Rick Santorum Takes National Lead In PPP Poll By FIFTEEN Over Romney

It's PPP and all but 15 points? Oy.

Riding a wave of momentum from his trio of victories on Tuesday Rick Santorum has opened up a wide lead in PPP's newest national poll. He's at 38% to 23% for Mitt Romney, 17% for Newt Gingrich, and 13% for Ron Paul.

Part of the reason for Santorum's surge is his own high level of popularity. 64% of voters see him favorably to only 22% with a negative one. But the other, and maybe more important, reason is that Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich. Romney's favorability is barely above water at 44/43, representing a 23 point net decline from our December national poll when he was +24 (55/31). Gingrich has fallen even further. A 44% plurality of GOP voters now hold a negative opinion of him to only 42% with a positive one. That's a 34 point drop from 2 months ago when he was at +32 (60/2.

Santorum is now completely dominating with several key segments of the electorate, especially the most right leaning parts of the party. With those describing themselves as 'very conservative,' he's now winning a majority of voters at 53% to 20% for Gingrich and 15% for Romney. Santorum gets a majority with Tea Party voters as well at 51% to 24% for Gingrich and 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he falls just short of a majority with 45% to 21% for Gingrich and 18% for Romney.

It may not be as much of an outlier as it seems at first glance when you consider a Rasmussen poll released yesterday.

President Obama's lead over Mitt Romney in a potential head-to-head contest has swelled to 10 points, with the president capturing 50% support to Mr. Romney's 40%. Meanwhile, Rasmussen finds that Mr. Obama leads Mr. Santorum by just four points, 46% to 42%. Another recent Rasmussen poll, focused on the key battleground state of Ohio, finds a dead heat in a potential Obama-Santorum contest. But the president leads Mr. Romney by four points among Buckeye voters. The evidence from Rasmussen clearly suggests that, at least for the moment, Mr. Santorum is the most electable Republican.

It's pretty clear at this late date that Romney simply isn't sealing the deal. Normally at this point the Romney attack machine would get going and try to destroy Santorum but some conservatives reportedly urged Romney not to go down that road again for fear of alienating conservatives.

What a disaster this whole thing is.

Posted by: DrewM. at 10:08 AM



Comments

1 You guys been following this new story about how Grandpa Santorum was an ardent marxist?

Sheesh.

Posted by: Emmanuel Goldstein at February 11, 2012 10:12 AM (Bjf6P)

2 Could he beat Obama? Never mind about the PA Senate race. Could this guy beat JEPOS?

Posted by: USS Diversity at February 11, 2012 10:13 AM (VeTg+)

3 SMOD! SMOD! SMOD!

When elections call for a disaster, you know whom to turn to.

What an epic CF! The one election we need a fiscal con we get a social con.

Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at February 11, 2012 10:14 AM (BeB0s)

4 I don'( see why this is a disaster at all. This is how the process is supposed to work. Let them fight it out.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 11, 2012 10:16 AM (hiMsy)

5 What a disaster this whole thing is.

We can dig it.

Posted by: Obama's Non-Religious Disciples at February 11, 2012 10:16 AM (ndlFj)

6 Bust a deal, spin the wheel

Posted by: Mr Pink at February 11, 2012 10:18 AM (fv+3J)

7 Seriously, what were you guys smoking?

Posted by: Year 3000 Historian at February 11, 2012 10:19 AM (wGw4Q)

8 Go Rick.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 10:20 AM (P6QsQ)

9 What a crazy primary season. Wake me up when ABO is nominated.

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2012 10:21 AM (w7Lv+)

10 When you say "disaster", that's bad right?

Posted by: Circular Firing Squad reporting for duty! at February 11, 2012 10:21 AM (0aByc)

11 The 2012 election should be a case study in poli-sci classes for generations to come on how a political party can squander a national election cycle that should have been a cakewalk to turn out the opposition from the Whitehouse, the Senate, and to extend their majority in the House.

If you play the other fella's game, you lose.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 11, 2012 10:22 AM (4q5tP)

12 Time to change my name link. Be back in a bit.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 10:22 AM (P6QsQ)

13
In honor of the 3D re-release of the "The Phantom Menace," Wired magazine has re-released it's original review, now in 3D. I'm not kidding

"Review: Phantom Menace Bores, Annoys (Now in 3-D!)"
http://www.wired.com/underwire/ 2012/02/phantom-menace-3-d/

http://tinyurl.com/6nz7j3x

Break out your red-blue glasses.

Posted by: Looking Glass at February 11, 2012 10:22 AM (MyhCG)

14 We are well and truly fucked. Another four years of SCOAMF.

Posted by: packsoldier at February 11, 2012 10:24 AM (tT/HT)

15 WTF?

I'm going to go take some heavy sedatives. Please wake me up after the elections.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 11, 2012 10:24 AM (UTq/I)

16
This cycle is no more of a clusterfuck than Barky vs Sir Edmund Hillary Rodham Clinton. When you're living in the shit storm, it always appears bleak until dawn when the dingle-berries, moonbats, and hangers-on are cleared from the field, and after using Ben Steins Visine, you no longer have a shitty outlook on life but believe in your heart that we're gonna kick Barky's skinny ass. Onward soldiers!

Posted by: Doctor Fish at February 11, 2012 10:27 AM (TkGkA)

17 This can't be good. I'm pretty sure RS would be undesireable to the mushy middle types in the general. Doesn't matter - I'm voting for SMOD anyway.

Posted by: Keith Richards at February 11, 2012 10:27 AM (hemrb)

18 Dear GOP,

Thanks guys for all the help. Really, from the bottom of my heart, thanks.

Yours in perpetuity,
Barry

Posted by: Barry O. at February 11, 2012 10:28 AM (fYOZx)

19 >>Please wake me up after the elections.

Or not.

Posted by: Medically Induced Coma at February 11, 2012 10:29 AM (XdlcF)

20 Rickety , the "pure conservative of the month". just great, and frothy.

I think even SMOD will avoid this election , he's off ot another solar systmem looking for intelligent life.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at February 11, 2012 10:29 AM (AWmfW)

21 INEVITABILITY!

Posted by: Things said the night of Florida at February 11, 2012 10:29 AM (uhAkr)

22 "What a disaster this whole thing is."

All comes down to snow in Colorado. Romney's voters thought it was a wrap and stayed home. If Romney wins Colorado, it's still game-on.

You're welcome.

Posted by: Frosty at February 11, 2012 10:29 AM (eMtQ2)

23 Didn't see the word brokered in that post?

Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2012 10:31 AM (WkuV6)

24 Brokered Convention 2012! It Couldn't Be Any Worse!

Posted by: davidinvirginia at February 11, 2012 10:31 AM (cPJUK)

25
You gave up on me very early, but I still love you.

Posted by: Michele Bachmann at February 11, 2012 10:31 AM (TkGkA)

26
Hey Drew, we can fix this.
Ace told me thatSantorum issecretly a nazi grand wizard. No details yet, but let's go with that for now, 'k?
Cheers!

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at February 11, 2012 10:31 AM (bDsH2)

27 Can you imagine how much an ass Mittens is this Am, losing to Santorum?

Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2012 10:34 AM (WkuV6)

28
The Jeb Bush brokered convention nonsense was floating around the Intertubes like a giant squid turd floating in Biscayne Bay.

Posted by: Doctor Fish at February 11, 2012 10:34 AM (TkGkA)

29 These polls have been changing so radically, so quickly, that I think what is really going on with the GOP electorate is an overwhelming desire to choose the One Most Likely to Beat Obama.

I think at this point, most Republicans don't care which of the 3 remaining candidates it is, as long as the one can beat Obama is the one chosen. So most Republicans have their finger in the wind, looking for ANY indicator as who that may be. Santorum did well in some caucuses and a beauty contest, none of which really reflect the opinions of the vast majority of Republicans that do not go to caucuses or vote in primaries they know are meaningless... so suddenly the GOP herd follows him.

This poll can and will change radically yet again.

Looking at it realistically: Who has the Money, and who has the Organization?

I still think ultimately Romney will be The One.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:34 AM (niZvt)

30 I don't get the excitement in the sidebar about a brokered convention. A bunch of energetic Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich supporters/donors/delegates are supposed to agree on someone I'll like?

Posted by: t-bird at February 11, 2012 10:35 AM (FcR7P)

31
Santorum? He scares the sheet out of liberals because he goes to church.
So I like that part.
I'm looking at all this as entertainment, I mean, what the hell, might as well find some enjoyment in all this.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2012 10:35 AM (Usk3+)

32 The only deal Rombley can "seal" is that one in the LDS Temple that does something or other about your great-great-grandfather.

Posted by: I am the walrus, goo goo ga joo at February 11, 2012 10:35 AM (4sQwu)

33 Oliver Cromwell 2012!

Posted by: USS Diversity at February 11, 2012 10:35 AM (VeTg+)

34 Onward soldiers!
Posted by: Doctor Fish at February 11, 2012 10:27 AM (TkGkA)

Where do I fall in and will we be issued live ammo? Enough practice rounds.

Posted by: Pattons' Boot Licker at February 11, 2012 10:35 AM (NljtA)

35 "Looking at it realistically: Who has the Money, and who has the Organization"


Kinda like Hillary v Bambi?

Posted by: One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at February 11, 2012 10:37 AM (eMtQ2)

36 32, tell me more, esp the oil on my balls part

Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2012 10:37 AM (WkuV6)

37 2010 election, star wars "a new hope".

2012 election, star wars holiday special.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at February 11, 2012 10:37 AM (AWmfW)

38

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

Mono - doh!

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 11, 2012 10:38 AM (kdS6q)

39 This is making me sick to my stomach. What happened to all the people who said we needed someone with business and executive experience to fix the economic disaster this country has become? Now, all of a sudden, we need a social conservative in order to win? Since when? Didn't we go through this with Huckabee last time? There is no way tat A Santorum candidacy is going to attract young people to his campaign. My two very conservative sons in their 20's don't care about gay marriage. They are worried if they will ever make enough money to start a family of their own or afford a house. This is just nuts. A senator with no executive experience who lost his last election is a must win state. I repeat, this is just nuts!

Posted by: Sharon at February 11, 2012 10:38 AM (1pWuD)

40 "I am not concerned about the very poor."
That was a severely stupid thing for a presidential candidate to say.

Posted by: StrangernFiction at February 11, 2012 10:38 AM (VDZLQ)

41 Oh, yeah....I want my own jeep, too. HMMWV's are for sissies.

...and a siren. Gotta have a siren.

Posted by: Pattons' Boot Licker at February 11, 2012 10:39 AM (NljtA)

42
President Obama should stick with high-speed rail because it's a winner in any election. I've proven that concept in California.

Posted by: Jerry Brown, the guy who fucked Linda Ronstadt at February 11, 2012 10:39 AM (TkGkA)

43 Here's the problem with a Brokered Convention:

Rick Perry was an Object Lesson of what happens when a half-assed prepared politician suddenly jumps into the race for POTUS.

It wasn't really that Perry was all that dumb or inept, but he was horribly ill prepared. You can't expect someone that made a last minute decision to run to be as well prepared as someone that has been in the game for years. And the difference SHOWED and it DESTROYED Perry.

If we have a brokered convention that out of the blue comes out with a Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels... they, too, will be ill-prepared. And it will show.

We as a party will run a horrible risk to do that.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:40 AM (niZvt)

44 Don't attack the weakest candidate. Thx a lo "conservaytives." if Romney really is goong to embrace a flat tax asis rumored, that could help him. I still prefer Gingrich, but i would rather Mitt than Santorum.

Posted by: Y-not on iphone at February 11, 2012 10:40 AM (5H6zj)

45 So Santorum's a religious whacko, but Jeremiah Wright's candidate isn't?

So Santorum will force his religious views on everybody, but President 'Mandatory Abortion Coverage' isn't?

I'm starting to think that any criticism of Santorum highlights the same flaws in Obama.

Of course, the media won't cover them, and our side doesn't have the stones to force the issue.

But anybody on our side is preferable to SCOAMF except Paul, who is back to his single-digit niche, so fuckit. Wake me in November.

Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 10:41 AM (MMC8r)

46 Romney can't "seal the deal"??
Look -- the "deal" has been rejected. You media guys keep talking as if negotiations are still open, but the people have repeatedly said that they do not want the deal.
There's no more bargaining here, no more dealing. The phone has been hung-up, the people have walked out of the conference room, the door has been slammed in Romney's face.
There is no "deal" on the table to seal. It's done. Over.
What part of "no" does Romney not get?

Posted by: Bender at February 11, 2012 10:42 AM (IOfno)

47 Mitt's gotta pull hard right, not sure if he can flip on so many issues

Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2012 10:42 AM (WkuV6)

48 39 This is making me sick to my stomach. What happened to all the people who said we needed someone with business and executive experience to fix the economic disaster this country has become?

Posted by: Sharon at February 11, 2012 10:38 AM (1pWuD)

Remember when people said we needed someone with strong military and foreign policy experience? We ended up McCrazy.

Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2012 10:42 AM (FdndL)

49 31
Santorum? He scares the sheet out of liberals because he goes to church.
So I like that part.


Yeah, but see, that is also what will energize the Left to come out and vote.

I think one of our biggest assets this time around is the Left's morale. Let's not to anything to goose it.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:43 AM (niZvt)

50 "Now, all of a sudden, we need a social conservative in order to win? Since when? Didn't we go through this with Huckabee last time? "

I was not a Huckabee guy in '08, but at least he'd run something.

Posted by: embittered redleg at February 11, 2012 10:43 AM (CuPwN)

51 Chauncey Gardner 2012.

Unstoppable.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 11, 2012 10:43 AM (4q5tP)

52 If it goes to a brokered convention, I will support Arlen Specter. Fine Republican, that one.

Posted by: Ric Santa-pants at February 11, 2012 10:44 AM (FcR7P)

53 Jeremy Lin in 2012!

Posted by: FUBAR at February 11, 2012 10:44 AM (HHgv3)

54 47 Mitt's gotta pull hard right, not sure if he can flip on so many issues
Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2012 10:42 AM (WkuV6)


I think he should latch on to the Catholic-Obamacare thing and ride it like a hot whore on a Saturday night.

I mean, just savage Obama as hard as he savaged Newt, and beat him like a rented mule over government overreach and his betrayal of his Catholic supporters. THAT sort of thing will get conservatives to rally to him.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:44 AM (niZvt)

55 Chauncey Gardner 2012.

I thought he was the incumbent.

Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 10:45 AM (MMC8r)

56 If you play the other fella's game, you lose.
Posted by: Count de Monet

Egg-zactly. The idea of the debates wasn't bad, it was who was allowed (or promoted) to control the tenor and the semantics of the debates.

Scott Pelley?
Wolf Blizter?
Diane Sawyer?
George Stephanopolous?

These people are our friends and allies? No wonder we are were we are. We (well, the so-called "leadership" of the Republican Party) has blundered into a morass of stupidity.

1) Barry Obama is re-elected
2) a real power struggle for who controls the future of the Republican party
3) If the "Tea Party" Reformers lose, a third party will be formed

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at February 11, 2012 10:45 AM (sJTmU)

57 AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!


All we wanted was someone to say they'd repeal Obama Care and call him out for the lying communist he is.

That's all. Was that too much to ask? Couldn't one damn person come to the fore that could/would do that?

We've got a human political wind vane with lots of money and no integrity or plan.

We've got a racist antisemitic nutcase (BIRM).

We've got a serial polygamist and political opportunist.

And last but not least we've got a bible thumping moral crusader who thinks nothing of spending the public's money to reinforce same. All the while scaring the crap out of people who've already been lied and lectured to.

CRAPCRAPCRAPCRAPCRAPCRAPCRAP.

And soon we won't even be able to shoot ourselves.

Sweet meteor of death hear our plea
Please answer our prayers immediately
Hit us hard and make a splash
And turn us into a bloody mash.

Posted by: Not Romney Endorses the SMOD at February 11, 2012 10:46 AM (CP+yl)

58 HEH HEH.

I wonder what the reaction of the Moron Horde would be if a brokered convention nominated Jeb BUSH?

Oh, My...

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:46 AM (niZvt)

59 What a disaster this whole thing is.

"Live by the Pompadour; Die by the Pompadour."

Posted by: "Electability" Is As "Electability" Does at February 11, 2012 10:46 AM (sLzrG)

60 PPP is a really good pollster too.They only missed the MN primary by 30 points, Missouri by 15 points and in Colorado they picked the wrong winner with a 15 point error.



Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (MtwBb)

61 SMOD is looking increasingly inevitable.

Or at least desirable.

Posted by: rickl supports SMOD/Rapture 2012 at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (sdi6R)

62 51 Chauncey Gardner 2012.

Unstoppable.
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 11, 2012 10:43 AM (4q5tP)


I love that movie... I think I'll watch it today on DVD.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (niZvt)

63
Santorum is "riding a wave of momentum?"

The turnout in all three of those primary/caucuses were pitiful. There is about as much momentum in the Republican primary as shit flowing upstream.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (sqkOB)

64 60 PPP is a really good pollster too.They only missed the MN primary by 30 points, Missouri by 15 points and in Colorado they picked the wrong winner with a 15 point error.



Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (MtwBb)


LOL. Well done, sir... well done.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:48 AM (niZvt)

65 SMOD. This guy is a scary Roman Catholic. I really think underwear wearing Mitt would be less likely to use his religion to justify laws than Rick.

Rick? Not so much, and he will be eaten alive by the MSM as soon as he is the front runner.

McCain's "mistress", I am sure the NY Times is keeping their powder dry, but has lots.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 11, 2012 10:49 AM (hXJOG)

66 Sweet meteor of death hear our plea
Please answer our prayers immediately
Hit us hard and make a splash
And turn us into a bloody mash.


Glad to see you people are starting to come around.

Posted by: The Mayans at February 11, 2012 10:49 AM (sdi6R)

67 Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (niZvt)

Shirley McClain writhing on the bearskin rug wasn't a bad scene.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 11, 2012 10:50 AM (nEUpB)

68 Why is it that the choice for the GOP nomination has come down to one guy who can actually win in November 2012 but is irrationally hated by a base that wants it all and want it right now versus two guys who would guarantee McGovern '72-style losses, yet are much more popular with this same group?

Why are we so fucked?

And why is Rush Limbaugh playing along? It's a side question, but I have to wonder why he's allowing this to happen.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 10:50 AM (hIWe1)

69 Santorum 2012!

Posted by: jacke at February 11, 2012 10:50 AM (5Cwv4)

70 Rick Santorum received very high ratings from mainstream conservative
groups during his time in the House (two terms) and the Senate (two
terms):



American Conservative Union -- 88%

National Right to Life Committee -- 100%

Americans for Tax Reform -- 95%

National Tax Limitation Committee -- 92%

U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- 88%

League of Private Property Voters -- 94%

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 10:51 AM (P6QsQ)

71 67 Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (niZvt)

Shirley McClain writhing on the bearskin rug wasn't a bad scene.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 11, 2012 10:50 AM (nEUpB)


I like to watch.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:51 AM (niZvt)

72 Chauncey Gardner 2012.
I thought he was the incumbent.
Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 10:45 AM (MMC8r)


We put up our version. Everyone sees what they want to see. He just nods wisely and spouts generic platitudes and non sequitors. Use anopponent's force and momentum to defeat him, as in jiu jitsu.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 11, 2012 10:51 AM (4q5tP)

73 @54. The problem is mitt did something similar in mass. To me mitt needs to be himself... Mr Competent. But he needs to show us he'll use that skill to really tackle big things, at least on the economy. Jen Rubin was supposedly signalling that Romney was going to finally embrace major tax reform. That would be big.
I stlii trust Newts gut instincts on conservatism more, but in a two man race, i would like to be able to really sell romney over santorum.

Posted by: Y-not on iphone at February 11, 2012 10:51 AM (5H6zj)

74 When your primary system nominates two candidates that your party base hates TWICE, something's broke.

Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 10:51 AM (MMC8r)

75 PPP is a really good pollster too.They only missed the MN primary by 30 points, Missouri by 15 points and in Colorado they picked the wrong winner with a 15 point error.



Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (MtwBb)
-----------------------------------------------------------
I could do better throwing darts at a dartboard. How do they have any credibility at all anymore?

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 11, 2012 10:51 AM (jucos)

76 The turnout in all three of those primary/caucuses were pitiful. There
is about as much momentum in the Republican primary as shit flowing
upstream.


This is true, but unfortunately we've seen that these surges are real, and that national news reporting affects them.

I do know that I felt utterly depressed during the last Gingrich surge, thinking that there was nothing we could do to stop him from getting the nomination, and that faded. I feel sort of the same way now about Santorum, but I've been wrong before, so I'm hoping for the best....

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 10:51 AM (hIWe1)

77 Santorum had an average Club for Growth rating of 77% for the last two years of his
tenure in the Senate, compared to an average of 73% for all Senate
Republicans for the same period. So his conservative performance was 4
percentage points better than the Senate Republican average for the same
time span, according to the CFG.



Santorum had an average rating of 76% from the National Taxpayers Union
(NTU), which was 5 percentage points higher than the average NTU rating
for all Republicans during the same period (71%).

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 10:52 AM (P6QsQ)

78
Yeah, I'm really believeing a PPP poll about Republicans. Cause they've always been so accurate. They are Democrats trying to stir up shit on our side with fake polls. I'll bet they did the same thing the WaPo did last week, ask people if they knew Romney was a creepy Mormon, paid no taxes, and out his dog on the roof of his care BEFORE asking the voting preference question.

Anyways, it IS getting a little depressin. I can't believe the idiot sheep at HotAir know jumping all in on Rick Santorum now. I mean, come on people. If you want this election to be about buttsex and Sharia law, he's your guy. But don't think he can win any states other than maybe Kentucky and Oklahoma.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 10:52 AM (A0UFZ)

79 hi jeffb

hope everything is going well for you

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 11, 2012 10:52 AM (Ho2rs)

80
This fantasy talk about a brokered convention is embarrassing to read on this blog.

Not going to happen.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 10:52 AM (sqkOB)

81 We already have one self-absorbed, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, wants-to-regulate-every-facet-of-your-life scold in the WH and we don't need a 2nd one.

Posted by: SFGoth at February 11, 2012 10:53 AM (bQMB+)

82 Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (sqkOB)

The real question is whether the Republican nominee can create enough excitement among possible voters to come out and vote the JEF out of office.

There is a huge amount of pent-up frustration in America, and if the Republican is smart, he will ride it into the White House.

But if we get an idiot who says things like "we have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency," we will be fucked...royally, well and truly...permanently fucked.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 11, 2012 10:53 AM (nEUpB)

83 We put up our version. Everyone sees what they want to see. He just nods
wisely and spouts generic platitudes and non sequitors. Use
anopponent's force and momentum to defeat him, as in jiu jitsu.


Honestly, if it gets us a win, I'm all over this strategy 100%.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 10:53 AM (hIWe1)

84 It is hard to tell how many of the Rick S. votes are really notMitt votes.

I guess about 1/3 to 1/2.

Mitt, or perhaps more accurately, the GOP still has us by the balls.

They know we want Obama out so badly, we'll vote for a broken waffle iron if the GOP nominates one.

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 10:53 AM (DTX4S)

85 Any word on who these supposed "conservative thinkers" are, who are now trying to urge Romney to pay attention to conservatives?

Mitt hasn't sealed the deal because, until now at least, he hasn't been TRYING to deal with conservatives. He ran the most bland campaign he could, hoping his hair and gentle demeanor (combined with a campaign staff that is vicious toward its primary season opponents) would make for an easy victory.

So sure, deal with conservatives now, buttercup. Better late than never, I guess, but at this point, yeah, I'll take Santorum over the precious, inevitable Mitt.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 10:53 AM (Gc/Qi)

86 I think one of our biggest assets this time around is the Left's morale. Let's not to anything to goose it.Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:43 AM (niZvt) I hear you, but it's not in my nature to ever worry about what turns liberals clocks. They will get wound up over whoever is the nominee.In other news, I predicted this two years ago: Bernanke is pushing for foreclosures to be rented. Not satisfied with killing the housing sale market, Mr. Brilliance will now ruin the rental market through oversupply.They just can't figure it out. Let the market be for 18 months and things would start to straighten out. But no, they've got to keep dabbling and screwing it up.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2012 10:53 AM (Usk3+)

87 So glad we (by which I mean republicans in general) chased out all the real conservatives for their minor heterodoxies, leaving us with the inevitable flip-flopper who can't get it done even with every conceivable advantage, the half-manic serial adulterer who couldn't bully Clinton successfully with the strongest post-war Republican Congress in history, and the guy who got blown out in his own state and thinks gay parents are worse than felons. Damn you Perry for bringing only a gun to the primary war--he would have been a great president if only he'd done his homework before jumping in instead of trying to cram along the way.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at February 11, 2012 10:54 AM (1zwZo)

88 I've fallen and can't get up!

Posted by: Ironside at February 11, 2012 10:54 AM (WUWb9)

89 Mitt's gotta pull hard right, not sure if he can flip on so many issues

I think he doesn't really need to flip on lots of issues, it's more a matter of tone. He has tried to be as moderate sounding as he can because that is what will win him the mushy middle, but at some point, apparently now, he needs to pull in the base. Perhaps this can be done with a strong CPAC speech, which I have heard he delivered yesterday. More likely, he'll need to follow that up with some red meat, fire and brimstone. He can do that when pressed- just ask Newt.

