Could today be a gamechanger in the GOP primary?
Good showings on Tuesday, Santorum aides believe, will allow Santorum to use the coming three weeks without a Republican primary or caucus — Feb. 7 to 28 — to beef up his campaign and finally emerge as the one-on-one rival to Romney…
Romney, with his carpetbombing negative ads, is the chief offender in that — after losing in Nevada, Gingrich asked, “If the only way Romney wins is suppressing turnout, how’s he going to do that in the fall?” But Gingrich’s angry reactions have given Republicans a picture of their two leading candidates as whiners and bullies — certainly not an image the party wants to carry into the general election.
That’s where Santorum comes in. Back in Iowa, voters turned to Santorum after first exhausting other possibilities; when they looked around, they realized he had been there all along. Recently he’s been plugging along in the expectation that Gingrich will self-destruct, and then a Santorum moment will come again.
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
NO
Falz on February 7, 2012 at 8:04 AM
We shall see….
cmsinaz on February 7, 2012 at 8:04 AM
Newt will be taking 3 losses today. This PROVES he’s electable.
NickDeringer on February 7, 2012 at 8:08 AM
I pray to God that it is!
1. Anyone but Romney!
2. Anyone but Obama!
Pragmatic on February 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM
Well, if we go by the PPP polls, the winners of the states by the end of today will be:
Romney (4): New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Colorado
Santorum (3): Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri
Gingrich (1): South Carolina
Romney and not-Romney will have then won an equal number of states. The interesting question will be whether or not it’s possible to get “not Romney” voters to consolidate into a single candidate.
Stoic Patriot on February 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM
Go Santorum!
Pragmatic on February 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM
I guess the fact that Santorum lost his last senate election by 17 points has been dropped from the debate.
DaydreamBeliever on February 7, 2012 at 8:19 AM
I would like to see it happen, it won’t.
Romney has beaten everybody down.
cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 8:19 AM
One for each wife –early Valentines Day gift
Bradky on February 7, 2012 at 8:20 AM
I think this will finally give Romney an excuse not to keep laying off Santorum in hopes of splitting conservatives.Let the attack machine have Santorum. Let it all come out. Then we can all see who we can put up with.
I think a lot of the running to Santorum has been because the attack machine has so far left him alone, making him a better-looking candidate than he actually is.
Sekhmet on February 7, 2012 at 8:21 AM
That’s not always telling. Nixon lost the presidency and lost his race for Governor of CA and then won the presidency.
Romney would have lost if he ran for Gov of MA again.
So, to claim that someone can’t win b/c they previously lost is not really an argument. Romney was beat by McCain the last time around in the primaries. McCain.
I don’t know if Santorum can win in the general, but I am pretty confident that Romney is not nearly as good of a candidate as Romney supporters pretend. He can’t seal the deal with his own party and people are claiming he’s “electable”.
Monkeytoe on February 7, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Please. Can anyone explain to me how a candidate like Santorum has a snowball’s chance to get more than 40% in a general election? The same people who are still (maybe begrudgingly) giving Obama a passing grade are not going to embrace a candidate with Santorum’s social con values. They just aren’t. America is ready for fiscal conservatism, the social stuff, not so much. There is a reason why Santorum can’t get more than 15% of any vote. He’s like an angry George W Bush. Supporting his nomination is a waste of an opportunity to get rid of Obama.
BettyRuth on February 7, 2012 at 8:29 AM
I didn’t make a comment for or against Santorum. I only mentioned that what used to be frequently and broadly used as an argument against him is no longer mentioned.
DaydreamBeliever on February 7, 2012 at 8:29 AM
I agree. It will be interesting to see how he takes getting slimed. It’s easy to take the high road when it’s not directed at you.
Night Owl on February 7, 2012 at 8:30 AM
Just read that he said yesterday he promises to “defund Planned Parenthood” and the majority of the liberal biased comments on the site were along the lines of “don’t worry, you can’t believe a thing he says.”
Marcus on February 7, 2012 at 8:34 AM
Santorum doesn’t have the money to blunt the Romney attack machine, he’s toast. He also doesn’t have as strong a record as Gingrich, he was one of 100 in the 90s while Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
Newt is done. He knocked himself off message and is now on a personal vendetta. Santorum is probably just as easily rattles as Newt.
