA, CO, IA, OH, WI, etc.

I never said it would have.

One of the most annoying tics of some of the True Cons around here is that they ask provably stupid rhetorical questions that demonstrate how divorced from political reality they are (I mean, did you even think about those states before asking?) and then fail to even acknowledge that they were acting foolish.

Esoteric on March 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

If you think AZ, IN, or MT were even remotely in play in the past cycle, you’re the one who’s divorced from political reality.

And acknowledging that Romney wasn’t a great candidate and that others would most likely have done just as well doesn’t make me an icky “True Con” (which is a stupid term itself, mostly used by many of the eternally outraged squishes around here who would rather attack principled conservatives than Democrats).

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 1:38 PM

The Mittens learned nothing, nada. Good luck the next time.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 1:38 PM


Romney is the best guy to run against Obamacare!

We gotta pass amnesty to win Latinos!

El_Terrible on March 22, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Romney ran ahead of the GOP and maximized the vote any Republican could have obtained.

Basilsbest on March 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Small dose of reality:

Romney actually only ran ahead of GOP Senate candidates.

He ran about even with gubernatorial candidates and behind House candidates.

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I think it’s more a case of them believing there has been no change in the electorate in the last 30 years so a playbook from that long ago works the same as it always did.

alchemist19 on March 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM

What, if anything, did Romney do to address changes in the electorate? What playbook was he using?

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 1:43 PM

I understand a couple of Oz’s Munchkins considered teaming up to take down the Wicked Witch of the West.

krome on March 22, 2013 at 1:44 PM

It’s sad that just about the only introspection Romneyites are capable of engaging in usually results in the following conclusions:

1) It was the electorate’s, not the candidate’s, fault.
2) We must change anything and everything we can about the party to accommodate an electorate which is supposedly hostile to conservatism. The voters want what they want, so we must give it to them.
3) The party must be purged of unabashed conservatives and/or religious voters.

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM

The secret Gingrich/Santorum ticket that nearly toppled Romney

It was a secret?

But the negotiations collapsed in acrimony because Gingrich and Santorum could not agree on who would get to be president. “In the end,” Gingrich says, “it was just too hard to negotiate.”

Ha ha, why am I surprised by this?

While this type of elaborate scheming is more typical of political thrillers, it was real this time.

This sort of tedious scheming is poltics 101. Only a simpleton would believe otherwise. Ask Henry Wallace, or Robert Taft.

“I was disappointed when Speaker Gingrich ultimately decided against this idea, because it could have changed the outcome of the primary,” Santorum says. “And more importantly, it could have changed the outcome of the general election.”

Yeah, Obama would have won by a landslide, rather than by a squeaker.

Talk about delusional…

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM

He ran about even with gubernatorial candidates and behind House candidates.

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 1:41 PM

House elections tend to be more localized, involve a lower quality of opponents and incumbents tend to have a huge advantage. As the party with more incumbents, it makes total sense that the GOP House candidates would run ahead of Romney.

LukeinNE on March 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Mitt was head and shoulders above that field of has beens. That isn’t saying much though. Possibly the worst primary field ever.

2012 shouldn’t be blamed on Romney, or the other idiots in the primary. It should be blamed on the people who were too afraid to run: Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan – heck, even Rubio could have blown that field away.

Christie though, I blame him. Not because of the hurricane – but for not running. Remember when everyone was in love with him on the right and he almost jumped in? He would have swept the primaries and crushed Obama with someone like Rubio as his running mate. Conservatives would have never been exposed to the reasons they hate him now. Actually, he would have even had the hurricane in his favor.

If anyone in this country goes to bed at night knowing how bad they blew it Christie has to be that guy. He could have been the GOP darling, and looking back at the election he must know he would have trounced Obama. Now, instead, he’s worn out his welcome on the national stage and probably has little future beyond Governor, or maybe a NJ Senate seat someday. He blew it big time.

Some of the nuts on here will say “hell no he was always to left..” But think about it. There was once a time when everyone loved Chris Christie. I can’t stand him now as we all can’t. But back then, I’d have voted for him in a heart beat.

eski502 on March 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Don’t blame HA. Blame the azzes who had egos bigger than the land necessitated in leadership. Blame the establishment, Fox, Rove, the media and assorted idiots.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM

ITA, but HA is part of the problem in some ways giving cover for Politico, HuffPoo, the Slimes, etc. Plus nevermind the endless shilling for the gay agenda (what 2% of the population if that) while the economy continues to tank.