Posted by: pepl at February 11, 2012 10:55 AM (6TB1Z)

90 I want the government to stay out of social issues and stick to the fiscal and foreign affairs that the constitution mandates. I don;t really care how people choose to have sex or how they go about pursuing happiness, I just want to be able to make a living and heat my home without the government regulating the industries necessary to keep the economy healthy out of business. Focusing on abortion policy and food stamps is playing right in to the hands of the left. We can never be compassionate enough or generous enough for them. Our candidates should be talking about where they would take the country and how they would do it, not the day to day needling from the press designed to catch them in gotchas providing fodder for the Dems.

Posted by: Sharon at February 11, 2012 10:55 AM (1pWuD)

91 Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 10:51 AM (P6QsQ)

No offense but...who gives a shit?

He is unelectable.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 11, 2012 10:55 AM (nEUpB)

92 Gawd, I'm sick of this site not formating right. I'm outta here. I'll check back occasionallyto see if it ever gets fixed.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 11, 2012 10:55 AM (Usk3+)

93 Rick Santorum isn't perfect on conservative issues, but he has taken a lot of arrows for social conservatives. It would not be helpful to Mitt to make a martyr out of him.

Mitt may be left with no choice but to make an appeal to conservatives based on a bold policy approach.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 10:56 AM (azHfB)

94 I think he should latch on to the Catholic-Obamacare thing and ride it like a hot whore on a Saturday night. -------------------------------------
This I would love to see.

Posted by: StrangernFiction at February 11, 2012 10:56 AM (VDZLQ)

95 Romney is a status quo wall street Republican. Not saying wall street is evil, it's just the truth. And it won't be a winning message in November.

Posted by: Chris at February 11, 2012 10:57 AM (Hhjot)

96
The real question is whether the Republican nominee can create enough
excitement among possible voters to come out and vote the JEF out of
office.


It's not just up to the nominee to excite a robust turnout. The actions of Boehner, McConnell and the rest of the Republicans in Congress for the past 1+ years will have a lot do with the turnout on November 6th.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 10:57 AM (sqkOB)

97 Rick Santorum is simply the vessel that the conservatives are pouring their hopes into. Rick Santorum, like Noot Gingrich, is simply the latest iteration of the NotMitt. I think the last NotMitt standing goes on to win both the repuke nomination, but also the general. Obama simply cannot win. All of the numbers are stacked against him.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 11, 2012 10:57 AM (jucos)

98 As to the issue of fiscal conservatism, the problem we now face is that we have a country that lives beyond it's means, and requires someone to come in and clean house, identify what needs to be done to get us back on fiscal track, and implement it. You know, a turnaround artist. Now where can we find someone like that?

Posted by: pepl at February 11, 2012 10:57 AM (6TB1Z)

99 60 PPP is a really good pollster too.They only missed the MN primary by 30 points, Missouri by 15 points and in Colorado they picked the wrong winner with a 15 point error.
Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 10:47 AM (MtwBb)

Good enough for governmentunemployment figures.

Posted by: Pattons' Boot Licker at February 11, 2012 10:57 AM (NljtA)

100 These polls have been changing so radically, so quickly, that I think
what is really going on with the GOP electorate is an overwhelming
desire to choose the One Most Likely to Beat Obama.


no I don't think that's it.

if that were the case, we'd all be in the Mittens Collective, as he has consistently demonstrated strength in the polls w.r.t. Obama, while the others have their fleeting moment of glory but no consistent long-term track record.

no, I think what it is is that base voters are not willing to settle for someone who is as unreliably conservative as Mittens, even though he probably does stand the best chance vs. Obama. We are all determined to go the Angle/O'Donnell route this election. well then, fine. if that is what people are determined to do, then let's do it. we will get 4 more years of SCOAMF, ObamaCare forever, and a 6-3 or 7-2 lib majority on SCOTUS. But it is the Tea Party's moment right now so let's just embrace the moment and be done with it.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 10:57 AM (7FadD)

101 Rick Santorum is the real TRUE CONSERVATIVE though. It's proven over and over, like in his 2006 TV ad when he was running for the senate.

He rightly points out that being a TRUE CONSERVATIVE means passing his bill to raise the minimum wage or fighting the whitehouse when Bush tried to cut AMTRAK funding.

Nobody is as conservative as the Rickster.

http://tinyurl.com/6u8w6nj

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 10:58 AM (MtwBb)

102 #87 Amen. Conservatives brought this on themselves by constantly moving the bar around for what constitutes an unacceptable apostasy. I'll never understand why gicing in-state tuition to a handful of kids of illegal immmigrants in Texs suddenly became the equivalent of personally performing abortions.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 10:58 AM (A0UFZ)

103 I think it's clear Rush Limbaugh want 4 more years of Obama.
No way in hell Santorum beats obama. No way.

Posted by: rectal exam at February 11, 2012 10:59 AM (O7ksG)

104 I think he should latch on to the Catholic-Obamacare thing and ride it like a hot whore on a Saturday night. -------------------------------------
I am NOT amused!

Posted by: Hot Whore at February 11, 2012 10:59 AM (WUWb9)

105
An Occupy Wall Street Spoof that is right up the morons' alley!http://tinyurl.com/7axsuhw

Posted by: Barney's Frank in Freddie's Fannie at February 11, 2012 11:00 AM (XBEWJ)

106 i find it hysterical that people are upset by a social conservative.......santorum if he is the candidate (i don't think he will be) or elected president (i don't think he will be) is not coming into anyones bedroom to regulate with whom or how they are going to have sex......it amazes me that people think social conservatives are intolerant! the left and the social libs are the intolerant ones......look what the scoamf has done and is doing!!!!!! and you are worried about santorum? wow......i'm not a santorum, gingrich or romney fan.......but who ever our guy is........i'm voting for........

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 11, 2012 11:00 AM (Ho2rs)

107
I said this at HotAir last night:

So let me get this straight.....the guy who backed Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio is unacceptable, but the guy who backed ARLEN SPECTER is the TrueConservative??

Ooooookay.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:00 AM (A0UFZ)

108 Obama simply cannot win.

Oh of course he can, especially against a guy like Santorum.

Santorum epitomizes a huge truckload of negative conservative stereotypes. Hates gays? check. Preaching moralizing busybody? Check. Eager to invade other countries (e.g. Iran)? Check. That is what the campaign will be if we nominate Santorum - Obama will turn all $1 billion on to reinforcing the negative conservative stereotype. He won't have to say one word about his failed stimulus or ObamaCare or any of that.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 11:00 AM (7FadD)

109 *"And why is Rush Limbaugh playing along? It's a side question, but I have to wonder why he's allowing this to happen."*


Because Rush cares about one thing, Rush. The modern Elmer Gantry for the desperate conservative masses.

Posted by: lowandslow at February 11, 2012 11:01 AM (GZitp)

110 And no I don't think Santorum really hates gays, but that will be the MSM spin.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 11:01 AM (7FadD)

111 "What a disaster this whole thing is."

It could be worse because at least guys won't have to put up with wearing rubbers anymore.

Posted by: Random at February 11, 2012 11:01 AM (YiE0S)

112 DrewM, why do you refer to Mitt Romney as "this whole thing"?

Posted by: stuiec at February 11, 2012 11:01 AM (thqK1)

113
Republicans are in a pickle. Obama painted them into a corner with this payroll tax cut farce.

The Republicans will extend Obama's scam tax cut, which will make Obama look good.

Incidentally, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire on 12/31. It's after the election but you can bet your sweet white lilly asses that the media/Democrats will make it an election issue.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 11:02 AM (sqkOB)

114 Romney could seize the Catholic issue and use it as a club to beat down ObamaCare as an infrigement by an out-of-control government on individual rights-- but he'd have to face the individual mandate issue as part of that.

He might be better off if he did, but he just won't back away from that.

Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 11:02 AM (MMC8r)

115 Anyways, it IS getting a little depressin.

On the up side, he is the last Not-Romney, so this can't go on. Well, except for SMOD, of course.

JeffB-I felt exactly the same way, and was proven wrong. I'm not ready to slit my wrists yet this time.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 11:03 AM (6TB1Z)

116 I think Santorum lays out a reasonable argument for the connection between strong families and fiscal conservatism. It is the breakdown of the family unit that is a leading contributor to the need for ever-growing social services and a larger and larger safety net.

Without strong families, you get an enormously higher rate of people dependent upon social services. You get a higher rate of school dropouts, underemployment, crime, teen pregnancy, etc etc. Look at what the breakdown in the family structure has wrought within the black communities. Without strong families, we get a larger and larger welfare state.

So those who say socially conservative values have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility are just wrong.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 11:03 AM (P6QsQ)

117 Funny to read blame assigned to Rush for this.

Mitt tried to win without conservatives. He now knows he cant. He should move right on fiscal issues, including budget and taxes, and stop pretending he was some sort of Reaganite back in the day. Thats just insulting our intelligence.

Posted by: Y-not on iphone at February 11, 2012 11:03 AM (5H6zj)

118 @62

Being there, great flick, but you have to watch uncut version.

Best line?

"I like to watch"

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 11, 2012 11:04 AM (hXJOG)

119 Mitt's gotta pull hard right, not sure if he can flip on so many issues

If he's going to flip, STAY FLIPPED!

Posted by: t-bird at February 11, 2012 11:05 AM (FcR7P)

120 It was filmed at the Biltmore House in Asheville, NC.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 11, 2012 11:05 AM (hXJOG)

121 So sure, deal with conservatives now, buttercup. Better late than
never, I guess, but at this point, yeah, I'll take Santorum over the
precious, inevitable Mitt.


You don't really care about defeating Obama in November, do you? You really only care about defeating the phantom "Republican Establishment" instead, regardless of what that means for the future of the nation.

This is really just an oedipal exercise for some people, I think.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:05 AM (hIWe1)

122 91 Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 10:51 AM (P6QsQ)No offense but...who gives a shit?He is unelectable.
----------------------------------------

But Mitt IS electable?

Posted by: StrangernFiction at February 11, 2012 11:06 AM (VDZLQ)

123 The disaster has been Romney.
Did everybody forget 2010? Did our own people forget the tea party?
This is what my tea partiers were saying in January "NO TO ROMNEY!" and that's in moderate Republicancentral New Jersey.
Santorum is the last not-Romney standing and he worked long and hard and smart to be that, so let us give credit where credit it due.
And here's another aspect, none of us have like any of them very much - but I surmise we would have felt the same way about any of the didn't-runs if they had actually become candidates.
(Just a few examples: Chris Christie fat, facist, pro-life pig, Mitch Daniels homoculus with a slutty wife, Paul Ryan heartless, inexperienced, green-eye shaded geek, etc. etc. I mean no offense, but these are the things that would have been said.)
Everyone is wringing their hands that Santorum will be defamed by the MSM, but how can you fail to realize that will happen to anyone who is the nominee?
I think Santorum brings some good traits with him and would provide a great contrast to the empty-suit currently in the WH.
People need to buck up just a little and the Republican party needs to get over the "next in line" approach, because that really is killing us.


Posted by: Jocon307 at February 11, 2012 11:06 AM (V8xI5)

124 You don't really care about defeating Obama in November, do you?



I absolutely do. And I can't for the life of me see how Mitt gets us there.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 11:06 AM (P6QsQ)

125 Shit this crowd is fast, see "I like to watch" already made it.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 11, 2012 11:07 AM (hXJOG)

126
#106, you and I know this, of course, but a shit-ton of voters out there don't. By the time Axelrod gets thrugh with Santorum, he will look like a modern-day Torquemada preparing to run an Inquisition against Teh Gheys and burn them all. Santorum's views really are extreme on this stuff. I don't know how else to say it. Pretty much everyone under the age of 40 now is pretty tolerant of gays, doesn't think they are destroying Western Civilization, and will not vote for a guy who does.

We also haven't even heard yet about the whole Terri Schiavo disaster. Santorum led the whole Republican Party off a cliff on that one. I do personally blame him for my own Congressman losing in 2006; we lost 5 seats in the House in Pennsylvania that year, largely because of Santorum dragging down the entire ticket. Terri Schiavo waas from our district and this got hung around every Republican's neck, and the suburban soccer moms here went apeshit and all voted straight Democrat. Santorum's opponent hardley even campaigned, and he still lost by almost 20 points. By the end of the campaign he was babbling about going to war with Iran. It was like watching the political equivalent of "This Is Spinal Tap" with him speaking to birthday parties and Bar Mitzvahs at the end. Just gruesome.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:07 AM (A0UFZ)

127 So, Mitt is going full, even severe Conservative now.

Cool.

Mitt's new plan calls for him to vigorously list all the reasons he is nothing like Mitt Romney.

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 11:07 AM (DTX4S)

128
We need a fiscal con.
We get fools, nuts, and blowhards.
Axelrod and Barry smile.

Posted by: Brown Line at February 11, 2012 11:08 AM (iacXr)

129 " I'll never understand why gicing in-state tuition to a handful of kids
of illegal immmigrants in Texs suddenly became the equivalent of
personally performing abortions."


Rick Perry's campaign didn't collapse because of in-state tuition for illegals, or because of Tardasil, it fell apart because he looked like a doofus in most of the early debates, which you can't blame on anyone but the candidate. I am sure Rick Perry is more conservative than Romney or Santorum. I am also sure he would have made a fine president. But he has no one but himself to blame for not wowing the electorate when he first broke out.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 11:08 AM (azHfB)

130 Nat Silver at NY Slime is now saying Rick has a chance.

This is really depressing me.

24
Brokered Convention 2012! It Couldn't Be Any Worse!


I with ya on that!

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 11, 2012 11:08 AM (hXJOG)

131 You know, a turnaround artist. Now where can we find someone like that?

Tanned, rested, and ready baby. Just say the word.

Posted by: "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap aka 'Rambo in Pinstripes" at February 11, 2012 11:09 AM (4q5tP)

132
What a disaster this whole thing is.

I think it's great!

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 11:10 AM (7+pP9)

133 Another old flick that is pretty cool, Clockwork Orange.

How socialism will "help" your kids.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 11, 2012 11:10 AM (hXJOG)

134 ......look what the scoamf has done and is doing!!!!!! and you are worried about santorum? wow......i'm not a santorum, gingrich or romney fan.......but who ever our guy is........i'm voting for........
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 11, 2012 11:00 AM (Ho2rs)

I don't care that he is a so con. His preachyness gets old but no worse than Obamas preachyness on social justice.

My problem with Santorum is that he is a Big Government republican. He even made TV ads bragging about it, he still thinks earmarks are wonderful and wants to use the tax code to pick winners and losers.

He's a blue collar catholic like my parents were, they eventually turned into Reagan democrats but it was a long conversion.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 11:10 AM (MtwBb)

135 Is it too late to jump on the Cain Train? Nein! Whoo, Whoo...

Posted by: Ammo Dump at February 11, 2012 11:10 AM (WUWb9)

136 We tried the "big tent" philosophy with Reagan. It seemed to work pretty well.

Now it seems we are determined to try the "narrow tent" philosophy instead, based on the assumption that there are a huge chunk of conservative-leaning voters out there who would stay home if it was some squish RINO pansy like Mittens, but are just dying to vote for a "fighter" like Santorum.

I think it is a dubious assumption, personally. But we will see.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 11:11 AM (7FadD)

137 So, Mitt is going full, even severe Conservative now.

My friends, I have seen the light! ...again. Ooh, there's another one...

Posted by: Mittens! at February 11, 2012 11:11 AM (FcR7P)

138
hmmmm...

"A strange virus causes the majority of the female population to turn
into lethal carnivorous zombie strippers. A small band of survivors -
amiable geek Idaho, laconic macho cowboy Frisco, spunky Virginia, and
her scrappy sister West - embark on a dangerous cross country trek to
get to Grandma's house in Portland, Oregon."

That's the plot for STRIPPERLAND.

Current Facechimp Mood: Contemplating

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 11:12 AM (sqkOB)

139 You guys honestly believe the same Romney who trashed Reagan, advanced Romneycare, supported homosexual "rights", raised taxes, was pro-abortion, said he would defend social security, and refused to support the surge is going to be a substantial improvement over Obama?

Posted by: Chris at February 11, 2012 11:13 AM (Hhjot)

140
#129 Perry was dead after the first debate, because he said one word, "heartless." That came BEFORE all the other stupid gaffes. Were you not here or at HotAir or anywhere else after that debate? It was brutal. Michelle Malkin was ready to personally shoot him in the face. If people had cut him some slack on that one and gotten behind him, he could have weathered all the other stuff.

Wouldn't you rather have Perry ahead now in this race, even with some goofiness in debates, than what we are left with? Perry was right on all the issues we care about, andhe had plenty of big money behind him. Just imagine if he had been the frontrunner this week when this religious freedom issue hit. OMG, he would have hit that one out of the park.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:13 AM (A0UFZ)

141 51 Chauncey Gardner 2012. Unstoppable.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 11, 2012 10:43 AM (4q5tP)

That’s exactly what we need. A brokered convention can give us someone who no one knows anything about, so that everyone can wishcast their favorite attributes on him (or her).

Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2012 11:13 AM (FdndL)

142 This is really just an oedipal exercise for some people, I think.

yup. it's Angle/O'Donnell all over again.

we all are determined to show those evil RINO Castles that they are not welcome, even if it means losing an election.

it's one thing to lose the Delaware Senate election, it's quite another to lose a presidential election.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 11:13 AM (7FadD)

143
Romney can't run with the contraceptive issue for a few reasons:
1. He mandated a similar thing in Massachusetts, and Santorum is just waiting for him to say something in a debate so that he can bash Romney and Obama at the same time.
2. Romney's 'winning coalition' for the general election will be more built on independent voters and leaners than conservatives. He knows this and doesn't want to do things that will hurt him with his soon to be core constituents (female, married, independent and conservative leaning voters).
3. He really doesn't care about this issue, and it will show in his half-hearted and awkward attempt to oppose something he doesn't care about.

Posted by: Paper at February 11, 2012 11:13 AM (IvlIt)

144 Re the turn around artist thing. The Touble is i am confident mitt would be good to wall street. I am not confident he understands main street.

Give me a sign you will starve the fed govt and really lower my taxes, mitt, and we can talk.

Posted by: Y-not on iphone at February 11, 2012 11:14 AM (5H6zj)

145 chemjeff - if Romney is so electable, how come he can't get elected?

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 11:14 AM (P6QsQ)

146 139
You guys honestly believe the same Romney who trashed Reagan, advanced
Romneycare, supported homosexual "rights", raised taxes, was
pro-abortion, said he would defend social security, and refused to
support the surge is going to be a substantial improvement over Obama?



yup.

having someone in there who DOESN'T HATE AMERICA is going to be a substantial improvement over Obama.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 11:15 AM (7FadD)

147 I see a lot of "he can't win" and "he wants to create a theocracy" type comments regarding Santorum.

Neither of which, of course, makes the case for Romney. Sure, you could say "Romney can win" and "Romney DOES NOT want to create a theocracy," but that's hardly an improvement on Mitt's previous case, which was "Romney can win" and "Romney doesn't want to build colonies on the moon."

You Romney folks, do you not see the source of your problem? I can't spell it out any more clearly than that. If you haven't figured it out yet, I can't help you.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 11:15 AM (Gc/Qi)

148 Once all those damned conservatives are kicked out of the tent it'll be enormous. And empty.

Posted by: Heorot at February 11, 2012 11:15 AM (rnFTE)

149
PPP has been off lately, but those 15 - 25 point misses have all been because they radically underestimated Santorum's support.
It is very clear that Santorum has strong momentum, but it is not clear exactly how long that will last withlittle national organization, particularly if Romney uses his money to go negative.

Posted by: Paper at February 11, 2012 11:16 AM (IvlIt)

150
#139 Personally I am sick of cons who keep throwing shit at Romney that (a) is mostly not true anyway, and (b) goes back almost 20 years. You do know that Reagan was once a proud Democrat and union president, don't you? He probably would have stayed a Democrat had it not been for what he was seeing the Communists doing in Hollywood. He first was floated as a Presidential candidate just 20 years after he voted for Harry Truman. As Governor of California he signed the nation's most liberal abortion law.

If Reagan was running today he'd be a damn dirty RINO to most of you.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:18 AM (A0UFZ)

151 "This cycle is no more of a clusterfuck than Barky vs Sir Edmund Hillary Rodham Clinton."
My memory is a bit hazy on this, but I don't think this was at the same level of CF as the one we're dealing with. We have three main candidates who nobody from our side seems to be comfortable with - for good reasons. I hope we'll all support whoever wins, but man, what a mess of a choice.
As I recall, Obama and Hilary were both viewed as viable candidates. I think most Dems would have been delighted with Hilary and gave her the inside track to start with, but the record showed that Obama was (if possible) even more liberal. I know there was some infighting and bitterness, but from a Dems' point of view, if Obama can fight it out and beat her in the primaries, more power to him, and we still have a very liberal guy who we can all rally around and be happy with.
But you're right, no choice but to soldier on. Our candidates are what they are, and they are what we've got. Hopefully, it's always darkest before dawn.

Posted by: RM at February 11, 2012 11:18 AM (TRsME)

152 Mitt said he was a severely conservative Governor of Massachusetts.

What did he mean by that?

Did he mean that he, compared to a typical MA Governor, was severely conservative?

Did he mean the he governed as a conservative and doing so was severe in some way?

Did he mean that what he did was, in his mind, severely conservative, and if so, what is his definition of mildly conservative, and moderately conservative?

I think his statement reveals he is a Liberal and doing anything Conservative was severe to him.


Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 11:18 AM (DTX4S)

153 And give "unelectable Rick" some slack. He actually has been talking about economic issues like reviving manufacturing, which matters to people not in the wall street bubble. So it's untrue that he is just a one note candidate.

Posted by: Chris at February 11, 2012 11:18 AM (Hhjot)

154 >>>So those who say socially conservative values have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility are just wrong.

This sort of reminds me of the people who expended immense effort in attempt to convince us that all Sarah Palin had to do to reverse his horrifyingly bad unfavorables and public reputation was "go on the offensive" and "explain it to the people."

Yes, maybe with a captive and/or receptive audience of people predisposed to sympathize with Santorum, he could make a sort of coherent argument that related his weird, creepy obsession with homosexual sex and his otherwise hardcore "government intervention"-focused version of social conservatism to the economic issues the nation currently cares about.

But it's not going to happen. It's a weak and attenuated argument as it is, and people aren't going to pay attention long enough to absorb that sort of casuistry anyway. The fact is, the idea of "Rick Santorum" conveys only one impression to most American voters: "gays are creepy and weird." That, plus maybe "the government really needs to get back to imposing Christian morality." These are positions that are both easily caricatured AND unpopular (and, I'd argue, unconservative too!).

Santorum will get us destroyed. He won't lose women at the same rate Gingrich would have, but it'll be close. He has no executive experience, no economic experience. He has even closer ties to shady and disreputable lobbying that Gingrich, for fuck's sake. He was a co-founder and Senate liasion to the infamous "K Street Project" that embroiled the Republican party in the Jack Abramoff scandal. What, you think that little bit of well-known oppo research isn't going to suddenly reemerge? What, you thought that just because Santorum looks like a square, Christian guy that he wasn't involved in some shady corrupt-looking political shenanigans? Oops.

If Santorum wins the nomination, it really will confirm the thesis many have floated about how the Tea Party movement really died after November 2010, and the name was simply taken over by the same old evangelical usual suspects whose REAL agenda is disastrous social conservatism.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:18 AM (hIWe1)

155 WhoTF thinks Santorum has a chance against Barky? Is anyone taking this election seriously?!

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at February 11, 2012 11:19 AM (zNbcJ)

156 Give me a sign you will starve the fed govt and really lower my taxes, mitt, and we can talk

Forget signs, the fact is that there is no other way to turn things around-and he knows it. In business turnarounds, the metric of success is the continued existence and profit margin of the company. By any measure, Mitt was a huge success at this.

Newt's line about turning things around as compared to "managing the decay" is a good line, but the fact is that if that were what Romney did, he wouldn't be worth $250m today. He is about turning things around, not managing decay. If he did nothing else, then his presidency would be a success.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 11:20 AM (6TB1Z)

157
If Reagan was running today he'd be a damn dirty RINO to most of you.

Congratulations, You Win!!!

You Are The 1,000th Person To Type That Phrase on AoS!!!