Romney is pretty pathetic as a nominee, but it looks like he will end up being the guy. He has nothing but attacks, is completely neutered on Obamacare until he disowns Romneycare and admits it has failed, and he has no positive campaign theme or vision.
Daemonocracy on February 7, 2012 at 8:36 AM
Santorum’s last campaign shouldn’t be forgotten. How was it organized and run? When he explained the loss, he said it was because he was the main target of the Liberal Democrats. But if he thinks he was the main target then, wait till he runs against obama.
Paddington on February 7, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Santorum is more likable than Newt (but then again, so’s Barry Bonds), but he doesn’t have the money to compete with Romney.
It’s over.
YYZ on February 7, 2012 at 8:44 AM
Tell that to the Romney campaign that is sliming him non-stop.
And Romney fluffing hatin’ nutballs here who are doing the same.
cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Obama’s lead in the most recent polls PROVES Romney is electable!!
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Poll-Obama-Leads-Romney-in-Hypothetical-Election-Matchup-138783784.html
I am skeptical that America is ready for fiscal conservatism, since fiscal conservatives were being mocked by Romney supporters last night by fellow Republicans as “TRUE CONS!!!!”, AKA “right-wing extremists.”
Doomberg on February 7, 2012 at 8:51 AM
.
Just how is Santorum like an angry GWB? I think you just threw in gratuitous bias to achieve the Pavlovian response.
.
You know what the Pavlovian response is, correct?
ExpressoBold on February 7, 2012 at 8:52 AM
I think it can be a game changer. At least as far as it will put Santorum ahead of Newt as the leading ABR. Whether it will be enough to stop Romney from getting the nomination depends on how well he handles the added scrutiny that will follow.
Flange on February 7, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Anything that drags Romney to the right is a good thing.
jake-the-goose on February 7, 2012 at 8:54 AM
.
You are being very kind to those kneepad dwellers (bluegill, I’m looking at you).
ExpressoBold on February 7, 2012 at 8:56 AM
You would think they would be happy that their candidate is in the lead. Nope, the closest they come to happiness is the gleeful hatred they spew when their candidate has a good day.
cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Most over-used and devalued phrase of the last four years: Game-changer.
Good Lt on February 7, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Every 4 years we have the same disconnect between “fiscal” and “social conservatives”.
What is the real difference? What, exactly, do “fiscal” conservatives believe that “social” conservatives want to do that they disagree with? I understand the tactical arguments – that if you run on a campaign of school prayer and outlawing abortion instead of fiscal issues you are less likely to win the general election.
But, putting aside tactical/strategic arguments about campaigning – what do “fiscal” conservatives really fear that “social conservatives” are going to do?
It seems to me that social conservatives have pretty limited objectives:
1) overturn roe v. wade and then work to make abortion illegal in the states;
2) protect marriage as between a woman and a man;
3) protect private groups’ rights to discriminate based on religious beliefs, etc. (i.e., Boy Scouts can keep out an atheist or a gay scout master). In past years this was also known as the right to freedom of association.
4) reverse some of the more insane 1st amendment precedent dealing with religion so that things like the 10 commandments can be displayed in public and children can pray in school if they want to.
Am I missing some other major plank that is widely considered part of the “social” conservative agenda? Obviously, social conservatives want to put values and morality back into practice in our communities, but I’m not aware of legislative policies being proposed to this end. Merely discussing them is not so terrible is it? Merely discussing god and faith is so terrible. And the hilarity is that every politician uses religion. Obama invokes God for his policies more often than W or Reagan ever did.
I really don’t see how any of that would really be that objectionable to 99% of “fiscal” conservatives or even libertarians. Is it really that threatening to have the 10 commandments hanging on a court-room wall?
And frankly, until Roe v. Wade is overturned, this same fight is going to go on every single election cycle on the federal level. It makes more sense for “fiscal” conservatives to want to get the issue resolved once and for all and then let it be fought out at the state level.
I guess my question is – what is it that people really mean when they say “social conservative”? To me, it is a pretty limited set of policy issues that “social cons” are pushing.