It’s like the ones you mentioned above. How many still give Rove, Fox, the blogging echo chamber any kind of credibility.

It’s up to us to say no, turn off our TV’s and be more discerning about who we give our $$ and clicks to.

kim roy on March 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Romney/Ryan lost by 3 points.

Gingrich/Santorum would have lost by 10 or more. Santorum is basically a Democrat that only calls himself a Republican due to three social issues: abortion, gay marriage, and contraceptives. If the Democrats reversed on those issues, Santorum would be a Democrat. Santorum does not believe people have a right to privacy, Santorum does not believe it is wrong for the federal government to have control over the individual citizen’s behavior. He is a right wing statist. He’s a “big government” Republican that would implement a right wing nanny state. No thanks.

A Gingrich/Santorum ticket would have driven me to vote for Gary Johnson.

crosspatch on March 22, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Some of the nuts on here will say “hell no he was always to left..” But think about it. There was once a time when everyone loved Chris Christie. I can’t stand him now as we all can’t. But back then, I’d have voted for him in a heart beat.

eski502 on March 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM

I love Russell Brand (yeah, yeah), but don’t want him running the country.

Hm. Well. Would he do worse than Christie or Obama? Have to think about that.

Dude. Raise your standards.

kim roy on March 22, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Too good to check: Gingrich and Santorum considered teaming up to defeat Romney

Maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t this old news?

Santorum: Gingrich would make a good running mate

Santorum: Gingrich would make a good running mate

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

Sockpuppet Politic on March 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Aaaaand of course, Allah gives the die hard anti Romney folks yet another excuse to sit around, stroking their own egos.

*sigh*

WolvenOne on March 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

It’s up to us to say no, turn off our TV’s and be more discerning about who we give our $$ and clicks to.

kim roy on March 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM

…while you comment on HA. You’re a funny good one.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM

It’s up to us to say no, turn off our TV’s and be more discerning about who we give our $$ and clicks to.

kim roy on March 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I realized that Fox shifted toward the left a long time ago, long ahead of the masses. I hardly ever turn them or any TV on.

I quit the R party many years ago, long before it become popular and necessary.

I quit giving any of them a penny, until they wake up.

My sin, admittedly, I comment on HA, exclusively, because in part I like the ‘entertainment’.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 2:15 PM

crosspatch on March 22, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Exactly. The idea that Santorum, or Gingrich, or Paul Ryan for that matter, were any less liberal, or more conservative than Romney was a cruel joke, and Romney would have made a better President than either of those two clowns, because he had some experience in the real world, and a better character. Romney certainly would have been a better President than Obama, and probably a better President than Newt, who is an unstable, megalomaniacal crank, and Santorum, who is an unstable, delusional crank.

Those Republicans who stayed home because they hated Romney, or thought he was a stealth lib, or thought he would be no different than Obama (about 4 million at last count), have a lot to answer for.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Obama would have won all 50 states.

They would have stopped counting the votes at 10pm.

Moesart on March 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM

It’s up to us to say no, turn off our TV’s and be more discerning about who we give our $$ and clicks to.

kim roy on March 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM

…while you comment on HA. You’re a funny good one.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM

*shrug*

I find HA to be the best of the bunch. They try to be objective and give us the opportunity to click or not. I like the choice NOT to click a link and still know the basics of it from the blurb they give us, but keeping in mind to know that it is to the choice of the blogger what is being included.

You know what I mean by that though – to Hollywood and TV shows and “entertainment culture” that use our money to propagandize against us, to call us racists and hillbillies. To “news” organizations that use their microphone to further their agendas rather than inform.

And so on.

kim roy on March 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Those Republicans who stayed home because they hated Romney, or thought he was a stealth lib, or thought he would be no different than Obama (about 4 million at last count), have a lot to answer for.

They only answer to Facebook posts from their clown god, Palin.

Moesart on March 22, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Obama did not win.