Posted by: You Win! at February 11, 2012 11:20 AM (sqkOB)

158 Perhaps Reagan didn't qualify as 100% conservative on 100% of what we
deem conservative issues to be, 100% of the time by today's standards.
The issues that demanded attention from the nation, and the concerns
that voters focused upon were different. I think everyone recognizes
that.

What's different is that Reagan was consistently
advocating conservative principles. He articulated conservative ideas.
He educated the populace on why conservatism was good, and vital, and
necessary to the nation. When he governed, he sometimes compromised. But
he never stopped advancing conservatism as the goal or the guideline.
When he spoke - when he taught - when he breathed - he breathed the
language of conservatism.

No one doubted where Reagan's heart
was. It was firmly beating inside a conservative man. I do not have the
first clue where Romney's heart is or what language it speaks.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 11:20 AM (P6QsQ)

159 If we can spirit Kim Jong Un out of North Korea and have him primary Obama, we could splinter the Democratic vote:
- He wasn't born in America
- He can capture the Asian demographic (why Asians break for Democrats is a complete mystery to me, except for the fact that they all seem to think that they're smarter than whitey)
- He has no real experience
- He's undisciplined and has extravagant tastes
- His father was a Marxist and a dissolute alcoholic

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at February 11, 2012 11:21 AM (j/FEl)

160 Let's get this show on the road.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=chTQbyyzSfk

Posted by: SMODpac at February 11, 2012 11:23 AM (AZGON)

161 Jeff B. where do you see a "tea party" candidate in this cycle. Mitt, I am not against him at all, but come on. Gingrich no way. The tea party has to settle for a compromise(d) candidate in '12 just like the rest of us.

Posted by: kehoe at February 11, 2012 11:23 AM (wXB+s)

162
Thank you Jeff B. The stupid is strong with a lot of people these days.

All this is doing is making me not even care if we win this election. Santroum won't beat Obama. And if Mitt Romney does, we're going to have to listen to screeching from conservatives for four years every time he opens his mouth and doesn't say "Death to Liberals!!!1!1!1!!!"

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:23 AM (A0UFZ)

163 It's pretty clear at this late date that Romney simply isn't sealing the deal. Normally at this point the Romney attack machine would get going and try to destroy Santorum but some conservatives reportedly urged Romney not to go down that road again for fear of alienating conservatives.


Mittens needs to just fade away, already. It's very clear that he's the John McShame of 2012 (with Mittens loving himself some health insurance mandates a la McShame's loving of printing up unlimited numbers of citizenships for illegals who are all citizens of other countries). If Mittens really cared about America (not just about being President) then he'd pull out of this race the same way that McShame should have left the primary when his Shamnesty was roundly rejected and he became the most despised person in the GOP (no mean feat, itself).

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 11:23 AM (X3lox)

164 #129 Perry was dead after the first debate, because he said one word,
"heartless."

Well, 1. That was a pretty significant fumble, since he was attacking supporters of Border Security from the left. And while he eventually recovered from it pretty well by talking up Border Security, he did let the word hang there. It was a classic gaffe of a politician slipping up and saying what he really thought. 2. It needn't have killed his campaign, and wouldn't have had he not followed up with his inept and embarrassing attacks on Mitt Romney in subsequent debates, or his awful forgetting which cabinet departments he wanted to eliminate.

"Wouldn't you rather have Perry
ahead now in this race, even with some goofiness in debates, than what
we are left with?"

I actually would. It's a crying shame he couldn't pull his campaign together and recover after those early stumbles. But those setbacks were also a test of his managerial acumen and electability. If he can't manage the stumbles of a primary campaign, how could he cope with the massive media onslaught that awaited him when he went up against the United Media Church of St. Obama?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 11:24 AM (azHfB)

165 And give "unelectable Rick" some slack. He actually has been talking about economic issues like reviving manufacturing, which matters to people not in the wall street bubble. So it's untrue that he is just a one note candidate.
Posted by: Chris at February 11, 2012 11:18 AM (Hhjot)


Right, you know how he wants to do it? He wants to give people manufacturing overseas a tax break while leaving the rest of American businesses with high taxes. He call us companies that haven't moved overseas "captive companies" so fuck em, instead of revising the tax code for everybody.

You know who else has the policy? Barack Obama, he outlined it in his SOTU speech.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 11:25 AM (MtwBb)

166 145 chemjeff - if Romney is so electable, how come he can't get elected?
Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 11:14 AM (P6QsQ)

first, I am not one who overplays the ELECTABILITY!!!1!!!!!1 card. that would be Jen Rubin. I do think his electability-ness has been overstated.
that said, though, it is undeniable to point to the polls of the past year to see that Mitt has been the only R candidate who has consistently over time performed well vs. Obama.
I think if we do nominate Mitt, it will be a hard sell, but it will be the least hard sell.
it is also true that Mittens is the least conservative candidate remaining (excluding Luap Nor of course). the Tea Party has pulled the Republican base substantially to the right over the past three years, and it has largely been for the better I think.

so Mitt is having a hard time, I think in large part because we have the most conservative base in a long time voting in the primaries.
In other years I think Mitt would be doing a lot better. He has a lot of *classic* conservative credentials: executive experience, private sector management experience, a calm, level-headed demeanor, an ability to get things done with Democrats while, even if they are compromises, still represent advancing conservative ideas even in just a small way. Think back to 2000 - wasn't it one of Bush's strong selling points that he was able to work successfully with D's in the Texas Legislature? That didn't seem to sink his candidacy.
but this time around, we don't appear content with the classic, traditional approach to conservatism. we want radical conservatism, someone who will breathe fire and pummel Obama and take the fight to the enemy. Mitt is not that guy.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 11:26 AM (7FadD)

167 I thought Santorum should have dropped out by now. In fact I wish Gingrich and Santorumwould drop and Perrywas stillin it. I also wish Perry didn't choke under pressure.

Posted by: rectal exam at February 11, 2012 11:26 AM (O7ksG)

168 Oh, and that's the other argument for Romney... "Sssshhhhhh! He's really really a conservative, but we have to be really really really really really really REALLY quiet about it, lest those non-conservative people over there find out about it."

Great trick folks, nobody smells ANY conservative stink is coming from Romney!

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 11:26 AM (Gc/Qi)

169 Why do the Romney die hards resort to attacking the motivations of the people who are not on Team Romney?

Several of us have laid out a case for Romney over Santorum, but you insist on inserting emotion into this. You are not helping your candidate.

Posted by: Y-not at February 11, 2012 11:27 AM (5H6zj)

170
I wouldn't get too disheartened about the Tea Party, if you think of yiourself as a Tea Partier. A movement that sprang up organically in 2010 was not going to get organized enough to find and get behind a candidate for President in 2012. I guess we got close with Herman Cain, but that just shows that it takes time to vet candidates and a few months is not enough time.

I'm starting to think Obama may win reelection this year, but his second term will be as bad as Bush's was, because the Senate will go Republican and kill everything he wants to do, and he'll lose public support rapidly. The bad thing is that we won't repeal Obamacare and it will be a bitch for President Ron Johnson to do it in 2017.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:28 AM (A0UFZ)

171 Part of me actually wants to nominate Romney just to prove that he would lose. What is with this illogical shit saying that Santorum will be easily caricatured while completely ignoring that Romney is already well on his way to being viewed as an out of touch richie rich plutocrat? That's why my paranoia kicks in and wonders whether or not Romney has paid agents posting here.

Posted by: Chris at February 11, 2012 11:28 AM (Hhjot)

172 167 -
"I also wish Perry didn't choke under pressure."

Posted by: rectal exam at February 11, 2012 11:26 AM (O7ksG)

You know what I wish? Everyone else would dry up and blow away, except me, Katy Perry, Christina Hendricks, and that cute chick from accounting where I work. What a world it would be then... what a world.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 11:29 AM (Gc/Qi)

173 Yes, maybe with a captive and/or receptive
audience of people predisposed to sympathize with Santorum, he could
make a sort of coherent argument that related his weird, creepy
obsession with homosexual sex and his otherwise hardcore "government
intervention"-focused version of social conservatism to the economic
issues the nation currently cares about.



Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:18 AM (hIWe1)


You call opposition to anal sex and its promotion to social acceptance and replacement of marriage and the call to "go forth and prosper" to be a "weird, creepy obsession". You're weird and creepy. Seriously. Are you nuts?

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 11:29 AM (X3lox)

174 This fantasy talk about a brokered convention is embarrassing to read on this blog. Not going to happen.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 10:52 AM (sqkOB)

All you need to do is show a plausible way one of the current nominees gets to the required number of delegates, then the talk of a brokered convention will die down.

Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2012 11:29 AM (FdndL)

175 OT: We're currently being subjected to a radio campaign supporting high-speed rail in CA, trying to allay our fears about the problems. "In 1939, people called the interstate highway system 'New Deal jitterbug economics'"...

Ah-hah, thank you, Mr. FDR.

Posted by: t-bird at February 11, 2012 11:30 AM (FcR7P)

176 >>>If
Mittens really cared about America (not just about being President) then
he'd pull out of this race the same way that McShame should have left
the primary when his Shamnesty was roundly rejected and he became the
most despised person in the GOP (no mean feat, itself).


Why should we listen to anything a Birther has to say?

Question for you: is Marco Rubio constitutionally eligible to be Vice-President?

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:30 AM (hIWe1)

177 Headed to an art sale downtown. Normally this would be grounds for a man-card suspension at a minimum, especially considering that I instigated the trip. But I believe I'm redeemed by the fact that the objects (tens of thousands of them) are all from the historic collection/storage of the RJReynolds Company. Tons of old stuff like prints and tobacco boxes all the way up to grandfather clocks, original bronzes, etc. At the very least, I'll pick up some knickknack from the eeeevil tobacco company and display it on my mantle as conversation bait for Liberals. That's the plan anyway.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 11, 2012 11:31 AM (hiMsy)

178
The problem is this in a nutshell; All three of our candidates, I don't include Paul because he's notRepublican, they are losers.
Mitt didn't run for re-election in Mass. Lost to McCain.
Santorum lost re-election big.
Gingrinch driven from speakership because he squandered the largest victory in R history.
These guys are second string, we have to decide which second string offensive lineman we want to go with. The MSM is running with the GREATEST QUARTERBACK IN HISTORY.
This is going to take unity behind the nominee and HUGE turnout. Otherwise O wins. Big.

Posted by: kehoe at February 11, 2012 11:32 AM (wXB+s)

179 Can we donate money somewhere to help send Pixy to Javascript Programming 101. This text entry system is one of the worst I have ever seen. And every time it changes .... it still sucks.




This ain't rocket science. This ain't even model rocket science.

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 11:32 AM (X3lox)

180 156 Give me a sign you will starve the fed govt and really lower my taxes, mitt, and we can talk

Forget signs, the fact is that there is no other way to turn things around-and he knows it.

Currently his tax and budget plans do not show a big deviation from status quo. Gingrich's do. That's the problem.

And the thing is that Romney really does not project that he "gets" what "regular" people are facing. He does not get what the suffering is. He sees improvement in the stock market and thinks that things are improving, but for most of us they are not. And they will get worse if the Federal leviathan is not cut drastically.

There is no boldness in Romney's economic agenda, which is surprising because that's where he should be able to be bold.

That's why I still have them Gingrich >> Romney > Santorum.

Posted by: Y-not at February 11, 2012 11:32 AM (5H6zj)

181
it's one thing to lose the Delaware Senate election, it's quite another to lose a presidential election.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 11:13 AM (7FadD)


Romney is the perfect opponent for Obama:

Mr. Wall Street.

Romneycare.

"I like to fire people."

"I don't care about the poor."

Obama and the FM will destroy Willard.

Romney is unelectable.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 11:32 AM (7+pP9)

182 Either anybody can beat Obama or no one can. The electability issue is kind of a wash. And no matter how much you try to spin it, Rick Santorum is not Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. They were both neophytes, they ran bad campaigns, and they were abandoned by the GOP establishment in both states and left to flounder. Rick Santorum is certainly no neophyte. Yes, he lost his last election to a man who is quite possibly mentally retarded... Bob Casey, the Brick Tamlyn of the US Senate... But Mittens didn't even try to run for re-election in 2006 because he knew he would have been beaten like Rihanna on a double date with Chris and Jackson Brown. But he has run several campaigns before, and the fact that he made it this far on a shoestring speaks to his managerial acumen. As for whether the GOP establishment would take its marbles and go home if Santorum is the nominee, my suspicion is, they don't expect to win any way, but they do want to win the senate, so they would probably support him. Probably without a lot of enthusiasm, but they wouldn't be actively working against him the way the Delaware and Nevada GOP worked against O'Donnell and Angle.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 11:32 AM (azHfB)

183 Dennis Miller/Drew Carey 2012

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 11, 2012 11:33 AM (lgw0N)

184 Yes, maybe with a captive and/or receptive audience of people
predisposed to sympathize with Santorum, he could make a sort of
coherent argument that related his weird, creepy obsession with
homosexual sex and his otherwise hardcore "government
intervention"-focused version of social conservatism to the economic
issues the nation currently cares about.

It's got nothing to do with homo sex; it's that homo sex is the vehicle being used to advance totalitarianism. If it was about buttsex (almost) no one would give a shit. The reality is you are thrown in jail for declaring homo sex as wrong in most of the west. You are legally harassed for years and banned from public discourse on the subject for declaring homo sex wrong (preachers in Canada). We (in most states, agiants the will of the people) are forced to legally sanction buttsex as the equivalent of hetero for marriage. Churches are forced (in Europe) to host gay marriages against their will. Chaplains cant speak out against buttsex in the military any longer. So its got nothing to do with the sex act but everything to do with resisting totalitarians.

Posted by: pashmr at February 11, 2012 11:33 AM (3aNC4)

185 Romney is already well on his way to being viewed as an out of touch richie rich plutocrat?

Didn't work out so well for Newt, did it. Now if you're talking about the general electorate, it will certainly work with the 40% or so who live on government cheese, but they were out of reach anyway. For the remainder, I have no doubt that someone known as a highly successful businessman will have it much easier than an ex-Senator with social views that are a bit out of the mainstream. I'm not knocking Santorum, he would be a huge improvement, but no, I don't think he can win.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 11:34 AM (6TB1Z)

186 Doom. We are having it.

Posted by: SarahW at February 11, 2012 11:34 AM (LYwCh)

187 You call opposition to anal sex and its promotion to social acceptance and replacement of marriage and the call to "go forth and prosper" to be a "weird, creepy obsession". You're weird and creepy. Seriously. Are you nuts?

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 11:29 AM (X3lox)

Naturally our candidate should oppose homosexual anal sex. However, if they try to disparage good, wholesome anal between a man and woman, we should throw him out of the party.

Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2012 11:35 AM (FdndL)

188 "Thank you Jeff B. The stupid is strong with a lot of people these days.posted by rockmom"

I don't appreciate being labeled stupid. I thought I laid out a plausible argument why strong families tend to lead to a more prosperous society, and why lack of strong families lead to an ever growing need for money thrown at various social services and safety nets. If you do not agree with my premise, I can respect that - especially if you can lay out an argument to the contrary.

But do not call me stupid. I am not stupid.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 11:35 AM (P6QsQ)

189 My opinion on the 2012 Republican candidates may be unpopular, but here it is, I have no confidence that anyone running right now canfix the damage Obama has caused in the last 3 years. In the case of Romney and Gingrich I think they would continue us on a dangerous economic path, in the case of Santorum I think nothing one way or another would be accomplished because of all the shrieking and rending of garments by the liberals.


THE SMOD really is our only hope.

Posted by: ParanoidStillAGirlInSeattle at February 11, 2012 11:36 AM (RZ8pf)

190 Question for you: is Marco Rubio constitutionally eligible to be Vice-President?


Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:30 AM (



No, but it certainly needs to go through the courts ... finally. The courts will likely find him eligible, anyway, so I don't know why you people are so scared of having the definition of "natural born citizen" finally detailed fully in modern language (since most of America can't remember what any words meant last week).

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 11:36 AM (X3lox)

191 You call opposition to anal sex and its promotion to social acceptance...a "weird, creepy obsession". You're weird and creepy. Seriously. Are
you nuts?


Yes. I am happy to stand by my label: anyone who is vocally and openly opposed to a SEX ACT and thinks that should be the basis of a federal political agenda is indeed more than a little weird and quite a bit fucking creepy in their bizarre obsession. (To say nothing of being an enemy of liberty.) And the idea that THIS is primary agenda we want to be promoting for the 2012 GOP nominee? That's so insane that I seriously wonder what your true agenda is.

I have no problem with being opposed to gay marriage, even though I'm lukewarm on the issue myself. (Hell, Mitt Romney was on the forefront of that battle, despite the attempts of Santorum and others to smear him as somehow being the OPPOSITE of what he was, which is a staunch opponent who tried literally every option legally available to him as governor to stop it from happening in Massachusetts after the state Supreme Court issued its decision.) It's fine as part of any GOP candidate's positioning.

But I also don't really think that the Republicans need to be running, in this age of fiscal apocalypse and economic depression, on a platform of "the most important issues facing Americans are contraception and gay marriage."

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:36 AM (hIWe1)

192 re: the dangers of a brokered convention...

We as a party will run a horrible risk to do that.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 10:40 AM (niZvt)

Yes. But there are no good options left. Santorum and Gingrich both seem unelectable for various reasons. Romney, despite being touted endlessly as the ultimate "electable" guy, seems to really suck at running for president despite having done it for what seems like half his adult life now. I mean, how good can he be when he can't put away a hairy scrum of misfits and losers like Gingrich, Santorum and Tinfoil Hat Man? Would a brokered convention be a crap shoot and a clusterf*ck too? Yeah, probably. But after watching this parade of idiots perform over the last several months (years for some of them), I can't see how a brokered convention could come up with someone any *less* likely to beat the SCoaMF in the fall.One final thing about Romney. I could live with him being the nominee - I surely wouldn't like it, but I could live with it - if he showed that he has even a vague inkling about how to actually *be* electable. And if he ain't got that, he's pretty damn worthless as a candidate. (shrug)

Posted by: davidinvirginia at February 11, 2012 11:37 AM (cPJUK)

193
#178 Give me a break. Romney's a loser because he lost to McCain in 2008? You do know that Reagan lost to Ford in 1976? Should we have run him out of town in 1980 because he was a loser?

Romney didn't run for reelection in 2006 because he knew it was going to be a hella bad year for Republicans and because he had decided to run for President.

I wouldn't even use Rick Santorum's pummeling in 2006 against him, except for the fact that I live in Pennsylvania and saw firsthand what a trainwreck of a campaign that was, and I don't want to see it again. He is still the same moralizing asshole that he was then, and he'll get about the same reaction nationally that he did here then.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:37 AM (A0UFZ)

194 Romney is very popular. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts,
bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him. They think
he's a righteous dude.

Posted by: The GOP Establishment at February 11, 2012 11:37 AM (azHfB)

195 Either anybody can beat Obama or no one can.


Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 11:32 AM (azHfB)



Bingo.

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 11:38 AM (X3lox)

196 188 -

You are dealing with products of our modern culture. They are taught to fear (read hate) any suggestion of a conservative morality being spoken in the public square.

They hate you for saying out loud what you believe, and they call you stupid for believing it.

These people are liberals. They may not know it, because they don't use any form of reason to reach their conclusions, but they are indeed, liberals.

And Romney supporters, by the way.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 11:38 AM (Gc/Qi)

197 If you do not agree with my premise, I can respect that - especially if you can lay out an argument to the contrary.

Don't hold your breath, mama.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 11, 2012 11:39 AM (vbh31)

198 Santorum is not obsessed with gay sex. The MFM just create that illusion by asking him about it at every interview. They ask him a thousand times a day about gay sex, and then they turn around and claim he's obsessed with it because "he talks about it all the time."

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 11:40 AM (azHfB)

199 Obama and the FM will destroy Willard.

Romney is unelectable.


Okay, fine. Now explain how Gingrich or Santorum defeat Obama. Actually, explain how they don't lose WORSE than your caricature of a Romney nomination would fare. Pay special attention to the preexisting 'brand' of both candidates (which is an immovable fact - neither Newt nor Santorum is going to be able to recast themselves) and to the attacks Obama will use.

I've got news for you. Branding Santorum as "Mr. God-Hates-Fags" and "Mr. Wants-Women-To-Carry-Incest-Babies" and "Mr. Bedroom Snoop" is a far more devastating and electorally toxic attack than calling Romney "Mr. Wall Street."

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:40 AM (hIWe1)

200 Fox poll out today has Obama beating Romney by 5 and Santorum by 12.

Posted by: Jon at February 11, 2012 11:41 AM (1YdhJ)

201 I think you've got it backward mama winger; the welfare state led to the breakdown of the family. living a disciplined productive life was necessary for survival until the new deal, so lazy dysfunctional people were self limiting as a percentage of the population. If we stop the state from forcing the stable producers from subsidizing the irresponsible, the latter will be forced to delay gratification, marry, and work to survive.

Posted by: pashmr at February 11, 2012 11:41 AM (3aNC4)

202 Marco Rubio not eligible? Really he was born in Florida wasn't he? Was it in 1785 or something? Come on. Be realistic. Anyone born in this country (also children of Americans born in overseas Military bases) are Nat born citizens. Seriously Obama's a citizen so is Rubio. The difference between the two is one is actually American in his thoughts and attitudes the other isn't.

Posted by: kehoe at February 11, 2012 11:41 AM (wXB+s)

203 Mitt has at least two kinds of supporters.

One likes Mitt the Moderate.

The other is so desperate to oust Obama they support the guy they think has the best chance of winning no matter what else they think of him.

Regarding the second group, all the talk of how Mitt is the only candidate that can beat Obama is pure conjecture. Sadly, it is marketed as something obvious and
self−evident.

They invent the notion that opposition to Romney now means sure and certain victory for Obama in November, or that some would prefer that over a Mitt victory.






Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 11:42 AM (DTX4S)

204 If you do not agree with my premise, I can respect that - especially if you can lay out an argument to the contrary. But do not call me stupid. I am not stupid.
Posted by: mama winger ruary 11, 2012 11:35 AM (P6QsQ)

America was built on the backs of strong families. The government didn't create them then and can't create them now.

Santorums suggestion that if somehow he is elected president he will fix the social problems of weakend families is bullshit.

Do you really want Rick Santorum with the power of the federal government inserting themselves into your family life?

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 11:43 AM (MtwBb)

205 24
Brokered Convention 2012! It Couldn't Be Any Worse!


Sure it could.

Posted by: Jeb Bush at February 11, 2012 11:45 AM (sdi6R)

206 Which candidate is most likely to whack the executive agencies?

Because none will stop the fiscal train wreck. Any pol that tries will be slaughtered by the voters. The congressional Rs know that so they are going to continue to just go along with the SNAFU that is government spending until the wheels come off.

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 11, 2012 11:45 AM (lgw0N)

207 203 -

I'd only quibble with the use of the word "moderate." I think "liberal" is more accurate, and it has the added benefit of driving them nuts when you say it.

They also lie through their teeth to avoid any discussion of where they stand on issues. For them, Romney is the ideal candidate. His lack of conservative principles and record are not a problem, it's what they love about him.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 11:46 AM (Gc/Qi)

208 >>>Either anybody can beat Obama or no one can.

I have no idea why some people keep saying this. It's not true. It was never true. If 2010 taught us anything it's that wildly, insanely unpopular Democrat incumbents can survive even during a titanic conservative wave of historic proportions if the GOP nominates a bad enough candidate (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Christine O'Donnell).

I think this is one of those things people tell themselves as blithe whistle-past-the-graveyard reassurance when, deep in their hearts, they realize they're actually making a suicidal decision but still want the satisfaction of making it.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:46 AM (hIWe1)

209
#198, very good point, but unfortunately there is zero chance of that changing this year if Santorum is the Republican candidate. He'll be asked about The Gheys at every townhall and every press conference. And there vwill be plenty of opportunity to do it, with Washington state about to pass a gay marriage law and SCOTUS likely to take up the Prop. 8 challenge. The MFM will conjure up all kinds of heart-tugging stories about gay soldiers, and gay high school kids getting beaten, etc. etc.

Of course, all bets are off if we have $4 a gallon gas this summer. Then a trained chimp could beat Obama.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:46 AM (A0UFZ)

210 Anyone born in this country (also children of
Americans born in overseas Military bases) are Nat born citizens.

Posted by: kehoe at February 11, 2012 11:41 AM (wXB+s)


Incorrect. Astoundingly incorrect.

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 11:46 AM (X3lox)

211 Interesting, most of you sound convinced ONLY Romney can beat Obama.

Posted by: mare at February 11, 2012 11:46 AM (DsAD+)

212 200 Fox poll out today has Obama beating Romney by 5 and Santorum by 12.

Posted by: Jon at February 11, 2012 11:41 AM (1YdhJ)

And at the same time in the cycle, Jimmy Carter was beating Ronald Reagan by 25 points.

Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2012 11:47 AM (FdndL)

213 ot: Lost the comment box there for quite a while. Had to reboot to get it back. I blame myopen tab on DailyKooks for the problem. Seems the recent Arctic Ice Melt is now irreversible, a postive warming feedback loop has been created that will destroy all of mankind.

My laptop just couldn't process the stupidity and froze.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 11, 2012 11:48 AM (4q5tP)

214 210
Anyone born in this country (also children of

Americans born in overseas Military bases) are Nat born citizens.



Posted by: kehoe at February 11, 2012 11:41 AM (wXB+s)

Incorrect. Astoundingly incorrect.


Posted by: really

Has the Supreme Court ever pronounced judgment on this issue? (I don't mean in regards to Obama, but interpreting the whole who's-a-citizen thing.) I don't believe so. It appears there may be no final answer.

Posted by: SFGoth at February 11, 2012 11:48 AM (bQMB+)

215 One last thing about Santorum. When he lost in 2006, it was to Bob
Casey, Jr. If you don't live in Pennsylvania you wouldn't realize what a
legend Bob Casey Sr. was ... one of the last high-profile anti-abortion
Democrats and a well liked governor in a state of "bitter, clingers."
Bob Casey, Jr. ran as an unknown quantity, implying that he was a clone
of his father. What a disappointment. He doesn't hold a candle to his
father. He threw away his father's "goodwill" when he voted for
ObamaCare when he should have known what it meant visa vie his father's
legacy. He was one of the first to break with the President on the
religious exemption to contraceptives because he knows, if it stands, he
is toast, even against a field of unknowns.

Posted by: Ghost of JoePa at February 11, 2012 11:49 AM (e8kgV)

216 O/T at Newsbusters:
In an official statement carried at Vatican Radio's web site ("The Voice of the Pope and the Church in dialogue with the world") this morning, the bishops have rejected Obama's self-described "sensible approach."

Posted by: Y-not at February 11, 2012 11:49 AM (5H6zj)

217 Santorum can't. I'm really big on NotRomney - and think Santorum could take many primaries - he will be like a vampire touched by sunlight in the general.

Posted by: SarahW at February 11, 2012 11:49 AM (LYwCh)

218 Romney is leaving a slime trail between primary states.

Posted by: Ohoh Dan 219 at February 11, 2012 11:50 AM (JKNDp)

219 #209 -- and Santorum will take the bait. Please, not Santorum. I'll take Romney over Santorum, as tough as that is to digest.

Posted by: SFGoth at February 11, 2012 11:50 AM (bQMB+)

220
#180, Jeez, did you watch or read Romney's speech YESTERDAY at CPAC? He promised to CUT the federal budget - notjust slow its growth; he promised toshrink the federal workforce, and he used a line I thought would go over well with fiscal cons - "we are going to go through every program and ask, first can we afford it? and second, should weborrow money from China to pay for it?"His opening statement was that we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we are spending, and that is unsustainable, unacceptable, and immoral. He said as a businessman he had to be fiscally conservative, because if you aren't, you go broke.

You can conclude you don't believe any of this just because you believe he is lying and pandering, and that's fine,but you can't say he isn't talking about it.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:50 AM (A0UFZ)

221 So after 8 years of a big government social conservative in Bush, people actually think Santorum is a good idea? How is Santorum any better than anther Bush term? And if you are so desperate to nominate a non-Texas accented Bush, why not just go for Jeb Bush at a brokered convention?

Posted by: Wooga at February 11, 2012 11:50 AM (IhzyJ)

222 "What a disaster this whole thing is."

For Romney yes. For conservatives and for this country, not so much.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 11, 2012 11:51 AM (frTMg)

223 >>>Either anybody can beat Obama or no one can.

I
have no idea why some people keep saying this. It's not true. It was
never true.




Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:46 AM (hIWe1)


It's obviously true. The 2012 election will be a question about what America really is, not who will be President. If America wants to remain even a smidgeon of its traditional and unique character then it will reject Barky out of hand. Shit, Barky should be wearing an orange jumpsuit warming a federal cell, right now. The fact that he isn't is powerful proof that there is no America left to save, but the vote in 2012 will be the definitive answer to that. Either America will totally and unequivocally reject the little Jakarta street kid or there is no America left, anyway.

That's how the situation is.

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 11:51 AM (X3lox)

224 I'd only quibble with the use of the word "moderate." I think "liberal"
is more accurate, and it has the added benefit of driving them nuts
when you say it.



They also lie through their teeth to avoid any discussion of where
they stand on issues. For them, Romney is the ideal candidate. His
lack of conservative principles and record are not a problem, it's what
they love about him.


You can take your bullshit conspiracy theories and jam them back up your ass. I have no problem with any discussion of where I stand on the issues. I will be HAPPY to lay it out for you in great detail if you wish on any question. I'm not a 'moderate' and certainly not a 'liberal.' I'm a conservative. Just about the ONLY thing that might differentiate me from purely orthodox positioning is that I have no problem with gay people and my opposition to gay marriage is lukewarm. But please: feel free to quiz me.

P.S. I also want to point out that I never called "mama winger" stupid. I actually tried to respond thoughtfully and respectfully to her post, explaining why the argument she made for Santorum tying socon to fiscon wasn't going to work, especially with him as the candidate.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:51 AM (hIWe1)

225 And yes, homosexuality is a huge threat to this country because it's being used as an agenda to force society to accept behavior that will lead to a depressed birth rate and eventual extinction of the human race.

Posted by: Chris at February 11, 2012 11:51 AM (Hhjot)

226 And the thing is that Romney really does not project that he "gets" what
"regular" people are facing. He does not get what the suffering is.


Frankly, I don't care if he gets what regular people are facing. I've had enough of Oprah-esque candidates who feel other's pain. Governments that feel pain and want to help are what got us into this mess. I want someone heartless who will do what needs to be done. In my heart of hearts, I think that's what Romney has in mind. But if he said so, he's toast, so of course he plays along.

@194 Bueller, Bueller? Anybody.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 11:52 AM (6TB1Z)

227 Do you really want Rick Santorum with the power of the federal government inserting themselves into your family life?
Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 11:43 AM (MtwBb)

You mean like mandating we buy insurance or we get punished?

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 11:52 AM (DTX4S)

228 211
Interesting, most of you sound convinced ONLY Romney can beat Obama.


Guilty

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 11:53 AM (6TB1Z)

229
IfRepublican votersat one of the most popular conservative sites on the net can't reach a consensus after a year of discussions about this election...
I mean, aside from "Not Obama" - which isn't a political tactic, let alone a strategy.
The country club Republicans aren't the only ones who are throwing this opportunity away.
You folks, as individuals, still want what YOU want, when YOU want it, just the way that YOU want it...instead of thinking about what's good for freedom and about what's good for the nation, as a whole.
Stop thinking about yourselves for five goddam minutes and think about the future...and about what YOU can do to ensure that future for all of us.
This nation is bleeding to death and you're worried about hangnails and haircuts.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at February 11, 2012 11:54 AM (E7Z1r)

230 Oh, Romney made a speech?

Did he write it up in a 160-page long document?

Re-read Club for Growth's white paper on Romney. They are not convinced.

If Jen Rubin's signal yesterday that Romney is proposing a major tax overall -- which seems to imply an embrace of the flat tax (that he has previously slammed quite 'severely') -- is true, then Romney can re-boot his campaign.

If not, then I am not convinced I want a soul-less automaton as my CEO. I'd rather have Newt.

Posted by: Y-not at February 11, 2012 11:54 AM (5H6zj)

231 Jeff B.

I know that you did not refer to me as stupid. No worries there.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 11:54 AM (P6QsQ)

232 #215 I call Bob Casey the Senator from ACORN. He is a far left socialist, and he really has cozied up to ACORN and other far-left groups. It makes me sick that he has gotten away with being waaaay to the left of most of PA just because he is nominally pro-life and everyone loved his Daddy. Plus he is dumb as a fencepost.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:54 AM (A0UFZ)

233
Rockmom, maybe losers is a harsh word but it's true. Reagan did lose to Ford of course but he had been a sucessfull Gov. and on the scene for twenty plus years befor 1980. Not really the same as the current field. As O would say let me be clear, I will vote for any of these guys if they are the nominee, I am actually very happy that Michigan's primary will not be just a confirmation but an actual primary with multiple candidates. My point is, in my opinion, these three are not top tier people. The fault, again in my opinion, is with the party leadership not pushing harder for ther younger, fresher candidates to get in this race. My feeling is this field is a holdover of the older school of R's and will not easily ignite the fire of non activist R's
This election will be closer than anyone is comfortable with. I have no dog in this hunt yet,haven't decided on anyone. I want to see a constant positive explanation of Conservative ideas and values again and again and again. That will beat JEF. So far I haven't seen that, which is why I wouldn't compare any of these guys to Reagan and why I say they are second string.

Posted by: kehoe at February 11, 2012 11:54 AM (wXB+s)

234 224 -

Ok Jeffy, here's your quiz... why are you such a whiny liberal?

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 11:54 AM (Gc/Qi)

235 "wildly, insanely unpopular Democrat incumbents can survive even during a
titanic conservative wave of historic proportions if the GOP nominates a
bad enough candidate (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Christine O'Donnell)"

This presumes that Harry Reid's scorched Earth attacks on Sue Lowden or Danny Tarkanian wouldn't have been just as successful as his attacks against Sharron Angle, whom he basically accused of being pro-rape. It also presumes they would have run perfect, gaffe-free campaigns. None of which is self-evidently true.

The same can be said of Ken Buck's campaign. He was doing fine until the Democrats accused him of being pro-rape. Also, he was dragged down by an absolutely terrible Republican candidate for governor at the top of the ticket.

O'Donnell was a bad choice, but Castle kind of f--ked himself by refusing to debate or campaign against her in the primary; demonstrating exactly the kind of arrogance for which the GOP establishment deserves to be punished.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 11:55 AM (azHfB)

236 And yes, homosexuality is a huge threat to this country because it's being used as an agenda to force society to accept behavior that will lead to a depressed birth rate and eventual extinction of the human race.
Posted by: Chris at February 11, 2012 11:51 AM (Hhjot)

I hear you man, the homos have been behind the chemtrails that are turning everyone gay. I am glad someone finally had the courage to point that out.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 11:55 AM (MtwBb)

237 "
Do you really want Rick Santorum with the power of the federal government inserting themselves into your family life?"

It's amazing that people on supposedly conservative blogs keep peddling this line in light of everything that has gone in recent weeks. Time and again the left has tried have the federal government insert itself into every facet of our lives, and yet individuals such as yourself can't seem to comprehend that they, and not people like Santorum, are the enemy. Conservatives are fighting a rearguard action to prevent the federal government from continuing to instill itself into our daily affairs, and yet somehow people insist on seeing this as wanting big government conservatism. It's insane.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 11, 2012 11:56 AM (frTMg)

238 In any case, I can see where the Republican Establishment has such a high and mighty position to attack and blame the campaigns of Angle and O'Donnell for costing them two senate seats in 2010 after the GOP Establishment did such a terrific job in the elections of 2006 and 2008.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 11:56 AM (azHfB)

239 Man, trying to sort the socks out in this thread would take all day.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 11, 2012 11:56 AM (vbh31)

240 Does anybody know why Paul Ryan didn't run? Did he give a reason, or was that question not even asked? This election needed a fiscal warrior, and instead we got a big steaming pile of nothing.

The Republican party is so damn stupid. At this point, I don't really think it even matters any more which of these losers is the nominee.. they will find a way to eff it up in the general.

Posted by: not the mama at February 11, 2012 11:57 AM (96Kco)

241 It's amazing that people on supposedly conservative
blogs keep peddling this line in light of everything that has gone in
recent weeks. Time and again the left has tried have the federal
government insert itself into every facet of our lives, and yet
individuals such as yourself can't seem to comprehend that they, and not
people like Santorum, are the enemy. Conservatives are fighting a
rearguard action to prevent the federal government from continuing to
instill itself into our daily affairs, and yet somehow people insist on
seeing this as wanting big government conservatism. It's insane.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 11, 2012 11:56 AM



THIS. ^^

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 11:57 AM (P6QsQ)

242 >>>Incorrect. Astoundingly incorrect.

No, he's correct. And you apparently don't understand law. (Let me guess: you, like most birthers, obsess over the Happersett decision without knowing what the term "dicta" means. You just think that anything that appears in a judicial opinion is LAW because, hey, it was written there!)

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:57 AM (hIWe1)

243 "Do you really want Rick Santorum with the power of the federal government inserting themselves into your family life?"

Why is it when the Establishment gets desperate, they begin repeating the talking points of the left?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 11:57 AM (azHfB)

244 Stand back while I carpet bomb this socon hick back to the stone age.

Posted by: Mr Severe Conservative, Rightful Nominee at February 11, 2012 11:58 AM (+kznc)

245 Hiking in Canyonlands, I make the mistake of checking in with the horde to find *this?*

Calm the hell down, people.

Posted by: Knemon at February 11, 2012 11:58 AM (LtQKx)

246 My opinion on the 2012 Republican candidates may be unpopular, but here
it is, I have no confidence that anyone running right now can fix the
damage Obama has caused in the last 3 years.


Probably not. If anybody really thought this mess could be fixed you'd hear a lot more about issues and a lot less about electability. Everybody prefers to pretend that things can just go on as normal forever. We're bleeding out from a hundred cuts, closing the sucking chest wound that is Obama is necessary but not sufficient.

Posted by: Heorot at February 11, 2012 11:58 AM (rnFTE)

247 @226
In the 40 years I've thought of myself as a Republican (which includes a decade before I was able to vote, but still worked on elections), I have never equated "business person" with "conservative." I remember what Rockefeller Republicans are and that's Mitt.

I can accept him as an alternative to Obama, but looking at what he has proposed to do, I see a status quo Republican. I want better than that. I don't see a big improvement in my life with Mitt at the helm (as currently sold to me). He is not inherently conservative in any sense, he's just pro-business.

So here's the deal. He's in second right now for me, but if Santorum can lose his "so-con" label (which he has only partially earned; some of it is spin) and if Santorum would fix *his* tax plan to be closer to Newt's, then he bumps Romney on my list, despite what I think is a weaker resume.


Hell, I'm generous. I'll even ignore Team Romney's slanderous attacks on the opposition and their supporters.

Posted by: Y-not at February 11, 2012 11:59 AM (5H6zj)

248 It's amazing that people on supposedly conservative

blogs keep peddling this line in light of everything that has gone in

recent weeks.


Visions of socon stormtroopers dancing in their heads. Quite a reach, IMO.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 11, 2012 11:59 AM (vbh31)

249 If not, then I am not convinced I want a soul-less automaton as my CEO. I'd rather have Newt.

Unfortunately for you, he isn't an option. He won't be elected.

@230 At this point, you either believe him or you don't. Nothing more can be done. However, you're smart and paying attention. There are plenty of voters out there for whom that isn't true, and who may be persuadable.

@234 Jeff-don't waste your breath.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 11:59 AM (6TB1Z)

250 Does anybody know why Paul Ryan didn't run? Did he give a reason, or was that question not even asked?


Paul Ryan is my congressman. Yes, he was asked. He was begged to run. I asked him personally myself. He was asked repeatedly in town meetings here in SE Wisconsin. His response has always been that
a) he has very small children and doesn't feel it is an appropriate time in their lives for him to campaign for President
and b) he feels his strongest chance to change the country right now lies in his efforts within the House and his position on Budget.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:00 PM (P6QsQ)

251 Yesterday: I'm severely conservative
Today: G*d damn "true conservatives," damn you all to hell. Will no one rid me of these purist conservative assholes?

Posted by: Mr Severe Conservative, Rightful Nominee at February 11, 2012 12:01 PM (+kznc)

252 Has the Supreme Court ever pronounced judgment
on this issue?


Posted by: SFGoth at February 11, 2012 11:48 AM (bQMB+)


No, but kehoe is still amazingly wrong. Children of diplomats born in the US were NEVER Americans of any sort (let alone natural born citizens). Just that little bit makes it perfectly clear that birth on our soil is NOT a determining factor.

Sidenote on the modern US: children of foreign diplomats have been getting American citizenship, now. Yay! Kehoe and those of his opinion must be thrilled. In 40 years he'd be arguing that the son of the Peruvian ambassador was born in America and is eligible to run for President.

People have very little respect for even the concept of national sovereignty, these days, if not outright disdain for it.

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 12:01 PM (X3lox)

253 Let's have a nice game of "Uproar"

And ... Go!

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 11, 2012 12:01 PM (4q5tP)

254 If Mitt is the nominee, then we are in deep trouble for any number of reasons beyond his various bad political decisions.

1. Warmth and likeability--he is not warm and likeable, nor does he seem able to fake it like barack does. Even barack's critics call him a nice guy. In fact, to me, Mitt seems like a supercilious, ruthless, nasty, and vindictive robot, which make for business success, but, not a good campaigner.

2. Family is a wash--he has a sweet pretty wife and nice children. Barack has a wife who has been promoted non-stop by the media as hip, cool, smart, athletic, daring, and so on and so forth. So even though we don't see it, barack wins the wife war. The obama kids make rare appearances and they are both gawky, unattractive, and awkward, but, with kids that age, that comes off as cute.

3. Mitt has no passionately argued message. Good old barack still has Hope and Change, and as bizarre, useless, and futile as that is, he can probably still sell it because the mean old Republicans just would not let him get it done.

4. Wealth--even though the obamas are stealing and grabbing any money offerd as fast as they can, it will be so easy to make barack seem like a poor black boy from humble roots running against a White Overlord type.

Posted by: Will Not Assimilate For Food at February 11, 2012 12:02 PM (kXoT0)

255
#230, yes, Romney made a specch yesterday, as did Gingrich and Santorum. If you didn't watch or read any of them, you probably shouldn't even be discussing this election because it was only the most important meeting of conservatives that happens every year. All three of them laid out their agendas and why they think conservatives should support them. They all made very good points for themselves and against the others. I thought Romney's speech was very good, especially on the fiscal issues. I understand why social cons don't like him and he did a middling job of defending himself on those issues, but probably didn't convince anyone. I think he will be about as pro-life as Bush or Reagan were if he is elected. Which is to say, lots of lip service but not much action.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 12:02 PM (A0UFZ)

256 The case for Romney continues to be that he is electable.

It's not working.

Posted by: Y-not at February 11, 2012 12:02 PM (5H6zj)

257 Time and again the left has tried have the federal government insert itself into every facet of our lives, and yet individuals such as yourself can't seem to comprehend that they, and not people like Santorum, are the enemy. Conservatives are fighting a rearguard action to prevent the federal government from continuing to instill itself into our daily affairs, and yet somehow people insist on seeing this as wanting big government conservatism. It's insane.
Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 11, 2012 11:56 AM (frTMg)

All I have to do to see big government conservatism is look at Santorums record.
1. Medicare Part D. check
2. No child left behind. check
3. Fought for funding for AMTRAK, check
4. Pro earmarks and proud of it. check
5. Voted against right to work. check
6. Introduced a bill to raise minimum wage. check
7. Avid supporter of homeland security. check
8. Led the charge on federal government intervention regarding Terry Schaivo. check
I could keep doing this if you want?

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 12:03 PM (MtwBb)

258 The "purists" will not allow anyone to stop them from blowing this election.

Posted by: packsoldier at February 11, 2012 12:03 PM (tT/HT)

259 255
#230, yes, Romney made a specch yesterday, as did Gingrich and Santorum. If you didn't watch or read any of them, you probably shouldn't even be discussing this election
----
Oh, thanks for telling me if I have a right to participate.

Fuck you, rockmom.

Posted by: Y-not at February 11, 2012 12:03 PM (5H6zj)

260 *"If Jen Rubin's signal yesterday that Romney is proposing a major tax
overall -- which seems to imply an embrace of the flat tax (that he has
previously slammed quite 'severely') -- is true, then Romney can re-boot
his campaign."*


In other words, lie to me. Because no one is changing the tax code, not Romney, not Santorum or even Ron Fucking Paul. And besides out of all the problems this country has, the tax code doesn't make the top twenty five.

Posted by: lowandslow at February 11, 2012 12:04 PM (GZitp)

261 254 -

But Mitt went to CPAC, sat in a room with a bunch of conservatives, came out and read a conservative speech. That makes him a conservative!

End of discussion!!!

Oh, and he's electable because Santgrich wants to build anal probe colonies on the moon, or something.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 12:05 PM (Gc/Qi)

262 I am convinced Romney can't seal the deal. There's no evidence that Team Romney can listen to the electorate. Congratulations.

Posted by: Y-not at February 11, 2012 12:05 PM (5H6zj)

263 The "purists" will not allow anyone to stop them from blowing this election.

Nah, most of the Romney supporters will still vote R even if he isn't the candidate.

Posted by: Heorot at February 11, 2012 12:05 PM (rnFTE)

264 A brokered convention is fine by me. The TP/Conservatives have enough sway to better the current field. Posit this: We get Mitch Daniels or whatever. We will get a pure conservative VP (to assuage the social cons) and we keep him in check. That said, as Andrew Breitbart essentially said in his fun, fun, fun, heartfelt and clarion call speech at CPAC: "Whoever".

It is make or break time for the country Morons. Duh.

Posted by: eureka! at February 11, 2012 12:05 PM (4e3Me)

265 Wake up, friends… stop playing into Obama and the Democrats' playbook. Stress his economic, domestic and foreign policy failures.

No more about social issues. No more attacking our own.
It should be all about competency and our refusal to let wedge issues be used against us.
Who has the best chance to unseat Obama? Who is in a better position to
attract so-called moderates and independents? Who can attract them to
core Republican principles by highlighting Obama’s gross intrusion into
our personal lives, his rampant, bald-faced crony capitalism and
incompetence vis-a-vis our economy and his rough-shod alienation of our
friends and allies?

Posted by: Colonel Haiku at February 11, 2012 12:06 PM (IQZP5)

266 Interesting, most of you sound convinced ONLY Romney can beat Obama.
Posted by: mare at February 11, 2012 11:46 AM (DsAD+)


I am convinced of it. I think Obama can step on his dick so badly that virtually anyone else can win, but Gingrich and Santorum cannot persuade the American public.

Romney really can't either, but he can present a reassuring picture.

This frenzy for a not-Romney has gone completely off the rails. Way back in the early part of the campaign (Ames straw poll), Santorum was a joke and everybody thought he'd drop out with Pawlenty.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2012 12:06 PM (fNK8e)

267
Hate to say this.
But I'm not going to care until after the stupid party convention.
Then I'll make reservations for a liver replacement.

Posted by: YIKES! Who refuses to raise an eyebrow for now at February 11, 2012 12:06 PM (L3I4w)

268 "All I have to do to see big government conservatism is look at Santorums record.

1. Medicare Part D. check

2. No child left behind. check

3. Fought for funding for AMTRAK, check

4. Pro earmarks and proud of it. check

5. Voted against right to work. check

6. Introduced a bill to raise minimum wage. check

7. Avid supporter of homeland security. check

8. Led the charge on federal government intervention regarding Terry Schaivo. check

I could keep doing this if you want?"

I would rather you explain how Senator Romney, had he succeeded in defeating Ted Kennedy in 1994 on a pro-abotion, pro-Government platform, would have voted any differently.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 12:06 PM (azHfB)

269 239
Man, trying to sort the socks out in this thread would take all day.


Not really, follow the hash marks.

Posted by: AoSHQ Sock Salesman at February 11, 2012 12:07 PM (hXJOG)

270 However, if they try to disparage good, wholesome anal between a man and woman, we should throw him out of the party.
Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2012 11:35 AM (FdndL)

This is the first time I have ever agreed with you on anything.

By the way, do the gays who actually want to get married realize what a headache it is for taxes? I've been trying to help a friend of mine do his but since he got into a domestic partnership last year, whole lot more crap he needs to fill out for CA & Fed.

Posted by: CAC at February 11, 2012 12:07 PM (lwbbJ)

271 @233 The fault, again in my opinion, is with the party leadership not pushing
harder for ther younger, fresher candidates to get in this race.


Wow, just wow. For the last 6 months, I've heard about the shadowy GOP "establishment" selecting our candidates and how awful that is, and here you are suggesting that they needed to do more.

The younger, fresher candidates like Ryan, who I would have backed, didn't want to run and gave their reasons. What would you have the party do, impress them (in the naval sense)?