I always wonder the same thing of the left. They hate and fear social cons – but in reality the entire fight is really about abortion and nothing else. Perhaps gay marriage is a bigger part of it now, but still. Those 2 issues engender so much fear and hatred of social cons?
Monkeytoe on February 7, 2012 at 9:20 AM
Santorum can win MN and MS, but that is not a game changer, although MSM, bloggers will hope so to keep a horse race going and something to write about.
galtani on February 7, 2012 at 9:22 AM
The Inevitable Meme takes a big hit today.
As does Carpetbomber Mutt.
james23 on February 7, 2012 at 9:23 AM
I agree with your basic point, but I think the longtime champion still reigns, “racist” is the most overused and undervalued phrase.
Flange on February 7, 2012 at 9:26 AM
Monkeytoe,
I consider myself to be a Social Conservative first and foremost, so permit me to suggest a couple of changes to what you list and tack on a couple of more items:
1.) Overturning Roe — actually, I’d love to see a Federally recognized right to life per the 5th and 14th amendments. Gingrich floated this idea during the campaign (although I support Santorum). Certain rights transcend state boundary lines. Since life is a prerequisite right for every other one, I think it’s appropriately handled at the Federal level.
2.) Correct
3.) Correct
4.) Correct
5.) Affirmative action — if we’re going to have a meritocracy-based society, where people are truly self-made and are judged on the merits of their skills and effort, we need to eliminate racism altogether. That means we need to purge racial preferences in hiring and college admissions.
6.) Drugs — essentially we support the status quo as it relates to drugs, but it is an issue of concern to Social Conservatives.
7.) Prostitution — see drugs
8.) Death penalty — see drugs, prostitution
9.) Illegal immigration — we shouldn’t give amnesty to those who break the law. The law is need of enforcement, not “reform.”
There are also several considerations that get less press play that also concern Social Conservatives: bioethics (designer-defect babies, embryonic stem cell research, Octomom & IVF, genetic engineering, black markets for organs), family (home schooling, rigorous academic standards, no-fault divorce, adultery & fornication, day care, etc), and justice (mandatory minimum sentencing, 3-strike laws, broken glass policies, etc). These rarely ever get major press attention though.
I’d agree though that right now the top 2 concerns in the movement are abortion and marriage.
Stoic Patriot on February 7, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Devalued, not undervalued. Oops.
Flange on February 7, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Actually, it’s a rather well-crafted comparison. Santorum has ALWAYS been compared to Dubya in that their domestic policies were more or less 100% identical during the 2000s: big government spending, “compassionate conservatism,” with a heavy heavy emphasis on Christian social issues. In other words: fiscally liberal, socially conservative. Huckabee is another one who fits this mold. This is a comparison (the one between Bush and Santorum, who was one of his closest Senate allies) people have been making literally as far back as 2000, so I’m actually a little surprised that you’re taken aback by it. It’s pretty accurate.
The problem is that G.W. Bush sold his fiscal liberal/social conservative style with a friendly smile. Santorum, however, has this unfortunate tendency to come across as perpetually outraged and aggrieved, and humorless. A horrible combination in a Presidential candidate. Romney is a square, but he’s at least an unflappably good-natured square. Santorum has ‘vinegar face’ half the time he speaks.
Esoteric on February 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM
(Three???)
JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Romney is only unflappable until he gets a question about his wealth or something else he’d rather not talk about. Then he gets flustered and fumbling.
vegconservative on February 7, 2012 at 9:47 AM
It seems many on HotAir really, really want Santorum to fail–even the ones that don’t want Romney to be the nominee. Santorum is steady, smart, articulate, conservative (nothwistanding some bad votes), has a great family life history, and has integrity. All the fear-mongering on how Santorum wants to “get in your bedroom” blah, blah, blah is plain nonsense. His socially conservative policy positions (aside from his personal Catholic beliefs) are virtually the same as the other republican candidates. All the screaming about how liberal he is is also nonsense. His record in office is as good and in many ways better than the other candidates in this race. I also suspect that there are some posting here who don’t like the fact he’s Catholic and actually deride him as though he is part of some cult faith; yet ignore Romney’s Mormonism.
Best wishes go out to Santorum today. I would love to pull the lever for him for president.