Romney lost.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM

The Tao of the loser.

Try it this way:

Romney didn’t lose
He merely failed to win.

Feel better now?

chumpThreads on March 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Sounds like a dream ticket: Gingrich, with his famously poor favorable ratings, and Santorum, a punching bag for Team O’s Akin-fueled “war on women” attacks on social conservatism.

Definitely a dream ticket for the rat-eared devil.

Gingrich with more baggage than a 757. Santorum who dragged Congress into the Terri Shiavo debate. Yeah their big problem was clash of egos as to who would top the ticket.

Happy Nomad on March 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM

kim roy on March 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Indeed. Don’t assume that HA is conservative. Read their Wikipedia blurb.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Aaaaand of course, Allah gives the die hard anti Romney folks yet another excuse to sit around, stroking their own egos.

*sigh*

WolvenOne on March 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

It’s clearly the only mental exercise some of these anti-Romney folks get. Plus, some of them are beginning to feel guilty as to what they’ve done. I won’t forgive them anytime soon but at least they are less proud Romney haters than they were in Oct/Nov and proudly declared their allegience to the rat-eared devil.

Happy Nomad on March 22, 2013 at 2:34 PM

chumpThreads on March 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Hillary in 2008. I will bet right now that you’ll glorify her in 2016, unless Booker or such runs.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Hillary in 2008. I will bet right now that you’ll glorify her in 2016, unless Booker or such runs.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I don’t glorify politicians, but I’ll sure as hell vote for her over whatever paleo-publican runs against her.

btw, I was rooting for a Clinton/Obama ticket in ’08. Who knows, maybe that will come true in ’16.

chumpThreads on March 22, 2013 at 2:38 PM

The fools that thought one could get a fair shake out of Crowley, Raddatz, Schieffer and co, now want to water down the party down to a nonentity,

narciso on March 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM

One poster says this:

A Gingrich/Santorum ticket would have driven me to vote for Gary Johnson.

crosspatch on March 22, 2013 at 1:55 PM

To which another poster says this:

Exactly. [...]

Those Republicans who stayed home because they hated Romney, or thought he was a stealth lib, or thought he would be no different than Obama (about 4 million at last count), have a lot to answer for.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Apparently not voting for Gingrich or Santorum against Obama is fine and dandy, but having the temerity not to vote for Romney against Obama is an unforgivable sin that leaves a permanent black mark on one’s soul.

Almost as inconsistent as Romney’s views on healthcare.

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Apparently the best the Republican Party could offer was Romney or a combination of Gingrich and Santorum.

Again, the Republican Party essentially offered to the American voter Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

Out of around 300 million Americans the GOP gave us a choice between Romney or Gingrich-Santorum.

JR on March 22, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Why are there two threads on this? Did the moderates and liberals who detest social conservatives not
show up in the first post?

fight like a girl on March 22, 2013 at 2:56 PM

What states did Romney win that Gingrich or Santorum would have lost?

None.

Which Senate seats did the GOP win that they would have lost with Gingrich or Santorum on the top of the ballot?

None.

Would the GOP still have held the House?

Yes.

steebo77 on March 22, 2013 at 1:15 PM

To answer the first question, Santorum/ Gingrich or Gingrich/ Santorum could have lost North Carolina, Indiana, Georgia and Missouri.

To answer the second question, Democratic candidates for Senate could have won in Nevada (which Heller won by one percent) and Arizona.

Losing the House would have been a possibility. A combination of gerrymandering, as a well a tendency of Democrats to live together in high population density regions, have helped House Republicans.

Mister Mets on March 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Those Republicans who stayed home because they hated Romney, or thought he was a stealth lib, or thought he would be no different than Obama (about 4 million at last count), have a lot to answer for.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I think Romney’s supporters- that insisted he was the best candidate and those stupid conservatives that he and they never bothered to win over didn’t matter anyway because he’d win the independents!- ought to have far more to answer for.

Conservatives voiced MANY MANY concerns about the author of Romneycare and his self-proclaimed liberal leanings (which he “renounced” just in time to run for the Republican nomination…). We were told to shut up and that we didn’t matter. Now those same Romney supporters that spat on those with doubts are blaming them. How surprising.

makattak on March 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3