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 12:08 PM (6TB1Z)

272 I'll surely vote for Romney if he's the nominee...ABO. But, thing is, the longer Romney runs, the less certain I become that he can beat *anyone*, even a guy with Obama's record in office. I don't think Mr. Electable is very electable. And no, I don't think that the rest are either. Congrats to the dumbass GOP and to the chickensh*t non-candidates who didn't run.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at February 11, 2012 12:08 PM (cPJUK)

273 Second look at Caligula/Incitatus?

Posted by: let's get the hell off the planet at February 11, 2012 12:08 PM (AZGON)

274 Astoundingly incorrect? So McCain was ineligible? He was born in the Canal Zone as I remember that is definately not the U.S. Does a territory count? Were any Presidents years ago born in what were at that time territories not states? Would someone in Puerto Rico be eligible? What about a person born in Canada to American citiczens? Lot of cross border residents during the depression between the US and Canada. Where do we go with this? Until as said above the Supreme Court rules on this there can be various opinions on what Nat. Born means. The founders put it in the Constitution for obvious Tory loyalty reasons. Immigration wasn't even anywhere near what it would become.

Posted by: kehoe at February 11, 2012 12:08 PM (wXB+s)

275 >>>Nah, most of the Romney supporters will still vote R even if he isn't the candidate.

If you're referring to the Romney supporters on places like AoSHQ and Hot Air, then yes you're correct. (I'm guessing 99% of them would vote for the R nominee -- I'm certainly one of them.)

But if you're referring to the general GOP electorate, and PARTICULARLY to swing voters, indies, and moderates who would support Romney over Obama, then you couldn't be more wrong. And that's the problem.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM (hIWe1)

276 Running Romney would be catastrophic for the party. Not only is he exactly who Obama wants to run against, but he will cost us many downticket races and ideological clarity.

For Romney supporters, if you don't like hearing about Romneycare now, it will be the answer every time a Republican challenges Obamacare in 2012.

While not perfect, Santorum gives us the best change of actually overturning Obama's policies...and he is almost perfectly positioned to run in the critical battleground states in 2012.

So this movement makes a lot of sense. It looks like the Republicans are not willing to surrender going into the general election after all...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM (3aXbg)

277 It's also fascinating the left is still flogging the Terry Schaivo thing after all these years. Sheesh.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM (azHfB)

278 On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is an ultraLiberal and 10 is an ultraConservative, I rate Mitt a 6.

America needs a 9, 8 minimum.

Mitt is better than Obama, but why, right now, do we have to say that is good enough? Is it so just because many folks believe only Mitt can win?

Mitt needs to prove to us he can win and he is not merely better than Obama. Mitt must prove he is what we need now. So far, he has failed.

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM (DTX4S)

279 The case for Romney continues to be that he is electable. It's not working.
Posted by: Y-not at February 11, 2012 12:02 PM (5H6zj)


Y-not, we could lay out all of Romneys qualifications, his policy proposals, his vetos of things we would want him to veto and you still would not either beleive them or maybe you just don't like what he wants to do. What is the point of going through it again?

Read his website, if you don't like it don't vote for him. I am not going to waste time copying and pasting. It's on his website. You don't beleive what he has to say, fine. How is anyone going to change that?

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM (MtwBb)

280 One thing that will doom Santorum in the general election is foreign policy. This is a guy that will be arguing we aren't involved in the middle east enough mind you, how is that going to sell?

Posted by: lowandslow at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM (GZitp)

281 Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 11:57 AM (azHfB)

Hey, that's a talking point of conservatives, too... ones who favor the ordered liberty provided for in our constitution, anyway.

You had better pay attention to what can defeat Obama - while you still can.


Posted by: SarahW at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM (LYwCh)

282 Did we all see this?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/02/10/the_cpac_party_report_thursday.html

Indeed, Allen Covert was in Grandma's Boy. The actor was here promoting Cherry Tree, his line of iPad childrens' books. "I love blogs," he said, by way of explaining why he was here. "I read Ace of Spades every day. Instapundit is basically my newspaper."

Posted by: movigique at February 11, 2012 12:10 PM (Cepxj)

283 It's also fascinating the left is still flogging the Terry Schaivo thing after all these years. Sheesh.


Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM




Not just the left.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:10 PM (P6QsQ)

284 ME AND THE GOP! STEP RIGHT UP - NO WATEING!

Posted by: KayInMaine at February 11, 2012 12:10 PM (tL5n8)

285 >>>In other words, lie to me.

Actually, yeah. This whole election season has been about the person who kisses conservative butts and says the right things until he's hacked down.

Conservatives like that. We don't get pandered to very much.

>>>Because no one is changing the tax code, not
Romney, not Santorum or even Ron Fucking Paul.

Yeah, but 90% of the appeal of these candidates is that they propose something that will never happen but will tells you who they are and what they're thinking.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2012 12:11 PM (fNK8e)

286 >>>Interesting, most of you sound convinced ONLY Romney can beat Obama.

Yes, I'm convinced of that too. Of the four remaining candidates we have, at least. AmishDude explained it pretty concisely in his post above.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 12:11 PM (hIWe1)

287 http://tinyurl.com/73yhr8t

Posted by: KayInMaine at February 11, 2012 12:11 PM (tL5n8)

288 I just LOVE watching pretend "conservatives" foam at the mouth when their pseudo-con nominee picks fall through. It's all just a charade anyway (as those who want to work from inside the Machine have to play by their rules and with their blessing), and that is part of the reason I'm for the homo-huggin', baby-killin', cap-and-trade lovin', gun-grabbin', tax-hiking, lefty Bishop of the Magic Undies. Only an "insider" has the clout to get a political post.

Posted by: A Coulter at February 11, 2012 12:11 PM (+FrDx)

289 the less certain I become that he can beat *anyone*, even a guy with Obama's record in office.
***
Counting his hand picked successor after he cut and run from the race against Deval Patrick (mini-Obama), Romney is 1 for 3 - and I'm not counting 2008...

He is almost perfectly positioned to be stereotyped as the evil corporate raider in the general election.

If Romney can win, any Republican can. And if that is the case, Santorum and Newt actually offer some chance of overturning Obama's policies.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:11 PM (3aXbg)

290 211 Interesting, most of you sound convinced ONLY Romney can beat Obama.
This could be a year like 1980 where anyone could beat the incumbent. OTOHI'm not yet convincedany of the current crop can beat Obama.
There are things aboutGingrich I love, but he's got way too much baggage. I can't work up any enthusiasm for Romney; I used to think he wascompetent, and that was enough, but I'm not sure anymore. Santorum issocially conservative and economically mushy (past pro- Union, still protectionist.) No thanks.
In the VA primary, betweenMitt andCrazy uncle,I'm enthusiastic for Romney. November? Meh. ABO.

Posted by: Jim in Virginia at February 11, 2012 12:12 PM (MZUoP)

291 Something tells me that Newt is about to catch his second wind.

Posted by: Tea (leaves) Party at February 11, 2012 12:12 PM (TsXFk)

292 THIS IS ME WITH THE GOP! STOP CHANGING MY POSTS FACISTS!

http://tinyurl.com/73yhr8t

Posted by: KayInMaine at February 11, 2012 12:12 PM (tL5n8)

293
...except for the fact that I live in Pennsylvania and saw firsthand what a trainwreck of a campaign that was, and I don't want to see it again.

Santorum lost for a couple of reasons:

1) He endorsed Specter over Toomey. Party politics, something he had to do to get party support. But it enraged the uber-conservatives and they refused to vote for him.

2) He didn't get much party support. A lot of the minor issues the MFM and the DNC blew out of proportion could have been countered with some GOP support.

The residency issue, for example, was a nothing burger. The GOP could've dug up dozens of Democrat politicians in the same boat and Rick could've used them in his defense. But the GOP wasn't there. I doubt Santorum's campaign had the time, money and people to do that work. Another was his wife's malpractice suit. At the time, Santorum was advocating tort reform with a punitive cap of $250,000, no cap on compensatory damages. Rick's wife was requesting $350,000 in compensatory damages. So the Dems and MFM simply conflated the two, painting Santorum as a hypocrite. Again, the GOP was nowhere in sight to help clarify the issue.

The volume of petty attacks from so many directions were simply too overwhelming for Santorum's campaign alone to respond to all of them. Santorum shares some of the blame but the national GOP really let him down.

3) Governor Casey was the most popular Pennsylvanian Governor in living memory. Casey had already won state office and had huge name recognition. Plus, most of the elderly population actually thought they were voting for the dead governor. Florida is the only state with a more elderly population than Florida.

I think Santorum has learned a lot from his last campaign and will not get rattled by Democrat attacks. Right now he's running a far better campaign than I thought he would and I think he has a good chance against Obama.

Mitt Romneycare, on the other hand, is totally unelectable.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 12:13 PM (7+pP9)

294 >>>One thing that will doom Santorum in the general election is foreign
policy. This is a guy that will be arguing we aren't involved in the
middle east enough mind you, how is that going to sell?


Another decent point. Romney is running on a strong military too, but he has the good sense to pin it to the need to keep China in its place, which is both more relevant to American interests moving forward AND more popular.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 12:13 PM (hIWe1)

295 Oh, and another point to consider Santorum is outperforming in swing states with no budget.

Obama will have more money to spend in the general. Who has shown the better ability to win when outspent, Romney, Newt, or Santorum?

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:13 PM (3aXbg)

296 263 -

I'm not sure that's true. Nominate Santorum, and see how many "conservatives" find themselves unable to vote for a guy who doesn't love the liberal agenda.

I doubt they'll be tested on it, but someday the R party might nominate a social con. Watch them leave the party in droves.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 12:13 PM (Gc/Qi)

297
I thought the Bill of Rights and the Constitution guaranteed all men the same liberty. Our forefathers vowed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. We want to focus on cornholing.
We can't take four more years of The SCFOAMF. The appointments to the Supreme Court alone will damn the future of my blood for generations. It is imperative that we win in November. I'm not very smart, that is true, and I would hazard a guess that my thought's are far too simple. I just know that the ememy of the good is breaking through the door.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at February 11, 2012 12:13 PM (r2dnH)

298 Romney will be weak in the general on the most important issue of the election: Obama Care. He will not be able to draw a clear contrast between himself and Obama and the confused independent will not support Romney.

It also pains me to point out that Obama will run as a "Christian" versus Romney, a Mormon. Unfair as that is, it has to be worth 2 points in the general.

Posted by: goat lover at February 11, 2012 12:14 PM (qfDtF)

299 @mama winger

Thanks for the info.

a) is a very good reason. I can't fault a person who puts their family first. Same goes for Mitch Daniels, who didn't want to subject his wife to scrutiny over their past marriage troubles.
b) is not a very good reason, in my opinion. The country needs a strong fiscal leader in the presidency more than they need one in the House.

This is the sad irony of the white house... those most qualified for the post are the ones most likely to turn it down.

Posted by: not the mama at February 11, 2012 12:14 PM (96Kco)

300 It's also fascinating the left is still flogging the Terry Schaivo thing after all these years. Sheesh.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM (azHfB)
And its fascinating that many involved would refight the same stupid battle, knowing the disastrous consequences of it.

Santorum is a disaster.
Gingrich is a disaster.
Romney is a disaster.
Paul is a nutty disaster.

Daniels, DeMint, and Thune all passed. Any one of them, any of them, would have been light years ahead of the turds floating in our primary bowl right now. I actually ignore them now, just out of spite. Nothing they can say makes up for their ball-less-ness this year. Daniels especially. He listened to his wife? The same woman who slutted about? Her opinion should approximate that of a common horsefly when he was deciding whether or not to run.

Posted by: CAC at February 11, 2012 12:14 PM (lwbbJ)

301 SMOD / Zimmer 2012: You're gonna like the way it all ends. We guaran-damn-tee it.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 11, 2012 12:14 PM (4q5tP)

302 Nobody is more not Romney than me. I hardly know what to propose at this point. Brokered convention and some not Romney somewhere seems more plausible everyday.


Newt has his plusses but his tendency to derail is not one of them; if he could stay on message for ten seconds in a row ....

Posted by: SarahW at February 11, 2012 12:14 PM (LYwCh)

303 Newt doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, and since he recently converted to Catholicism, in the present climate he is better off working out a deal with Rick, like I am selling my immortal soul to get from Mitt.

Posted by: A Coulter at February 11, 2012 12:15 PM (+FrDx)

304 Mama winger, long time no see. How's life?

Posted by: Jim in Virginia at February 11, 2012 12:15 PM (MZUoP)

305 >>>He endorsed Specter over Toomey. Party politics, something he had to do
to get party support. But it enraged the uber-conservatives and they
refused to vote for him.


Santorum endorsed Specter because they were (and remain) friends, and because Specter basically singlehandedly got Santorum elected to the Senate in 1994 by coming into his flailing campaign and taking it over with his ultra-professional PA election team. It wasn't just party loyalty.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 12:16 PM (hIWe1)

306 Of the three remaining candidates (I'm not even going to count CrazyOldMan) which one do you think brings a more energized base along with him, to do the actual groundwork? You know, phone calls, door to door, get out the vote kind of stuff?

Who brings their workers with them?

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:16 PM (P6QsQ)

307 It also pains me to point out that Obama will run as a "Christian"
versus Romney, a Mormon. Unfair as that is, it has to be worth 2 points
in the general.
Yep. If Santorum's conservative Christianity is a negative, and I find that laughable based on actual political history, what is going to happen when the State Media decides to "give a balanced picture of Mormonism"

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:16 PM (3aXbg)

308 I would rather you explain how Senator Romney, had he succeeded in defeating Ted Kennedy in 1994 on a pro-abotion, pro-Government platform, would have voted any differently.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 12:06 PM (azHfB)

Ha, I assumed you would. Santorum was bragging about raising minimum wage and funding AMTRAK in his TV ads while running for senate in 2006 not 1994.

Romney claims he changed, Reagan claimed he changed. You don't beleive him fine.

Santorum doesn't claim he has changed, he said he would still vote against right to work if he was the senator from PA. He still defends earmarks, even today. He still defends medicare part D.

I haven't heard Santorum change on any of his big government votes or bills.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 12:18 PM (MtwBb)

309 McCain/Palin 2012 Too soon?

Posted by: Ammo Dump at February 11, 2012 12:18 PM (WUWb9)

310 Mama winger, long time no see. How's life?

Posted by: Jim in Virginia at February 11, 2012 12:15 PM



Hi Jim! Life is good! Little Winger is on his third tour of duty, he's staying safe - can't ask for much more than that.

How are things by you?

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:18 PM (P6QsQ)

311 The founders put it in the Constitution for obvious
Tory loyalty reasons. Immigration wasn't even anywhere near what it
would become.

Posted by: kehoe at February 11, 2012 12:08 PM (wXB+s)


Excerpt from a letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 1787



Dear Sir,

[...]
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national
Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
[...]
I remain
Dear Sir
Your faithful Friend Servt




It was about the pollution of the American body politic with asinine ideas from foreigners who do not understand or appreciate our utterly unique system (which was only being built at that time). Barky serves as exhibit one for that clause. A total perversion of the American system and traditions from a non-natural born citizen who was raised in a foreign land and has not one iota of American sensibilities about him.

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 12:18 PM (X3lox)

312
Ahem:

Casey [Jr.] had already won state office and had huge name recognition. Plus, most of the elderly population actually thought they were voting for the dead governor. Florida is the only state with a more elderly population than Florida Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 12:18 PM (7+pP9)

313 >>>I doubt they'll be tested on it, but someday the R party might nominate a social con. Watch them leave the party in droves.

And if that happened, what would it actually prove, except that "social conservatism" is electoral poison? What does it gain you to be left with a party that can only draw votes from a maximum of 35-40% of the country?

Again, are you trying to win an intellectual argument or an election to govern the nation?

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 12:19 PM (hIWe1)

314 So the candidates, Romney more specifically, finally realized that exerting energy going after Obama would be better than going after colleagues? Why that's crazy talk.

And I thought these people were advised by "political experts." If you want the base to support you, you go after the best target. Always and almost exclusively. Guess who that is? It rhymes with Cluttering Stusterfuck of a Fiserable Mailure.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 11, 2012 12:20 PM (eHIJJ)

315 278 On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is an ultraLiberal and 10 is an ultraConservative, I rate Mitt a 6. Yep,Mitt's a 6. That's a good four or five points better than what we have now. The US might elect a 10 but it would have to be a lot more excitingcandidate than Newt or Santorum.

Posted by: Jim in Virginia at February 11, 2012 12:20 PM (MZUoP)

316 Another point too - Casey ran as a social con in PA. Santorum will not be facing one in 2012 and will benefit from it...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:20 PM (3aXbg)

317
I haven't heard Santorum change on any of his big government votes or bills.

I haven't heard Romney admit Romneycare is a fiasco.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 12:20 PM (7+pP9)

318
*"Romney will be weak in the general on the most important issue of the election: Obama Care."*

Bullshit, get outside your freak'n bubble. People care about one thing right now, getting a job or worrying about keeping theirs. That's it. Nobody but die hard politicos care about an entitlement program that hasn't been enacted yet. In fact, when you got a workforce with this many people out of work or worried about their jobs, government health insurance starts looking pretty damn good.

Posted by: lowandslow at February 11, 2012 12:21 PM (GZitp)

319 I will vote for anyone vs Barry O in November. Anyone is better than this socialist in the WH, his mooching wife, his corrupt Chicago cronies, and his band of czars.

Good for Santorum to be ahead on this roller coaster ride.

I stand with Andrew Breitbart who is voting anti-liberal socialism this November. I am not a PRINO (Purist Republican In Name Only, who would rather stay home and embrace socialism instead of voting for their pet candidate). I will vote for every GOP on the ticket, as I am a honey badger when it comes to Democrats. May Sen.Botox Bill Nelson join Charlie Crist as an ambulance chaser in Florida after this election.

ABO 2012 (add Rubio to VP slot, please)

Posted by: ChristyBlinky loves Rubio at February 11, 2012 12:21 PM (baL2B)

320 I doubt they'll be tested on it, but someday the R party might nominate a social con. Watch them leave the party in droves.
***
So, I know it was a while ago...but you remember 2004, right? Bush ran on two issues, the WoT and judges. And he won.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:22 PM (3aXbg)

321
...Ron Fucking Paul...

wow that's really gay

Posted by: You Win! at February 11, 2012 12:22 PM (sqkOB)

322 >>>I am convinced Romney can't seal the deal. There's no evidence that
Team Romney can listen to the electorate. Congratulations.

I don't know what to make of Romney, actually. You'd think a man who created and ran Bain capital would be one of the most agile people in terms of strategy. But the market, I guess, is more rational than the electorate.

I think he's been focused so much on the general election strategy, that he hasn't wanted to offer any red meat for fear of turning off independents and moderates.

I think he should have been a bit more concerned when the boomlets were so big. Now he's stuck with the unvetted Santorum. We're getting to it now, of course. People are looking through his record and he is not the conservative savior we want.

But what I don't want to hear is why Romney is so terrible. He is. What you have to explain is why the other guy is better.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2012 12:23 PM (fNK8e)

323 McCain/Biden 2012 Why? You can never be too senile to run.

Posted by: Ammo Dump at February 11, 2012 12:24 PM (WUWb9)

324 I doubt they'll be tested on it, but someday the R party might nominate a social con. Watch them leave the party in droves.
Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 12:13 PM (Gc/Qi)


I think we did that with George Bush didn't we?

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 12:24 PM (MtwBb)

325 I haven't heard Santorum change on any of his big government votes or bills.
***
He changed his position on NCLB. Haven't seen what he had to say about Medicare D recently.

Of course almost every Republican Senator voted for those bills. I know Santorum isn't *more* conservative then Inhofe or DeMint, but I'm ok with that.

Oh, and at the time Santorum was supporting the Bush agenda - except for Amnesty - Romney was giving us Obamacare v1.0.

Santorum wins this comparison hands down.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:24 PM (3aXbg)

326 >>>Of the three remaining candidates (I'm not even going to count
CrazyOldMan) which one do you think brings a more energized base along
with him, to do the actual groundwork? You know, phone calls, door to
door, get out the vote kind of stuff?

Who brings their workers with them?


Um...the answer to that clearly is Romney. He's the only one who HAS a national organization and staff. Sharron Angle had a very energized base. But because it was full of amateurs and dilettantes, it was worse than useless. A professional, organized, well-funded team is a hundred thousand times more important.

Again, this is another myth that a lot of people seem to buy into, mostly because it validates the importance of their own emotional state of mind. Jay Cost will happily point out to you, with reference to massive amounts of data, that the idea of "enthusiasm" is largely a myth in the national election. The people you're referring to -- the ones who claim a 'lack of enthusiasm' or say that they won't vote or donate if Mitt is the nominee -- aren't really necessary to win the election. They'll vote anyway, because those same people hate Obama so fucking much that they'll cast their vote grudgingly, and a vote cast grudgingly is the same as one cast enthusiastically. Meanwhile, the 'ground game' you're referring to isn't something that EVER relies on "base enthusiasm" but rather money and professional logistics and organization. Only one guy in the race can boast that.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 12:25 PM (hIWe1)

327 2 Could he beat Obama? Never mind about the PA Senate race. Could this guy beat JEPOS?
------------------------------------

Any candidate who can lay it out like Rubio laid it out at CPac can win.

I'm listening to Rubio and thinking, "My God, when the choices are THAT clearly explained this election won't even be close.

Posted by: basket case nation at February 11, 2012 12:26 PM (r9ll6)

328 Calm down everyone - if this blog could have been around during the revolutionary and civil wars, those of you hand wringers and despondent promoters of sour toned analysis would have pontificated failure many times over.

Obama has to be injected into the debate as opposed to drowning ourselves in the cup of water type of preordained gloom we are so keen in purveying in our intramural analysis paralysis.

Posted by: Jornolist at February 11, 2012 12:26 PM (q1zit)

329

Yeah -- all of those Tea Party Socons really hurt the GOP in 2010.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 12:26 PM (7+pP9)

330 Oh, and one last point, Santorum came down on the conservative side of almost every major political fight during his time in office:

Welfare Reform
Government Shutdown
WoT
SS Reform
Amnesty

He's also consistently argued against Obamacare, though he didn't get a chance to vote against it.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:27 PM (3aXbg)

331 Meanwhile, the 'ground game' you're referring to isn't something that EVER relies on "base enthusiasm"



Umm, how many elections have you worked, Jeff B? Serious question. Because I've worked the ground game for a very long time.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:27 PM (P6QsQ)

332 If Mitt's team is so great, why isn't he clobbering all comers?

Why is he getting beaten by a sweater vest and a spacesuit?

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 12:27 PM (DTX4S)

333 Effing TEA baggers!

Posted by: A Coulter at February 11, 2012 12:28 PM (+FrDx)

334 hey'll vote anyway, because those same people hate Obama so fucking much
that they'll cast their vote grudgingly, and a vote cast grudgingly is
the same as one cast enthusiastically.
***
I can't speak for everyone, but if Romney is the R nominee I will not vote for him.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:28 PM (3aXbg)

335 If Mitt's team is so great, why isn't he clobbering all comers?



Why is he getting beaten by a sweater vest and a spacesuit?





Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 12:27 PM (DTX4S)



I'm pacing myself.

Posted by: Mittens Winger at February 11, 2012 12:28 PM (X3lox)

336 291
Something tells me that Newt is about to catch his second wind.


OK Newt, Lent starts the 22th, you want that last blow job now or on Fat Tuesday?

Posted by: Castilla or whatever helmet head's name is at February 11, 2012 12:29 PM (hXJOG)

337 Pep, I've never said anything about the establishment pushing anyone, I don't go in for the "great establishment conspiracy" at all. I was trying to answer someone about a Reagan type candidate. Do you think our party's orginization is ready for this election? I don't, not yet anyway. Maybe I amnot expressing myself properly. Do Rubio, Ryan and the rest have to answer for thier decision not to run if we lose. Yes. However to me it is an example of how fractured and without message the Republicans are that these guys didn't want to run. Maybe they truly don't want to be President. Fine. This is reality, my original point was these guys aren't top tier maybe the younger rock stars wouldn't have been either. I do have a sense of missed opportunity I admit that. This joker has to be defeated. Can these guys do it? I am saying it is going to take a huge and orginized effort for us to do it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Referr to birther conversation above. Fighting battles already lost.

Posted by: kehoe at February 11, 2012 12:29 PM (wXB+s)

338 I wish I could dig up that post of a month ago where I said that Republican voters would get tired of Gingrich/Romney slugging it out in a sewer, and that Santorum just might rise to the top.

But hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Can Santorum KEEP the momentum? That is the question.

Posted by: basket case nation at February 11, 2012 12:30 PM (r9ll6)

339 I haven't heard Romney admit Romneycare is a fiasco.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 12:20 PM (7+pP9)


No he hasn't, he has said about 1,000 times that he would repeal Obamacare. I personally don't care how people in MA get their healthcare. 2/3 of the people living there say they like it. If they like it fine, it doesn't affect me, I don't live there and I don't have any plans to live there.

Santorums votes were for national policy, they did affect me.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 12:30 PM (MtwBb)

340
President Obama's lead over Mitt Romney in a potential head-to-head contest has swelled to 10 points, with the president capturing 50% support to Mr. Romney's 40%. Meanwhile, Rasmussen finds that Mr. Obama leads Mr. Santorum by just four points, 46% to 42%. Another recent Rasmussen poll, focused on the key battleground state of Ohio, finds a dead heat in a potential Obama-Santorum contest. But the president leads Mr. Romney by four points among Buckeye voters.