KickandSwimMom on February 7, 2012 at 9:52 AM
Who needs MSNBC when Byron York is happy to promote the Dim-o-crat message?
cicerone on February 7, 2012 at 10:01 AM
You’ve made my point.
YYZ on February 7, 2012 at 10:02 AM
This is our problem. No one that is a hardcore right wing political junkie, AM advertising salesmen educated conservative, or anybody else with any real stringent principles wants Mitt. But everybody else sucks too so there is no one else to coalesce around and it’s depressing turnout, motivation, and ability to derail Mitt cause there just aren’t enough to outnumber the rubes.
Boomer_Sooner on February 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Palin needs to get in the race
ChuckTX on February 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM
I feel sorry for guys like York. They’re like sports color analysts trying to keep the audience interested in a complete blowout.
RadClown on February 7, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Monkeytoe on February 7, 2012
I will try to give just one person’s view. (mine) As far as the issues you presented, I agree with the social conservatives on all the major ones. It’s not that I hate or fear social conservatives, it’s that they make me uneasy. The often come across as strident, and they support their positions using religion. Nothing wrong with religion, but I wish they could present their case without using it. It is difficult to answer your question, because in doing so, one can seem judgemental. Maybe that’s it….Social conservatives make people feel lousy.
Paddington on February 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Recent national polling shows Santorum beating Obama in a head-to-head match-up. Now, that comes with several caveats. First, Santorum comes out ahead, but it’s statistically a tie. Second, national polling is not the same as the state-by-state way we do presidential elections. And, third, this is all before the months long slugfest where Obama spends a billion dollars running down our nominee.
Still, the fact that Santorum is polling as a serious contender to Obama does at least suggest that the idea of him being unelectable is potentially overblown. Just as I think the idea of Romney being so electable is also overblown.
Shump on February 7, 2012 at 10:47 AM
I love how the liberals who run away screaming from “value voters/candidates” all of a sudden are concerned about someone being divorced.
angryed on February 7, 2012 at 10:48 AM
that didn’t seem to work in FL and NV where he got more than all the not’s combined. But keep dreaming, it’s good for ya.
hanzblinx on February 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM
I would point out the following:
1) Drugs – I don’t think this is an “issue” in the sense that it is contested by anyone. No major politician, from either political party, has endorsed legalizing drugs in the last 50 years. So, I’m not sure it is an issue to anyone but the pot-head libertarians. And frankly, despite what they say, it’s really their only issue. So this is a non-issue to me in terms of “social con” versus “fiscal con”..
2) Prostitution – I see this as a state issue. I’m talking solely federal issues here. but, again, aside from in NV, no politician from either political party has seriously suggested legalizing prostitution. So again, really a non-issue to me in terms of “social con” versus “fiscal con”.
3) Illegal immigration. I would posit that this is tied up as much in fiscal issues as it is in social issues. I suppose that the social issues are that illegal immigration will overwhelm our language, culture and values as millions of people with different values, language, etc. flow in. And I agree with that argument. But the far worse issue is crime (which I don’t see as solely a “social con” issue) and cost. Despite what some claim, millions of uneducated, unskilled people coming into the country are a net cost on America, not a net economic gain. It could only be a net economic gain if there were high paying jobs for all of them and we could not fill such jobs with citizens or legal residents. That is not the case. So, I don’t see this as being a “social con”. Also, I have seen plenty of social cons come out the other way on illegal immigration, believing we owe some duty to our fellow mankind to allow them to migrate here for a better life. So, I’m not sure I agree that this is an issue in the “social con” versus “fiscal con” divide.
4) as to the other items you throw out there – not sure “designer babies” is an issue yet. maybe some day. the rest, are you saying there should be federal laws regarding adultery, fornication, day care? What about federal laws and home schooling? If you want to make “fornication” illegal or “adultery” a crime again – then I do see a problem. If you are just saying that we should be against these things and say they are bad and morally wrong – then no problem. There is a huge difference between someone talking about morals and trying to uphold morals in public and trying to enforce morality through the law.
As far as daycare? What do you mean by that? Social cons want the federal gov’t to pay for day care?
Also, It is already illegal to sell organs on black markets.
Monkeytoe on February 7, 2012 at 11:08 AM