Dear Romneybots:

Please pull your heads out of your asses and recognize all of America prefers a conservative over Romney or Obama.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 12:30 PM (7+pP9)

341 Not to worry. Santorum will be destroyed. The MSM is hard at work and so are the Dems. Y'all will help. See? Easy.

Posted by: SurferDoc at February 11, 2012 12:30 PM (6H6FZ)

342 These kind of long stupid threads are why we need football all year long.

Take out a reverse mortgage and buy a team today! Send for a free DVD.

Posted by: teh Fred at February 11, 2012 12:31 PM (hXJOG)

343 >>>Yeah -- all of those Tea Party Socons really hurt the GOP in 2010.

1.) The Tea Party WASN'T "socon" in 2010. That was its entire point: it wasn't about culture wars, it was about spending and debt and small government. The socon agenda, if anything, has been opposed to much of that throughout its existence: it favors intrusive government, and is okay with increased spending, just so long as it's in the name of their preferred Christian values.

2.) It's pretty clear in retrospect that the Tea Party DID end up hurting the GOP in several key races in 2010 by nominating terrible, loser candidates who lost otherwise winnable races. Again: O'Donnell, Buck, Angle. You can also add in Bill Brady in IL (the ultracon downstate IL Gov candidate who lost to the insanely unpopular Pat Quinn even as Mark Kirk was winning the Senate race, dooming the state to massive tax increases) and Clint Didier fucking over Dino Rossi in WA state.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 12:31 PM (hIWe1)

344 313 -

I'm looking for a new coalition. There are D union members just begging for a place to take their votes. There are conservative Latinos and Blacks who don't have anyone representing their views.

These people don't hate the R party for their stance on social issues. They hate the party because they don't believe it represents anything to do with their lives.

Me personally, I don't have a problem with Social Security, or programs designed to help the poor, including some of those on the list above, used as an argument against Santorum.

I'm not a libertarian. I wouldn't mind having a President who could stand up and voice a strong, conservative, moral message. I'm not asking him to legislate bedroom behavior, just talk about the difference between a civil society and one where anything goes.

Mitt gets you all those social liberals. Those of us who aren't social liberals, we're told to get in line. Again.

No thanks.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 12:32 PM (Gc/Qi)

345 Mama winger, life is good.I'm gainfully employed, the family is healthy, the twin daughters are HS juniors and doing great.

Posted by: Jim in Virginia at February 11, 2012 12:32 PM (MZUoP)

346 I can't speak for everyone, but if Romney is the R nominee I will not vote for him.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:28 PM (3aXbg)

Nah, I'll vote for him but only to oust Ebola.

I will also punish myself later.

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 12:32 PM (DTX4S)

347
#293 Ed. thanks for reminding me of all those other Greatest Hits from that awful campaign. The residency thing WAS a big deal, especially because Santorum's first campaign for the House waswon largely because of a residency issue with his opponent. And because he claimed to be a fiscal conservative while he was getting Pennsylvania funds for homeschooling his kids in Virginia, to the tune of almost $100,000. Santorum had held himself up for so long as a paragon of virtue that he could not afford to have anything like this discovered about him. I always believe that voters will punish hypocrisy far worse than any policy disagreements.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 12:32 PM (A0UFZ)

348

What a disaster this whole thing is.



Posted by: DrewM. at 10:08 AM


Ahhh, haven't you backed Gingrich? Sorry, but Newt's not exactly the choice of a steady and sober candidacy.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 11, 2012 12:32 PM (2YIVk)

349
So...the closest polls have Romney about four points down vs Obama. The same forPaul. All other candidates lose outright in a match up with Obama.
How does AoS and the Moron Horde change that?
Your response: ...by arguing about it and doing the MSM's job for them.
(The MSM doesn't have to attack the Republican candidates. Conservatives and Republicans are doing the job quite well on their own.)

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at February 11, 2012 12:33 PM (E7Z1r)

350 Just to liven up the debate a little, when will Ron Paul go third party and will that facilitate or hinder the fantasy-land dream of a brokered convention?

Posted by: Fritz at February 11, 2012 12:33 PM (TsXFk)

351 Romney needs to drop out of the race so the GOP can decide if it wants to run on a SoCon or a FisCon platform.


Just kidding. Mostly. But Newt is about to surge in the South and maybe the West making it more likely we get a brokered convention with, hopefully, a fairly even three-way split in the delegate count.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 12:33 PM (N/1Dm)

352 >>>I can't speak for everyone, but if Romney is the R nominee I will not vote for him.

You're right, you can't speak for everyone.

And additionally, the only reason you're even adopting this position is because you're trying to 'prove' to people like me that we're wrong. I honestly don't believe you, and even if I did I'd point out that you are statistical noise compared to the number of people who WOULD vote ABO, plus the swing voters Romney would also pull in.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 12:33 PM (hIWe1)

353 "Yeah -- all of those Tea Party Socons really hurt the GOP in 2010." - Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 12:26 PM (7+pP9)

And the GOP Establishment did such a great job in 2006 and 2008. It was great that Liz Dole spent millions to prop up the primary candidacy of Lincoln Chaffee against one of those icky conservatives; because only a liberal GOP candidate like Linc could hold that seat, and even if he was sorta liberal, at least he was a loyal Republican.
So said the Establishment.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 12:34 PM (azHfB)

354
My main reason for believing that Mitt Romney will win both the nom and the general is a bit odd but it's my gut feeling.

Mitt Romney does not strike me as the type to blow a 100+ million $$ of his own money on a lark.

1. He's not about to let Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich sweep out the rug from under him. No way, no how. He will beat either of them for the nom. Mitt already blew $45M in 2008 to lose to McCain.

2. If Mitt didn't think HE could beat Obama, he wouldn't run.

Will he win? The fuck if I know. But that's what I think Mitt is thinking. And I don't think Mitt is a dummy or a loser. To put it another way, my money is on Mitt, at the end of the day, outsmarting everyone else.

Weird, I know.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2012 12:34 PM (sqkOB)

355 No he hasn't, he has said about 1,000 times that
he would repeal Obamacare.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 12:30 PM (MtwBb)


Actually, "repeal and replace" is Mittens' favorite phrase about it. That's like "comprehensive immigration reform", which everyone knows means "amnesty ... and worse" as there is no real need for any "reform" of our immigration policies, just interior enforcement.

Now, Mittens is no brain, but even he understands exactly what he's saying and he knows who he's saying it to (we're in a friggin primary).

If Mittens gets the nom, I'll vote for the slug, but you can bet your butt that there are many people who won't, as they won't see his winning having any real effect on turning back the worst of the insane overexpansion of the federal government.

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 12:34 PM (X3lox)

356 351

Eh, 4 candidates. Paul will have a number of delegates.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 12:34 PM (N/1Dm)

357 Jeff B.: "The people you're referring to -- the ones who claim a 'lack of
enthusiasm' or say that they won't vote or donate if Mitt is the nominee
-- aren't really necessary to win the election. They'll vote anyway,
because those same people hate Obama so fucking much that they'll cast
their vote grudgingly, and a vote cast grudgingly is the same as one
cast enthusiastically."


And you'd be wrong. I've cast a number of protest votes in my day while concomitantly voting for candidates down-ticket. I've seen many peers over the years so disgusted that they've skipped voting altogether when their choices are between evil and more evil. Sure, this election is exceptional because we have a fuckin' Marxist at the helm, but there will be still be some who do bail.

Enthusiasm matters. In close elections it can be enough to swing a state.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 11, 2012 12:35 PM (eHIJJ)

358 Jim in Virginia - so glad to hear that, and it's so nice to see you again!

HS Juniors - how time flies. I'm a grandma twice over now myself . Imagine that.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:35 PM (P6QsQ)

359 I can't speak for everyone, but if Romney is the R nominee I will not vote for him.Posted by: 18-1

So you're voting for 3 more leftists on SCOTUS, then?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 12:35 PM (+Jr2Z)

360 I don't go in for the "great establishment conspiracy" at all

You don't?

Posted by: The Illuminati at February 11, 2012 12:36 PM (vbh31)

361 At the end of the day, both Romney and Santorum are northeastern Republicans from heavily Democratic states who had to make a lot of compromises to get elected in those states, but who are both advocating conservative positions now. Neither one is visionary, but both are preferable to the SCOAMF. Both will have a tough time beating the SCOAMF unless the economy tanks.

At the end of the day, you might as well vote based on the color of their ties.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 12:36 PM (azHfB)

362 >>>So you're voting for 3 more leftists on SCOTUS, then?

Silly goose! 18-1 wants to prove a point.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 12:37 PM (hIWe1)

363 I honestly don't believe you,
***
If after 2009-today the Republicans want to run a liberal I can't stop them, but they've obviously signaled they don't want my support.

I'll continue to support conservatives running as Republicans with my money and time, but they party as a whole doesn't deserve it.

I think the party is foolish in understating the catastrophe they are about to introduce. And frankly, it isn't clear whether a Romney loss to Obama (the most likely event) or a Romney victory would be worse for conservatism.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:37 PM (3aXbg)

364


http://tinyurl.com/cuwfn2

Posted by: Sen Bultoski at February 11, 2012 12:37 PM (hXJOG)

365 Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 12:35 PM (+Jr2Z)

But with consistency and integrity!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 11, 2012 12:37 PM (nEUpB)

366 How do I got out of this chickenshit outfit?

Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at February 11, 2012 12:37 PM (XXsVN)

367 Those of you who have worked the ground game or been in and around elections thinking standard calculus applies, just remember, we have entered an entirely new electoral paradigm of sorts with new media helping to drive the process and such. We ain't playing contract bridge politics over an old card table. We have entered a new game on a new media table - anything is possible. Take for example the fact I am writing this on an iPhone device that provides me with the capability to make an international call from LA while I check global markets in real time all the while I read a blog with commenters who seem to think they understand presidential electoral politics in the age of iPhone media.

Give me a break. Santorum could win this thing but it might take support from the nattering nabobs who think they know what they are talking about, ahem.

Posted by: Jornolist at February 11, 2012 12:37 PM (q1zit)

368 So you're voting for 3 more leftists on SCOTUS, then?
***
I've looked at Romney's record on judicial appointments. So no, I won't be voting for him.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:37 PM (3aXbg)

369
More relevant question is: Can George Allen a) win the primary, and b) defeat Tim Kaine?

That's a big big big Senate race for us.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2012 12:38 PM (sqkOB)

370 Not trying to be a nudge here, Jeff B. But I am actually curious as to my question to you above, which I will repeat:

You wrote = "Meanwhile, the 'ground game' you're referring to isn't something that EVER relies on "base enthusiasm"

and I responded:

"Umm, how many elections have you worked, Jeff B? Serious question. Because I've worked the ground game for a very long time."





Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:38 PM (P6QsQ)

371
It'd be nice if Tim Kaine loses the Dem primary to some moonbat, but I dunno if one is even running.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2012 12:39 PM (sqkOB)

372 359
I can't speak for everyone, but if Romney is the R nominee I will not vote for him.Posted by: 18-1

So you're voting for 3 more leftists on SCOTUS, then?


Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 12:35 PM (+Jr2Z)

Yep...he/she sure is voting for Obama and leftists on SCOTUS by omission and sofa-sitting. A very principled patriot he/she is! Would have probably hid in the hedge-rows on D-Day as well, as this is our D-Day in November.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky loves Rubio at February 11, 2012 12:39 PM (baL2B)

373 plus the swing voters Romney would also pull in.
***
Romney has won one election in his life, and is flailing with a major advantage of money and establishment support now. He is also the candidate that the Democrats have been preparing to run against since 2010.

He is easily the least electable of the remaining three candidates.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:40 PM (3aXbg)

374 The SCOTUS argument doesn't fly far with me. The Rs have also nominated some huge assholes to the court.

Posted by: SurferDoc at February 11, 2012 12:40 PM (6H6FZ)

375
http://tinyurl.com/y83x2b6

Posted by: Otter, the head of the GOP at February 11, 2012 12:40 PM (hXJOG)

376 Yep...he/she sure is voting for Obama and leftists on SCOTUS by omission
and sofa-sitting. A very principled patriot he/she is! Would have
probably hid in the hedge-rows on D-Day as well, as this is our D-Day in
November.
***
Meh, I'd rather fight like Ike then accommodate the opposition with Petain as you would seem to prefer.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:41 PM (3aXbg)

377 C'mon, drewsie. Don't go all hyperbolic here. some date knuckleheads victories lately. The pro-little boy fucking wing of The Wingnut Party managed to make sure that some folks have no access to contraception.

Chins up, bitches!

Posted by: What knuckleheads must always think at February 11, 2012 12:41 PM (EpKC/)

378 Whatever happened to the days when "I would vote for a ham sammitch instead of odumbass", face it folks this is do or die in Nov.

Howdy folks!

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 12:41 PM (0uCal)

379 Once again, the left's response to Sanroturm's surge is telling. They are thrilled.

Posted by: rectal exam at February 11, 2012 12:42 PM (O7ksG)

380 I've looked at Romney's record on judicial appointments. So no, I won't be voting for him. Posted by: 18-1

Well, we wouldn't want your principles to be hurt or anything. I hope your kids feel the same way.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 12:42 PM (+Jr2Z)

381
The "ground game" in thie election will be fought by the RNC and the super-PACs. And it will be a damn good one, way better than 2008, regardless of the nominee. There will be at least $500 million spent on TV and radio ads trashing Barack Obama and scaring the shit out of America about what a second Obama term will look like, regardless of who the GOP nominee is. That's why I'm not worrying about that part, I'm worrying about who can actually get 52% of the popular vote and carry 4 states that Obama won in 2008.

I'm bummed that this race got so nasty, and that has certainly brought Romney down in the head to head polls againt Obama. But it was always going to be that way, because these guys all know how vulnerable Obama is and so the nomination is worth having and worth fighting for.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 12:42 PM (A0UFZ)

382 324 -

"I think we did that with George Bush didn't we?"

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 12:24 PM (MtwBb)

I suppose, but Bush was awfully quiet about it. My brother thinks he made a deal with the Dems, let him have foreign policy, as long as they go along with his war agenda, he would leave them to set domestic policy.

He probably heard that somewhere, and I don't quite believe it because it's too conspiratorial, but it's hard to argue that Bush governed like a social con, even though he is one.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2012 12:42 PM (Gc/Qi)

383
Get back under the stairs, eggmcmuffin.

And take your meds!

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2012 12:42 PM (sqkOB)

384 Not trying to be a nudge here,
Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:38 PM (P6QsQ)


I always figured that should be written as "noodge" - you were using the Yiddish, right?

Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 12:43 PM (X3lox)

385 no access to contraception.

What, drugstores don't sell condoms anymore?

Posted by: Waterhouse at February 11, 2012 12:43 PM (6SKSx)

386 Remember when the Romney people were lecturing republicans that they should come together and support whoever the nominee is?

Now that they're losing, this is the part where they take their ball away and go home, say they won't vote, will go third party, or somesuch.

LOL

Romney's failure among republicans was predictable.
Why?
Because he had almost no history of supporting or fighting for conservative ANYTHING. All he had was speeches and promises he gave. And tearing down other candidates.

Romney is pro gay when talking to gays, pro liberal when talking to liberals, and pro conservative when talking to conservatives.

Posted by: Village Idiot at February 11, 2012 12:43 PM (utXSy)

387 "Some big knucklehead victories lately."

Sorry, little brothers. My screed machine glitched.

Posted by: What knuckleheads must always think at February 11, 2012 12:43 PM (EpKC/)

388 >>>Because no one is changing the tax code, not
Romney, not Santorum or even Ron Fucking Paul.
--------------------------------

Next week Obama will present a plan to LOWER the corporate tax rate. Maybe from 35% to 28%.

Number of moonbats who will refuse to vote for him because he pandered to corporations?

NONE.

Posted by: basket case nation at February 11, 2012 12:44 PM (r9ll6)

389 The "ground game" in this election will be fought by the RNC ..... And it will be a damn good one.






Surely. You jest.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:44 PM (P6QsQ)

390 Whatever happened to the days when "I would vote for a ham sammitch
instead of odumbass", face it folks this is do or die in Nov.
***
Waygu beats ham any day. And its the conservative solution to your lunch mean corundum.

Posted by: Mitt 2012 at February 11, 2012 12:44 PM (3aXbg)

391 Perhaps I missed where Romney said he was prepared to extend MassCare to the other 49 states?

All of the candidates say they will do what it takes to eliminate ObamaCare. Find another dead horse to beat on, folks. Or, let's get serious about defeating Obama and the Democrats.

Posted by: Colonel Haiku at February 11, 2012 12:45 PM (IQZP5)

392
A plus for a Santorum nomination is that he has a clean background (at least that I know of). Something we'll need when going up against an incumbent that has stobbornly high personal ratings. I should say the same thing for Romney, but the way Dems/media can turn perfectly legitimate corporate finance into vicious attacks on the middle class worker leaves him highly vulnerable. I don't want to spend a single news cycle this fall election being on the defense.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 11, 2012 12:45 PM (2YIVk)

393 2006 was not so far away. We ought to remember it.

We lost 2006 because of Iraq. Period.

Everything else was a sideshow.

Not saying Santorum will win but getting whipped in a wave election is not conclusive of weakness. He won twice before including in 2000. Remember 2000, the GOP lost 4 seats including one to a dead man!



Posted by: Bob from Ohio at February 11, 2012 12:46 PM (eTybj)

394 I always figured that should be written as "noodge" - you were using the Yiddish, right?


Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 12:43 PM


Nah, I was using the Swedish. But "Uff Da" got caught in my spell check.


Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:46 PM (P6QsQ)

395 Well, we wouldn't want your principles to be hurt or anything. I hope your kids feel the same way.
***
Yes, what will we tell the next generation if the Republicans choose Romney and socialized healthcare becomes the "conservative" solution?

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:46 PM (3aXbg)

396 I just don't think Santorum or Gingrich have what it will take to defeat Obama.

Posted by: Colonel Haiku at February 11, 2012 12:46 PM (IQZP5)

397 >>>If after 2009-today the Republicans want to run a liberal I can't stop
them, but they've obviously signaled they don't want my support.

They didn't run anybody. Different people ran. Hell, Perry ran and he was found wanting. This was an open primary process and "they" didn't do anything.

Hell, of all the years, this is the one that showed that the established GOP has almost no power at all.

There is no "the party". There is no "they".

We have met the enemy and they is us.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2012 12:46 PM (fNK8e)

398
Perhaps I missed where Romney said he was prepared to extend MassCare to the other 49 states?
***
Have I mentioned health care mandates are the conservative solution to health care recently? Oh, and don't worry, I'll repeal the bad parts of Obamacare. Like the name.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 11, 2012 12:47 PM (3aXbg)

399 339
I haven't heard Romney admit Romneycare is a fiasco.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 12:20 PM (7+pP9)

No he hasn't, he has said about 1,000 times that he would repeal Obamacare.


So Ed will believe Romney only if he disavows Romneycare, but doesn't believe a word Romney says. Interesting.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 12:48 PM (6TB1Z)

400 We have met the enemy and they is us.
***
I'm not blaming a mythical establishment. I'm blaming voters that are willing to accept a Romney or a McCain as the *marginally* lesser of two evils.

I learned my lesson in 2008.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:48 PM (3aXbg)

401 392 I don't want to spend a single news cycle this fall election being on the defense.

> The media wants Obama to get reelected, so it's going to happen regardless of who we nominate.

Posted by: Miss80s at February 11, 2012 12:48 PM (d6QMz)

402 We have met the enemy and they is us.

As far back as I remember, we havealways been at war with 'Us'.

Posted by: 'People' at February 11, 2012 12:49 PM (s8ZYf)

403 The SCOTUS argument doesn't fly far with me. The Rs have also nominated some huge assholes to the court.Posted by: SurferDoc

Think about what you wrote; you'd rather have 3 guaranteed leftists on SCOTUS than a good chance of not having 3 on the court.

Well, gee Doc, a President Ronald Reagan could have turned over nuclear codes to the Soviets also. Strangely enough he did not.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 12:49 PM (+Jr2Z)

404 And Raykon's still got nothin'.

Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 12:49 PM (MMC8r)

405 @354
I agree with your analysis. Romney's strong suit is numbers, analysis and strategy. Feelings don't enter into it.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 12:50 PM (6TB1Z)

406 >>>The SCOTUS argument doesn't fly far with me. The Rs have also nominated some huge assholes to the court.

Like many governors, Romney didn't have much choice as to whom he appoints. He also has Robert Bork advising him on the judiciary. So the judiciary is not a weakness for Romney.

I'd be more afraid of a Newt regarding the judiciary just because he may decide it isn't worth his attention and will leave it to underlings.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2012 12:51 PM (fNK8e)

407 It's no sure thing, but Santorum can beat Obama. I just hope he doesn't go Regulating In The Name Of Christ.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 12:51 PM (Ci0JG)

408 18-1, wear your mantle of PRINO with pride as our country endures four more years of the worst president in history. Enjoy your bath of self-righteousness, which amounts to a toddler's tantrum when he can't get the candy he wanted.

Sometimes you have to settle for the cards dealt you---which have not been dealt yet, by the way, and won't be until after the convention. What have you done since 2008, when McCain won and then chose St. Palin for his VP? Did you stay home then as well? Have you changed this by staying home? Become Independent and not allowed to vote in some primaries, as that helps a lot. While I don't give money to the GOP, I still vote GOP and, uh, we have some good candidates who win (in Florida: see Rubio and West). Does it not occur to you that it will take YEARS to keep filling posts with conservatives, and it is done by voting. It will take years and years to repair the damage Obama and liberals have created. He is one man, whoever is our nominee. He will have an increasingly conservative GOP Congress, please God, and our country will not have Obama.

I don't give a jimmy crack-corn who votes for who in the primaries, but I will never, ever understand, after the "2008 Stay Home Pity Party because McCain was on the ticket...we'll show those establishment GOP!!! while electing Obama"-----I will never understand how anyone could not vote against Obama in 2012. Stay home, by all means, and please don't join the fight for our country.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky loves Rubio at February 11, 2012 12:51 PM (baL2B)

409 Romney's strong suit is numbers, analysis and strategy. Feelings don't enter into it.

He should try singing...who is the Al Green for you people?
Barry Manilow?
He should try singing 'Mandy' or some shit like that.

Posted by: Barackets the Crooning Emperor at February 11, 2012 12:51 PM (s8ZYf)

410 Cue the 1980 polls during the early primary season when President Peanuts was stomping on the Crazy Old Man from California.
There is much we can do to neutralize economic growth...postpone any and all capital purchases until 2013; do not hire under any circumstances; do not patronize businesses with a known association to the regime.--punish those who have aligned themselves with the SCOAMT.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at February 11, 2012 12:52 PM (j/FEl)

411 It's mighty brisk out there today but I'm not a fair weather Q'er, just put two racks of pork ribs on the grill while I worry sooooo much about the Country I fought and bled for.

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 12:52 PM (0uCal)

412
The Tea Party WASN'T "socon" in 2010.

*cough* Allen West *cough*

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 12:53 PM (7+pP9)

413 Yes, what will we tell the next generation if the
Republicans choose Romney and socialized healthcare becomes the
"conservative" solution?Posted by: 18-1


While I have your attention, who were you thinking for those 3 slots?

Larry Tribe, Cass Sunstein, and Erwin Chemerinsky? Like that. Or should Bill Ayers be rewarded for his writing services?

Oh, I know! You'd be down with an Islamist so we can get this whole American Caliphate rollin'!

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 12:53 PM (+Jr2Z)

414 The problem is folks believe everything the fucktard libs say about us, not me I laugh at them in real time and on this magic box.

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 12:55 PM (0uCal)

415
One week from today we'll know a lot more about Santorum's wave.

The AZ and MI primaries are on 2/28.
In older polls, Romney had comfortable leads in both states. We'll see this week if that still holds or if Santorum's surge is legit.


Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2012 12:55 PM (sqkOB)

416 Enjoy your bath of self-righteousness, which amounts to a toddler's tantrum when he can't get the candy he wanted.

Irony Deflectors at 100%, holding strong.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 12:56 PM (Ci0JG)

417 Now that they're losing, this is the part where they take their ball
away and go home, say they won't vote, will go third party, or somesuch.


Your sock is appropriate.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 12:56 PM (6TB1Z)

418 Hey,one of the SCOTUS slots is for ME, and Mitt already told me so.

Posted by: A Coulter at February 11, 2012 12:56 PM (+FrDx)

419 >>>I can't speak for everyone, but if Romney is the R nominee I will not vote for him.Posted by: 18-1

First, I don't believe this statement, but what it tells me is that you aren't a serious person and should, frankly, be ashamed at your petulance.

We've heard this all before. The taking your ball and going home crowd. For some, it's a serious threat, but the purpose is to make the claim that: "I and people who think like me will leave the coalition, so if you want to have us on board, you have to accede to our demands."

It really is a petty threat. I hate to lump it in with terrorism, but that's what it's intended to be.

It's disgusting, pathetic and shows the weakness of your position.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2012 12:57 PM (fNK8e)

420 416 entropy

*snort*

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 11, 2012 12:57 PM (VmUXu)

421 Hey there 'Nam Grunt. Ribs sound good.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 12:57 PM (P6QsQ)

422 419,

That's nice of you I would say fuck off pussy!

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 12:58 PM (0uCal)

423 He should try singing...who is the Al Green for you people?

Barry Manilow?

He should try singing 'Mandy' or some shit like that



I think he's more of a "Nearer My God, To Thee" guy. Anything but "Who Let the Dogs Out".

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 12:58 PM (6TB1Z)

424 421,

Hi mama, I promise, they will be good.

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 12:59 PM (0uCal)

425 Mitt Romney does not strike me as the type to blow a 100+ million $$ of his own money on a lark.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2012 12:34 PM (sqkOB)

I don’t believe Mitt has spent a nickel of his own money yet.

Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2012 12:59 PM (FdndL)

426 That is a poll of Republicans, not a poll of Americans in general. Sort of like taking a poll of Democrats and seeing Nancy Pelosi leading it. It doesn't matter how Santorum poll among Republicans against other Republicans. It matters how he is polling among all likely voters against Obama.

The goal is to beat Obama but for some reasons Republicans have it in their head that the goal is to beat Romney. I sincerely feel there's a lot of anti-Mormon bigotry hiding in those numbers.

Republicans would rather lose the general election than see Romney possibly win it. Just freaking amazing.

Posted by: crosspatch at February 11, 2012 12:59 PM (ZbLJZ)

427
Yes, what will we tell the next generation if the
Republicans choose Romney and socialized healthcare becomes the
"conservative" solution?Posted by: 18-1


Wow, hyperbole much?

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 12:59 PM (A0UFZ)

428 >>>That's nice of you I would say fuck off pussy!
>>>Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 12:58 PM (0uCal)


That's why we love you.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2012 01:00 PM (fNK8e)

429 Republicans: The Party of Impotent Rage.

Posted by: Anony at February 11, 2012 01:00 PM (Yigvc)

430 One thing is sure, most of you invest far too much of your emotional and intellectual endowment in polling.

You want to choose a candidate based on polling. You want to choose "issues" to be front and center based on polling, unless said polling is counter to the polling that tells you which candidate to run. If the polling changes so does your mind, unless the polling runs counter to the candidate you prefer.

The trajectory of the primary changes and a new set of poll numbers come out and, OH LORD, the world is falling down around us. Santorum is in the lead! He's going to win! The time/space continuum has been breached!

I don't know about the rest of you but when I see a poll used as "evidence" in an argument I dismiss the argument. I don't reject the premise but I certainly don't change my mind, I just know I'm not reading a serious person.

If you believe that markets exist, and you believe that markets are far too complicated to be regulated or managed, then you should also believe they are far too complicated to understood or predicted by polls.

The GOP PR CW BS only exists to swarm polling info. It's one of the main reasons the GOP and the conservative movement is in such bad shape.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 01:01 PM (N/1Dm)

431 Anyone that doesn't vote needs to buy a ticket and leave forever we don't wantcha'!!

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 01:01 PM (0uCal)

432 Were these polls taken after the CC dust up?
because.. I ,as a Catholic who had resigned myself to Romney (and wasnt that bummed about it) have started thinking Santorum...

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at February 11, 2012 01:01 PM (qjUnn)

433 >>>Remember when the Romney people were lecturing republicans that they should come together and support whoever the nominee is?



Now that they're losing, this is the part where they take their ball
away and go home, say they won't vote, will go third party, or
somesuch.


Have you seen a SINGLE Romney supporter in any of these threads -- not just this one, but any of them -- threaten even once to not vote for the eventual GOP nominee? Much less "go third party?"

Cite me even one example, please. Because, ironically enough, we've had shittons of "proud, True Conservatives" threatening that exact thing should their chosen candidate not win, or if Romney is the nominee. But Romney supporters? We think y'all are suicidally foolish to believe that Newt or Santorum won't be destroyed by Obama, but we're going to go out there and vote ABO no matter what.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 01:01 PM (hIWe1)

434 269 long, long days until the election.

Posted by: ErikW at February 11, 2012 01:01 PM (XCoF0)

435 407 It's no sure thing, but Santorum can beat Obama. I just hope he doesn't go Regulating In The Name Of Christ.
--------------------------------

Damn. Even my atheist girlfriend admires Jesus. She says He was a "nice guy". A real man of peace. Of course, "regulating in His name" means not understanding His ministry at all. We got plenty of those people. So, point taken!

Posted by: basket case nation at February 11, 2012 01:01 PM (r9ll6)

436 @431
Help, I've been abandoned.

Posted by: The comma at February 11, 2012 01:02 PM (6TB1Z)

437
One of Mitt's biggest gaffes was telling Santorum RomneyCare = Obamacare was "nothing to get angry about."
Apparently he completely forgot those town-hall meetings all across the country a few summers ago. Does he think those people no longer exist and that they don't vote in caucuses and primaries?
People are ticked off about it, and they want someone to vote for who they think will fight against it. Mitt hasn't sealed the deal on that issue. And Rick nailed it in the last debate.
The fact that Romneycare is one of the fewissuesMitt HASN't flipped on is the biggest reason he is losing to Rick Santorum.
IMHO, of course.

Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 01:03 PM (fkaOH)

438 Well, that's two times I've asked Jeff B the same direct question. He hasn't responded either time, and I've got stuff to do so I'll check back later.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 01:03 PM (P6QsQ)

439 So, it's settled: Newt, Romney, and all of the other candidates from this election should just stay the fuck home and not raise a peep in 2016. And if they opt to run, there should be some extremely angry small government people convincing them that's a bad idea at their press conference. With tar and feathers, if necessary.

Posted by: Aaron at February 11, 2012 01:04 PM (Tlix5)

440
Republicans would rather lose the general election than see Romney possibly win it. Just freaking amazing.

If I thought Romney had a chance I'd be behind him. Repeat after me:

Mr. Wall Street.

Romneycare.

"I like to fire people."

"I don't care about the poor."

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 01:05 PM (7+pP9)

441 Its almost like the strategy of campaigning for the general election before you have even locked up the primaries is a dumb as fuck plan. I mean really, why should we want to pick a guy who thinks that is the way to win this thing.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:05 PM (GULKT)

442 Obama/Biden 2012

If you like your dictatorship, you can keep your dictatorship

Posted by: Ammo Dump at February 11, 2012 01:05 PM (WUWb9)

443 After reading a lot of comments I wonder if we can agree and stipulate a couple of things:
"Some" posters make a laundry list of things Santorum has done then claim you can't trust what he says.
Then in their next breath claim that Romney did x, y and z 20 years ago and you MUST trust what he says NOW.

Can we have a consensus on either/or? Do past actions matter or not? No obfuscating.
I say they do matter. For all candidates. Because nobody can claim their candidate is the one "being honest".

Posted by: TendStl at February 11, 2012 01:05 PM (kb15i)

444 The dance is over, I think I'll be......

http://tinyurl.com/78wcb3r

Posted by: Otter, the head of the GOP at February 11, 2012 01:07 PM (hXJOG)

445 I call elections the "Lying Game", and yeah there is a dick !

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 01:07 PM (0uCal)

446 [/]Mr. Wall Street Finally, someone who knows what he's doing!

Romneycare Disavowed as a national strategy, but let's be honest, you aren't listening.

I like to fire people Finally, a politician with a pair.

I don't care about the poor Finally, a politician who won't kiss the ass of the parasite class.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 01:07 PM (6TB1Z)

447 Cite me even one example, please. Because, ironically enough, we've had
shittons of "proud, True Conservatives" threatening that exact thing
should their chosen candidate not win, or if Romney is the nomineeCite me even one example, please. Because, ironically enough, we've had
shittons of "proud, True Conservatives" threatening that exact thing
should their chosen candidate not win, or if Romney is the nominee


#275

Posted by: Heorot at February 11, 2012 01:08 PM (rnFTE)

448 People are ticked off about it, and they want someone to vote for who they think will fight against it. Mitt hasn't sealed the deal on that issue. And Rick nailed it in the last debate. The fact that Romneycare is one of the fewissuesMitt HASN't flipped on is the biggest reason he is losing to Rick Santorum. IMHO, of course.
Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 01:03 PM (fkaOH)

No he didn't, he said Romneycare was nothing to get angry about. He went on to tell Santorum that if he wanted to run for governor of MA to have it and change it.

Santorum was getting emotional over Romneycare. Good thing he never served with those emotional swings and all.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 01:08 PM (MtwBb)

449 Have you seen a SINGLE Romney supporter in any of these threads -- not just this one, but any of them -- threaten even once to not vote for the eventual GOP nominee? Much less "go third party?"Cite me even one example, please. Because, ironically enough, we've had shittons of "proud, True Conservatives" threatening that exact thing should their chosen candidate not win, or if Romney is the nominee. But Romney supporters? We think y'all are suicidally foolish to believe that Newt or Santorum won't be destroyed by Obama, but we're going to go out there and vote ABO no matter what.
Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 01:01 PM (hIWe1)


Let's see your apology Jeff B. Link: http://tinyurl.com/6noeybd



1072 There has never been a thoroughly evil man in the Whitehouse. Now you want one.I will vote for Obama, who looks clean and good next to Gingrich.Newt Gingrich is completely and utterly corrupt. I will never be part of any organization run by such a evil man.The Republican party is dead. It stands for nothing now. I am embarrassed I ever believed that it stood for anything. It was always a lie.Newt Gingrich is evil. I will not vote for evil. I will vote for Obama.Because I have now seen how much the people I used to trust lie... like Fox and Rush... I don't believe Obama is nearly as bad.I will vote for Obama, rather than let that evil evil man run this country.And you can keep the Republican party it stands for evil and corruption.
Posted by: petunia at January 21, 2012 09:28 PM (hgrmi)

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:08 PM (GULKT)

450 If having a big organization is the end all, then Romney will stomp the other's guts out and this is all moot.

We'll see. But it seems almost like Romney doesn't want to win because when he gets out front he throws out a red meat comment for the people who will stereotype him in the general as a typical evil rich R. Then he backpedals so far he spews very non-fiscon comment, which is not happy making for those who suspect he might not really stand for anything other than himself.

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 11, 2012 01:08 PM (lgw0N)

451 It's mighty brisk out there today but I'm not a fair weather Q'er, just put two racks of pork ribs on the grill while I worry sooooo much about the Country I fought and bled for.

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 12:52 PM (0uCal)

Good to see you!

I'm eyeballing a bag of charcoal but it's 15 degrees with a windchill of zero.

I've grilled in the cold but that's about the limit for me!

Posted by: ErikW at February 11, 2012 01:08 PM (XCoF0)

452 Over?


http://tinyurl.com/7m3w5xn

Posted by: SMOD at February 11, 2012 01:09 PM (hXJOG)

453 No, past actions don't matter. The American public has a five minute attention span. I have finally come to grips with the reality that principled ideology matters not a whit...only who your friends are and which audience you are speaking to at the moment. Its a secret Rove taught me.

Posted by: A Coulter at February 11, 2012 01:09 PM (+FrDx)

454
#426 I don't think there is much bigotry here or on the other blogs where people are arguing about this race. Maybe in the people who are responding to the polls.

People don't like Romney because (a) they are sick of the whole "guy whose turn it is gets the nomination" thing in the GOP, which is a TOTALLY legit concern; (b) they think he is a closet liberal who is lying and pandering to conservatives but will be a Rockefeller Republican if he is elected, and they have evidence to support that; and (c) they fear a fall campaign based on class warfare because we're already seeing it from Obama. There are really, really legit reasons to not vote for the guy and to believe he can't beat Obama, and to believe that even if he does he won't be conservative enough as President. I'm not going to smear these folks as religious bigots.

Many conservatives want the GOP to be more conservative. They don't think that will happen if we have a not-very-conservative standardbearer in this election. Some are even willing to lose this election in order to pursue that as a larger goal. That approach certainly worked for the Left, which took its lumps over several elections but finally got Obama elected and finally have a fully left-wing Democratic Party where there are no more moderates.

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 01:09 PM (A0UFZ)

455 Integrity is for saps who never get elected.

Posted by: A Coulter at February 11, 2012 01:13 PM (+FrDx)

456 Shit/Shinola 2012!

Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 01:14 PM (MMC8r)

457 I don’t believe Mitt has spent a nickel of his own money yet.
Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2012 12:59 PM (FdndL)
Which he shouldn't, its the primary.


We have watched Romney's numbers against Obama sink down to the level of the other R candidates. Santorum's EV prospects have actually improved, Gingrich's have grown worse, Paul has been where he always was.

The net movement for the R's has been backwards since the start of the primary. Six months ago, Romney, Perry, Pawlenty were all equally electable. Gingrich was a book-peddling also-ran like Cain, Santorum was taking up the social-con roll, Bachmann was busy reminding everyone how she literally labored and pushed the Tea Party out of her own vagina. But multiple candidates were actually polling very well and competitively against the President.

Daniels, had he ignored his whore wife, would probably be doing well. As would Thune, Ryan, Pence, Christie, DeMint and a host of others who should have run.

Posted by: CAC at February 11, 2012 01:14 PM (lwbbJ)

458 >>>No he didn't, he said Romneycare was nothing to get angry about. He went
on to tell Santorum that if he wanted to run for governor of MA to have
it and change it.



Santorum was getting emotional over Romneycare.




This is really weak spin.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 01:14 PM (N/1Dm)

459 >>>The goal is to beat Obama but for some reasons Republicans have it in
their head that the goal is to beat Romney. I sincerely feel there's a
lot of anti-Mormon bigotry hiding in those numbers.

It is fascinating that the evangelical socons are flocking to the Catholic candidate. I don't know that I buy the "anti-Mormon bigotry" thing. I think that many Christians find Mormonism weird and certainly theologically out-of-bounds but if you look at who evangelicals are comfortable with, there are a number of groups that ought to be opponents: Catholics, Orthodox Jews, for example.

But in the setting of the culture war, these groups are allies.

I would have agreed with you that evangelicals might have had a problem with Romney's Mormonism for one of two reasons: (1) It's downright silly theology. All theology is silly from certain points of view, but Joseph Smith's stuff was so out there that the Mormon church has repudiated much of it over the years. (2) Since it's a false theology, there is a fear that people will be lead astray.

I think (1) ends up contradicting (2) and I think that Christians who are worried about Mormonism shouldn't be.

Plus, Romney has plenty of weaknesses that Mormonism isn't even in the top 3.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2012 01:16 PM (fNK8e)

460 451,

Hey Bud, my grill is a few steps out the backdoor on the deck, besides I'm just a Grunt you know one those guys that fought for what we have ended up with in this Country, but WE can make it better we always have since 1776.

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 01:16 PM (0uCal)

461 What worries me about all 3 of our candidates is that they really are loose cannons during non-scripted interviews. Romney answers are robotic (and not conservative), Newt is undisciplined and professorial and Santorum often lapses into a whiny, defensive mode. The questions are only going to get worse once one of them is the nominee and they are all disasters waiting to happen.

Posted by: jeannebodine, SMOD-Bot at February 11, 2012 01:17 PM (byR8d)

462 >>>Let's see your apology Jeff B.

Well, there you go. That's one. Good catch -- I figured there had to be at least one person on our side using that stupid tactic. And petunia has been ridiculously over-the-top like that both here and on Hot Air. She's an idiot.

Now are you going to argue that this one (who wasn't in this thread, I might point out) is the equal to the TONS of others on the anti-Romney side? Is your argument now that "hey, it's even-steven, because I found one person saying 'I'll vote Obama if Romney doesn't get the nom' versus the myriad number of TrueCons saying they'll vote for him, or stay home, if Romney gets the nomination?"

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 01:18 PM (hIWe1)

463 but WE can make it better we always have since 1776.

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 01:16 PM (0uCal)

Fuckin' A right.

Posted by: ErikW at February 11, 2012 01:19 PM (XCoF0)

464
Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 01:07 PM (6TB1Z)

So that leaves Mittens without:

1) The base
2) The moderates
3) The Reagan Democrats
4) The anti-Obamacare voters

While he energizes the left.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 01:19 PM (7+pP9)

465
That's a fine point, but I acknowledge it.
But you miss mybiggerpoints, Robtr.

People are ticked off about Romneycare because they believe it = Obamacare.

That is the perception, whether you want to believe that or not. Obama and his minions - including the MFM - have defined it this way and people have bought it - because it is a concise description.

The fact that Mitt can't explain the differences in a 10-second soundbite to satisfy people isa hugeproblem. As is the fact that at least one of his Romneycare advisors helped with Obamacare.

And the fact that Rick can easilypoint out the similarities,channel and clearly expressthe anger people feel about Obamacare, and never voted for or supported the idea ofan individual mandate for state or national governmental health insurance makes him far more credible when he says he will repeal it than Mitt.
Rightly or wrongly, that's the sentiment out there.

Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 01:20 PM (fkaOH)

466 It really is a petty threat.

It is electoral blackmail.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 01:20 PM (7FadD)

467 No really, buzzion, I want to see you make the argument that you've found a perfect equivalence. I also want you to explain how the comment I was responding to was justified given this thread. You've found ONE person who pulled a "Obama if Newt is the nominee" tantrum. It was weeks ago, in a different thread (though I don't doubt she's said that elsewhere...her invective was ridiculous on Hot Air too). Meanwhile, we have MULTIPLE people in THIS THREAD claiming they'll stay home if Mitt is the nominee.

So amuse me: tell me that it's all morally equivalent.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 01:20 PM (hIWe1)

468 >>>What worries me about all 3 of our candidates is that they really are
loose cannons during non-scripted interviews. Romney answers are robotic
(and not conservative), Newt is undisciplined and professorial and
Santorum often lapses into a whiny, defensive mode.

In other words, they're people. They have personalities (even robot is a personality).

Posted by: AmishDude at February 11, 2012 01:22 PM (fNK8e)

469
If SMOD is the nominee, I will stay home.

SMOD is way too extreme.

Posted by: Dementia 2012 at February 11, 2012 01:22 PM (sqkOB)

470 468 Amish

Exactly!!!

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 11, 2012 01:22 PM (VmUXu)

471 Ok what is SMOD??

Posted by: 'Nam grunt at February 11, 2012 01:23 PM (0uCal)

472 CAC: "Daniels, had he ignored his whore wife, would
probably be doing well. As would Thune, Ryan, Pence, Christie, DeMint
and a host of others who should have run."


Everyone gets their turn in the barrel. They all look good until they get the anal probe; and some, say Christie for example, don't even need that. Right now we - as in the vetting rabble - are fighting for the soul of the party and the platform. It's really not so much the candidate as it's the desire for an adequate vehicle to carry our ideology. Once the deal on the vehicle is made, we'll load it up and drive it up Obama's backside... even if it's a Gremlin. But right now, we're really trying upgrade to at least a Pinto.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 11, 2012 01:23 PM (eHIJJ)

473
Second look at Pipe-wrench To The Noggin?

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 01:23 PM (sqkOB)

474 Now are you going to argue that this one (who wasn't in this thread, I might point out) is the equal to the TONS of others on the anti-Romney side? Is your argument now that "hey, it's even-steven, because I found one person saying 'I'll vote Obama if Romney doesn't get the nom' versus the myriad number of TrueCons saying they'll vote for him, or stay home, if Romney gets the nomination?"
Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 01:18 PM (hIWe1)

Oh you want to play that stupid little game. Petunia as an idiot is in good company when people like you are on her side supporting Romney.

What a shock you get proven as the idiot you are and want to continue. Well dumbass you should know that I think anyone that isn't going to vote for the eventual nominee is an idiot. But I'm not acting all high and mighty with a stick up my ass like you because I think I'm on the side with fewer people that go "If X is the nominee I won't vote for him."

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:24 PM (GULKT)

475 How awesome is this?
http://tinyurl.com/6wktx32

I hope AIR (America Israel Racing) does well at Daytona!

Posted by: USA at February 11, 2012 01:24 PM (6Cjut)

476
SMOD:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=chTQbyyzSfk


Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 01:24 PM (sqkOB)

477 Second look at Pipe-wrench To The Noggin?

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 01:23 PM (sqkOB)

I'll help form the exploratory committee!

Posted by: ErikW at February 11, 2012 01:25 PM (XCoF0)

478 476,
TY

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 11, 2012 01:25 PM (0uCal)

479 This is really weak spin.
Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 01:14 PM (N/1Dm)


Really? Here why don't you watch it for yourself and see if you can count how many times Santorum referred to romney clearly referring romneycare, state run healthe care, romney saying if states want to exercise their 10th ammendment rights and do that's ok. I stopped counting at 15 but I didn't watch the whole thing again.

I guess Santorum would enact a federal law forbidding states to do what they want with health care?

You guys are resorting to lying.
http://tinyurl.com/7xz75tq

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 01:26 PM (MtwBb)

480 So that leaves Mittens without:
1) The base
2) The moderates
3) The Reagan Democrats
4) The anti-Obamacare voters
While he energizes the left.
Good luck with that.


Under non sequitur, see this entry.

Posted by: pep at February 11, 2012 01:26 PM (6TB1Z)

481 >>>Well, that's two times I've asked Jeff B the same direct question. He
hasn't responded either time, and I've got stuff to do so I'll check
back later.


Sorry, i missed it the first time. The answer is yes, I've done a ton of GOTV work too. No idea whether it's more or less than you, but it's enough, over time, and in different states and campaigns and circumstances, to have a pretty good sense of what matters. Enthusiasm is overrated, in my experience. It's nice, it helps, but it's not the key ingredient. Warm bodies are valuable, but only to a certain extent. What you really need are well-trained warm bodies, backed with resources. Then it doesn't really matter how enthusiastic or lukewarm they are. I've been involved in top-notch GOTV operations (Bush '04 in VA), and pisspoor ones (McCain '08 in IN) and ones right in the middle (Walker Johnson in WI 2010). The Bush guys I worked with in Northern VA were thoroughly unenthused -- thought he wasn't doing great as Prez, though he might lose, were very worried about which way VA would actually go -- but they were paid, briefed, professional, knew which targets to hit and how to hit them. It opened my eyes.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 01:26 PM (hIWe1)

482 Typing in all caps makes you look like a RETARD.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:26 PM (GULKT)

483 I can't speak for everyone, but if Romney is the R nominee I will not vote for him.


Posted by: 18-1 at February 11, 2012 12:28 PM (3aXbg)

-----Why do you support Obama?

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2012 01:26 PM (w7Lv+)

484 Vote for the Rominee of your choice, but VOTE!!!

Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 01:27 PM (MMC8r)

485 It was weeks ago, in a different thread (though



You didn't seem to care about this fact when you were being your typical idiotic self and acting like no one would be able to find one. Since you said you wanted to see it from ANY thread. Look I even went all caps for you so maybe it will help you understand it.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:29 PM (GULKT)

486
Dementia/Soylent Green 2012?

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 01:29 PM (sqkOB)

487 I don't get the ending; why is it a disaster?

Posted by: rows d at February 11, 2012 01:30 PM (huxh9)

488 And the fact that Rick can easilypoint out the similarities,channel and clearly expressthe anger people feel about Obamacare, and never voted for or supported the idea ofan individual mandate for state or national governmental health insurance makes him far more credible when he says he will repeal it than Mitt. Rightly or wrongly, that's the sentiment out there.
Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 01:20 PM (fkaOH)

Well than Santorum is your guy then. My bigger point is that Santorum would take away states rights to do what they think is best about healthcare because he beleives he knows best.

You know who else took away states rights on health care? Barack Obama, it's called Obamacare.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 01:31 PM (MtwBb)

489 There is nothing immoral about not pledging allegiance to the eventual nominee and there is nothing immoral about saying you won't vote for X or Y in the general.

It's a bit sleazy to say so if you know you don't mean it, but this isn't a cult and if the nominee doesn't represent enough of what you believe then you are under no moral obligation to vote, particularly if you don't think it will materially help the country.

Hell, you are under no moral obligation to vote in the first place. I hate the thought of voting. It makes me ill to know that every right, liberty, and freedom I want is already on paper, but because people have been exercising their sacred duty to vote I am pressured to vote in failed attempts to stem the losses.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 01:33 PM (N/1Dm)

490 I certainly hope y'all are still praying for our Troops in between worrying about these four idiots trying to get the Republican Nom. 24/7, long way to go until Nov. and I see the girls are going to get boosted into combat, I sure would have liked to cuddle up to a point girl on those hot sweaty jungle nights in 'Nam, would have kept the fuck you lizards at bay.

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 11, 2012 01:34 PM (0uCal)

491 Oh look, we're going to lose the election by trying to nominate a crazy social conservative. So much for sanity.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 01:34 PM (et2m1)

492 I think of Romney as chemotherapy.

Posted by: USA at February 11, 2012 01:34 PM (6Cjut)

493 Rightly or wrongly, that's the sentiment out there.
Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 01:20 PM (fkaOH)

I think you are right. "Mandate" is going to be the golden word in the election. Now which candidate never promoted one?

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 11, 2012 01:36 PM (lgw0N)

494 492 I think of Romney as chemotherapy.
Posted by: USA at February 11, 2012 01:34 PM (6Cjut)



Leaves you weak and sick. Sometimes gives you only a nominal improvement. And once you stop the cancer can come back even worse than before?

You might want to consider thinking of him as something else.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:37 PM (GULKT)

495 Romney will make SCOTUS appointments with one eye on the NYT Editorial Page. He'll be smiling and talking about the Call of History when he signs the last of our 2nd Amndment Rights away. He'll rename Obamacare to some nice sounding bullshit and go looking for something more to be 'moderate' about. Sorry, been there. Not going back.

Posted by: SurferDoc at February 11, 2012 01:37 PM (6H6FZ)

496 Soothsayer you know better, a tiny for you.


http://tinyurl.com/74xvvkv

Posted by: SMOD at February 11, 2012 01:37 PM (hXJOG)

497
468
In other words, they're people. They have personalities (even robot is a personality).

Sure but if ever there was a time when we needed an off-the-cuff speaker who could articulate the principles of conservatism and frame responses in a way as to present an either/or way forward to the American people, the time would be now. Our candidates don't seem to bring the questions back to what matters.

Posted by: jeannebodine, SMOD-Bot at February 11, 2012 01:37 PM (byR8d)

498 I encourage all you stay-at-home whiners and not voters to see the video of Andrew Breitbart at CPAC. It is on Weasel Zippers. Andrew calls for unity when the convention is settled and we have our nominee.This is no longer about purists vs implied RINO establishment...it is if you will allow Obama four more years. And Andrew himself says you should be ashamed for sitting this one out. I agree with him. Bolton supports Romney. My Senator Rubio called him "conservative."

Sometimes you don't get what you want. I wanted Perry. Yet!! He had a "Texas accent," and he was "Bush-light," and he can't debate, etc. I will settle for Santorum or whoever wins after the convention. Honey badgers against liberal Dems don't care.


Posted by: ChristyBlinky loves Rubio at February 11, 2012 01:37 PM (baL2B)

499
testing
1
2
3

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:37 PM (ZXGJ4)

500
They are allowing girls in combat as a way to justify allowing trannies to serve.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 01:37 PM (sqkOB)

501
Here is the "Grandpa Santorum was a Stalinist" story:

yhoo "DOT" it "SLASH" A1OdBK

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:38 PM (ZXGJ4)

502
the yootoob link didn't work?

Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 01:38 PM (sqkOB)

503 the yootoob link didn't work?
Posted by: soothsayer at February 11, 2012 01:38 PM (sqkOB)

really, it worked for me here it is again.

http://tinyurl.com/7xz75tq

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (MtwBb)

504 You might want to consider thinking of him as something else.
Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:37 PM (GULKT)

All true, but I'm too old to go to Disneyworld. I won't have another choice.

Posted by: USA at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (6Cjut)

505

In the tiny town of Riva del Garda in northern Italy, 83-year-old-Maria Malacarne Santorum keeps her family's secrets - including those of her late husband's cousin, Rick. In an exclusive interview with the Italian weekly magazine Oggi, Mrs. Santorum recalls fondly when Rick visited her in 1985 during his law internship in Florence, and when he came back again in 1986 and 1989. "He loved our culture and cuisine so much, he brought his wife-to-be, Karen, a massive cookbook of Italian recipes," she said.


Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)

506
But the elder Santorum matriarch doesn't understand why he has diverged so far from the family's longtime political stance. "In Riva del Garda his grandfather Pietro and uncles were ‘red communists' to the core," writes Oggi journalist Giuseppe Fumagalli, likening the family to "Peppone" after a famous fictional Italian communist mayor who fought against an ultraconservative priest known as Don Cammillo and about which a popular television series is based. "But on the other side of the ocean, it's like his family here doesn't exist. Instead he draws crowds as the head of the ultraconservative faction of the Republican party, against divorce, gay marriage, abortion, and immigration."

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)

507
Those politics don't play well in Riva del Garda, a community of ultraliberals. On the campaign trail, Santorum often touts his grandfather's flight from Italy "to escape fascism," but he has neglected to publicly mention their close ties with the Italian Communist Party. "Rick's grandfather Pietro was a liberal man and he understood right away what was happening in Italy," Mrs. Santorum told Oggi. "He was anti-fascist to the extreme, and the political climate in 1925 was stifling so he left for America. After a few years he returned to Italy with his wife and children, including Aldo, Rick's father, who passed away late last year. It's a shame he won't have the joy to see his son's success in his bid for the White House." She goes on to explain how the family then became pillars of the Communist Party in Italy.

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)

508
The matriarch lauds her distant relative as a "masterpiece" of the family, whom she calls a man of high intelligence and integrity. "He would be a great president," she told Oggi. "But if he wants to make it, he will have to soften some of his positions. To take a stand against homosexuality or to oppose divorce is harmful. Principles count, but in politics one must have the capacity to be open-minded."

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)

509
The Oggi piece also quotes an angry cousin who preferred to voice his dissent anonymously, remembering the time when high-ranking Communist Party members frequented the Santorum household in Riva del Garda. "There are Santorums who would roll over in their graves to hear [Rick's] rhetoric," he said.

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)

510
But the rest of the family seems content to turn a blind eye to their American cousin's political persuasion. One cousin, Michela Santorum, told Oggi that she fondly remembers Rick's interest in his Italian heritage, and especially Italian cuisine. "We were always astonished at how many ice cubes he put in his drinks," Michela told Oggi. "But he loved everything else, including polenta."

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:41 PM (ZXGJ4)

511
According to Oggi, the general sentiment is that the Italian Santorums will forgive their American cousin if his bid is successful. "When he wins, he will send the American presidential airplane and take all the Santorums to the White House," Bruno Santorum told the magazine.

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:41 PM (ZXGJ4)

512
But after Santorum's loss in New Hampshire and his recent slump in the polls, the question of whether he would bring his communist cousins to his ultraconservative White House may never be tested.

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:41 PM (ZXGJ4)

513 HODOR!

Posted by: Hodor at February 11, 2012 01:41 PM (H15Ok)

514 >>>>>Really? Here why don't you watch it for yourself and see if you can
count how many times Santorum referred to romney clearly referring
romneycare, state run blah blah blah...



Honestly, I don't know why I'm replying to this nonsense. I'm just waiting for my wife to get ready so we can leave, but...

The issues are linked. It is obvious to just about everyone except you. There is no talking about Romneycare without talking about Obamacare. Their is no talking about the Romney strategy in the general without talking about Romneycare and it's connection to Obamacare.

The "It's nothing to get angry about" line was awful. The in-house audience knew it was awful and the people at home knew it was awful. Just move on.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 01:42 PM (N/1Dm)

515 I really detest Mittens.

That whole "don't get angry" bit he pulled on Santorum in a debate was subterranean gutter politics.

Santorum wasn't even angry but Mittens was prepped to "work the anger issue in on Santorum" by his scumbag handlers.

Good ol' Mittens! Taking the meme from the Left and running wild with it.

Posted by: basket case nation at February 11, 2012 01:42 PM (r9ll6)

516 Apparently someone doesn't know about fair use rights. Or even basic blog ettiquettte.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:42 PM (GULKT)

517 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:41 PM (ZXGJ4)

Something on your mind?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 01:42 PM (+Jr2Z)

518
Good Lord, "Amelia Earhart."

So are you trying to tie Rick Santorum to Communism?

Desparation certainly brings out the stupid.

Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 01:43 PM (fkaOH)

519 Ah, right on schedule, the Destruction of Santorum commences. How about a pool. I'll take 7 days until he is walking Cain's dog and damn glad to have the job.

Posted by: SurferDoc at February 11, 2012 01:43 PM (6H6FZ)

520 Really dismayed at the vitriol around here. Not impressive if you cannot make a case for your choice and convince others to support that choice without calling them some of the names I've seen.

I don't like ANY of the choices, but I WILL vote for the eventual winner. I just hope that ABO has some big-ass coattails, given what's been observed thus far.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 11, 2012 01:43 PM (SAMxH)

521 Santorum has already said he doesn't want the votes of evil, evil individualists such as myself, so I'm happy to oblige.

Posted by: kartoffel at February 11, 2012 01:44 PM (uEmgg)

522 520,

Amen, and who gives a fuck what our relatives did eons ago unless it was great.

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 11, 2012 01:45 PM (0uCal)

523 Santorum himself stated Romney was a strong conservative in 2008. He couldn't have been more complimentary to him. But lets assume for a minute that Rick is the "true Conservative". I haven't heard anyone make the case that is a winning strategy to take the white house back because we haven't run anyone like that since Goldwater and he lost.

Anyone who believes that Reagan ran a hard right campaign or governed that way as president is engaging in revisionist history. He was strong on defense, not doubt about that. But the Reagan of 1964 ("A Time for Choosing") and 1980 were 2 different guys in word and deed. Reagan went along with many things that Conservatives today would find repugnant including tax increases, spending increases and amnesty.

I think the Limbaugh's and the Levin's of the world are selling snake oil, claiming that "true Conservatism" wins because that is what the majority of voters are longing for. They aren't. Most of the electorate is moderate regardless of how they self-identify. They want to keep their Social Security and Medicare, they don't want more wars and they sure as hell are going to be disturbed by a guy who claims that a baby that is the product of incest or rape is a "gift from God". Santorum said that just the other day. That is the kind of thing he is going to asked about over and over again.

Whether we agree with him on that or not is an open question but I can tell you none of the middle of the road or women voters I know agree with him on that. Why we would run a rabid So-con in an election in which economic matters are going to decide the outcome I have no idea. We are going to be on defense the whole time, trying to re-assure people that Santorum's talk about contraception being bad for the country is all just harmless stuff.

And what is Rick's economic plan? Eliminate the income tax on manufacturing companies? I haven't seen too many reputable economists sign up to that one. All that will do is create chaos as thousands of lawyers try to classify corporations they represent as manufacturers. That is exactly the kind of gamesmanship we want to avoid and it will not help grow the economy. We need a better tax code across the board, not a government who picks winners and losers based on some nebulous political calculation that blue collar workers will support.

The fact that Sanoturm was the last non-Mitt to be selected by the so-called "Conservative base" should be cause for concern. How is he better today than he was 60 or 90 days ago? Most of us thought he was unelectable then, so what has changed? This is all bullshit.

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 11, 2012 01:45 PM (9zzk+)

524 There is a lot of possibly damaging stuff about Santorum out there. Whether it is true or not, we don't know. That's why the other day I was saying when are you guys on this site going to discuss Santorum's negatives? Cause you can be sure that the obamabots are vetting him right now if you guys aren't. All of Newt's negatives are out there although I'm wondering if whatever Nanny p. referenced probably isn't and she'll pull it out right before the election like what they did to bush.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 01:45 PM (oZfic)

525 I believe I have killed this thread, how bout some football?

Oh, fuck never mind.

Posted by: SMOD at February 11, 2012 01:46 PM (hXJOG)

526 522
520,

Amen, and who gives a fuck what our relatives did eons ago unless it was great.


Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 11, 2012 01:45 PM (0uCal)

Agreed, as someone who's supported Romney here, that's really weak shit.

Posted by: AD at February 11, 2012 01:46 PM (q0hEs)

527 The "It's nothing to get angry about" line was awful. The in-house audience knew it was awful and the people at home knew it was awful. Just move on.
Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 01:42 PM (N/1Dm

I just watched it again, the entire conversation was about romneycare.

I know you hate to get caught peddaling bullshit but the tape doesn't lie.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 01:46 PM (MtwBb)

528 Romney is now down 10 to Barry nationally. Thought he was the one who could beat Obama. Hell he cant beat Moonbase Newt and Captain Sweatervest. So much for electability.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 11, 2012 01:47 PM (L6lvk)

529 Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 01:45 PM (oZfic)

THAR' SHE BLOWS!

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 01:47 PM (+Jr2Z)

530 Something on your mind?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 01:42 PM (+Jr2Z)

Just wanted to let you know that you're in my seat.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 11, 2012 01:48 PM (XCoF0)

531 Looks like the stalker had to change her name again.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:48 PM (GULKT)

532 Santorum has already said he doesn't want the votes of evil, evil individualists such as myself, so I'm happy to oblige.
Posted by: kartoffel at February 11, 2012 01:44 PM (uEmgg)

Quitter. You should vote for him anyway, just to teach him a lesson.

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 11, 2012 01:48 PM (lgw0N)

533
"So are you trying to tie Rick Santorum to Communism?"

Obama's father was a known communist.

The "Dreams" which Obama inherited"fromMy Father", as filtered through the ghostwriterBill Ayers, was to use communism [with Frankfurt School/Alynskiite tactics] to sock it toWhitey and destroy the USA.


I'd like to learn a whole lot more abouthow Rick came to turn away from hisown family's communism [if indeed he did].

Because if he hasn't made a clean break from it,and if he's our candidate, then Thing 1 and Thing 2 in the general election will both come from hardcore communist stock.



Not a good scenario for the future of Western Civilization.

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:49 PM (ZXGJ4)

534 You know who else took away states rights on health care? Barack Obama, it's called Obamacare.
Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 01:31 PM (MtwBb)


Read the 10th Amendment, it mentions another thing having powers retained by them, not just the States.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


If the only reason Mitt will repeal ObamaCare is ObamaCare infringes on State's Rights, then Mitt proves he is a poor choice for President.

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 01:49 PM (DTX4S)

535 There is a lot of possibly damaging stuff about Santorum out there.

Mostly his statements, positions and record.

Posted by: Panzer Trout at February 11, 2012 01:49 PM (lpWVn)

536 Funny they can find Santorum's further relations but they can't find anybody who knows a fucking thing about Barack Obama.

Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 01:50 PM (MMC8r)

537 But the Reagan of 1964 ("A Time for Choosing") and 1980 were 2
different guys in word and deed. Reagan went along with many things that
Conservatives today would find repugnant including tax increases,
spending increases and amnesty.


We are beyond Reagan now.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 11, 2012 01:50 PM (7FadD)

538 I'd like to learn a whole lot more about how Rick came to turn away from his own family's communism [if indeed he did].

Because
if he hasn't made a clean break from it,and if he's our candidate, then
Thing 1 and Thing 2 in the general election will both come from
hardcore communist stock.






Oh for the love of Pete.

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 01:50 PM (P6QsQ)

539 Sitting in a brewery waiting for my bacon, blue cheese bbq chicken sandwich to arrive to arrive. Starting out with "Torch" ,a Czech style pilsner. Trying to decide whether to go with "Sexual Chocolate" a high gravity stout or "the People's Porter", an apparently commie-inspired porter that sounds pretty good.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 11, 2012 01:50 PM (uIz80)

540
520

You want to see vicious, go to some of the "pro-Mitt" sites.

On one in particular, they viciously attacked Karen Santorum for something before she married Rick. It was truly despicable and I won't repeat it here.

When I called them onit, they said a candidate's wife was fair game - period.

On that same site, they saidSantorum was using his 3-year-old daughter for sympathy votes.

Made me sick. Iwill never go to that site again.

And frankly, it helped turn me away fromsupporting Mitt.

Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 01:51 PM (fkaOH)

541 536 Funny they can find Santorum's further relations but they can't find anybody who knows a fucking thing about Barack Obama.
Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 01:50 PM (MMC8r)

Thread winner.

Posted by: USA at February 11, 2012 01:52 PM (6Cjut)

542 Those damned rabid socons.

Posted by: The Illuminati at February 11, 2012 01:52 PM (vbh31)

543 Get lost, Amelia.

Posted by: nickless at February 11, 2012 01:52 PM (MMC8r)

544 On one in particular, they viciously attacked Karen Santorum for something before she married Rick. It was truly despicable and I won't repeat it here.

I'm guessing its her dating the doctor that delivered her.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 01:52 PM (GULKT)

545 I smell cat pee.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 11, 2012 01:53 PM (SAMxH)

546 Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 11, 2012 01:48 PM (XCoF0)

Okay, sorry that was me. Couldn't be helped.

Posted by: ErikW at February 11, 2012 01:54 PM (XCoF0)

547 Romney is now down 10 to Barry nationally. Thought he was the one who could beat Obama. Hell he cant beat Moonbase Newt and Captain Sweatervest. So much for electability.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 11, 2012 01:47 PM (L6lvk)

Really, according to the Fox Poll he is down 5. Santorum is down 12.
Rassmussen seems to poll more liberals though, they have Obama's approval at 51%, Fox only has him at 48%.
http://tinyurl.com/7tju9q4

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 01:55 PM (MtwBb)

548
My bigger point is that Santorum would take away states rights to do what they think is best about healthcare because he beleives he knows best.

Hey dummy:

Santorum is a supporter of the 10th Amendment.

From an Associated Press interview:

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 01:55 PM (7+pP9)

549 I don't believe all BS they say about our candidates, now the shit about odumbass I believe and Brietbart has a video from his college days can't wait to see that.

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 11, 2012 01:55 PM (0uCal)

550 I'd like to learn a whole lot more abouthow Rick came to turn away from hisown family's communism [if indeed he did].

Because if he hasn't made a clean break from it,and if he's our candidate, then Thing 1 and Thing 2 in the general election will both come from hardcore communist stock.

Not a good scenario for the future of Western Civilization.



Holding the politics of his grandfather against some guy is really weak. With a few Latin American exceptions, communists also generally weren't ardent supporters of the Catholic Church.


Posted by: AD at February 11, 2012 01:56 PM (q0hEs)

551
505 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)
506 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)
507 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)
508 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)
509 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:40 PM (ZXGJ4)
510 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:41 PM (ZXGJ4)
511 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:41 PM (ZXGJ4)
512 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 01:41 PM (ZXGJ4)




Mittbot rollcall....


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 11, 2012 01:56 PM (kdS6q)

552 I'm guessing its her dating the doctor that delivered her.

'Now, smack my ass...', just got a whole new and creepy feelin'!

Posted by: garrett at February 11, 2012 01:56 PM (s8ZYf)

553 >>>I just watched it again, the entire conversation was about romneycare.



My goodness. How obtuse you are. You think that if you look at the clip and you don't hear the word "Obamacare" that means Santorum was only talking about Romneycare, and in isolation from Obamacare? Have you ever heard of the word "context"?

Please stop this ridiculous argument. "It's nothing to get angry about" was potentially a campaign killing statement. Why? Because nearly everyone on the right except you is angry about the idea of government mandated contracts and everyone except you understands that Romneycare and Obamacare are inextricably linked.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 01:57 PM (N/1Dm)

554 Mittbot rollcall....Posted by: Laurie David's

Um, post #1 brought up the same crap. Post #1 is a RuPaul fan.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2012 01:57 PM (+Jr2Z)

555 Hey Amelia go fly a plane.

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 11, 2012 01:57 PM (0uCal)

556 524 There is a lot of possibly damaging stuff about Santorum out there. Whether it is true or not, we don't know. That's why the other day I was saying when are you guys on this site going to discuss Santorum's negatives? Cause you can be sure that the obamabots are vetting him right now if you guys aren't.


I agree, but either Romney can make use of it or he can't. If he can't, he doesn't deserve to win. I hope he can win, because (outside of a couple recent polls) it doesn't look like Santorum has much of a chance in the general election, but Romney's chances are starting to look worse there as well.

Posted by: AD at February 11, 2012 02:00 PM (q0hEs)

557 Hey kids, what does Amelia Earhart do?

Kids: "Eeeeeeeeyooooowwwwwwww! SPLASH!!"

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 02:01 PM (DTX4S)

558 I see my prediction that the mittbots would blame Evangelicals, the Tea Party , and Socons for anything bad that happens to Mitt is right on schedule

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 11, 2012 02:02 PM (L6lvk)

559 Please stop this ridiculous argument. "It's nothing to get angry about" was potentially a campaign killing statement. Why? Because nearly everyone on the right except you is angry about the idea of government mandated contracts and everyone except you understands that Romneycare and Obamacare are inextricably linked.
Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 01:57 PM (N/1Dm)

You should check those voices in your head, they are lying to you.

Santorums entire schreeching speil was about romneycare, he ever through in for good measure Floridas ballot intiative on healthcare saying 'It's Wrong!"

When the conversation did turn to Obamacare Romney said he didn't like it and would get rid of it. You don't beleive him fine. I don't beleive anything Santorum says eithere so we are even.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 02:03 PM (MtwBb)

560 What a disaster this whole thing is.
If it's such a disaster, the least you could do is tell us why. Otherwise, you're just another f'n whiner on my "ignore" list.

Posted by: YFS at February 11, 2012 02:04 PM (tFXnz)

561
"Oh for the love of Pete."


Are you aware of Obama Sr's July 1965 article in the East Africa Journal, "Problems Facing Our Socialism"?


www DOT politico DOT com SLASH static SLASH PPM41_eastafrica DOT html


It is a PERFECT blueprint for the Obama/Axelrod/Ayers/Alinsky plan to destroy this nation.


From that paper:


"One need not be a Kenyan to note that nearly all commercial enterprises from small shops in River Road to big shops in Government Road and that [sic] industries in the Industrial Areas of Nairobi are mostly owned by Asians and Europeans... How then can we say that we are going to be indiscriminate in rectifying these imbalances? We have to give the African his place in his own country and we have to give him this economic power if he is going to develop... The government must do something about this and soon..."


"On the question of priorities, there is nothing more demanding and important now than the consolidation and proper utilization of land in the former African areas..."


Apparently this is EXACTLY the sort of thing which Ol' Man Santorum was preaching back home in the Mother Country.


Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 02:04 PM (ZXGJ4)

562
I've done a lot of genealogical research on my family, and I've discovered that one great-grandparent fled to Pennsylvania fromLithuania as a conscientious objector to serving in the Russian army. Another one gladly served in the Russian army, then came to live to Pennsylvania.

Both became Democrats in this country.

Their children were conservative Democrats

Their grandchildren and great-children became conservative Republicans.

Oh, me, oh my - could I really be a communist? Or am I really schizo, because one great-grandparent was communist and one wasn't?

I despise weak-minded logic.

Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 02:05 PM (fkaOH)

563 Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 02:04 PM (ZXGJ4)


So who do you support?

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 02:05 PM (GULKT)

564
I f*cking HATE Mitt Romney [and I'm not crazy about Gingrich either - I love Ron Paul on fiscal policy, but I don't know whether I can stomach his foreign policy].


I'm just pointing out that Rick Santorum comes out of a genealogical and ideological milieu which is IDENTICAL to Barack Obama's: Recent immigrants whose families are KNOWN COMMUNISTS.


And, once again, I f*cking HATE Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 02:08 PM (ZXGJ4)

565 >>>>You should check those voices in your head, they are lying to you.



Santorums entire schreeching speil was about romneycare, he ever
through in for good measure Floridas ballot intiative on healthcare
saying 'It's Wrong!"



When the conversation did turn to Obamacare Romney said he didn't
like it and would get rid of it. You don't beleive him fine. I don't
beleive anything Santorum says eithere so we are even.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 02:03 PM (MtwBb)





MmHm. Okay, sweetie.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 02:08 PM (N/1Dm)

566 Yeah you're a nut job. Fuck off idiot. Go get your jew-hate on at Zero Hedge.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 02:09 PM (GULKT)

567 Apparently this is EXACTLY the sort of thing which Ol' Man Santorum was preaching back home in the Mother Country.
Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 02:04 PM



Good thing Italian citizens that lived in Italy and are dead can't run for President of the USA then. Whew!! Dodged a bullet there!

Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 02:09 PM (P6QsQ)

568 Amelia will vanish soon almost time for her to start turning BJ tricks behind 7-eleven, for fifty cents a pop too what a bargain.

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at February 11, 2012 02:09 PM (0uCal)

569 I get the oppostion to Romney. Really I do. But Santorum? The guy hasn't run squat. He got beaten like a rented mule in his own state and he'll be destroyed on the national stage. What a crap bunch of candidates.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 11, 2012 02:10 PM (RJ8yG)

570
Um, post #1 brought up the same crap. Post #1 is a RuPaul fan.
Posted by: weft cut-loop





You know, you may be right. Frankly, I'd forgotten Dr. Goldfoot was still running around.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 11, 2012 02:10 PM (kdS6q)

571 Good thing Rick Santorum doesn't have a Grandad or Great-Grandad (I don't know which I didn't bother reading the bigots post) complex like Obama has a daddy complex.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 02:11 PM (GULKT)

572 I f*cking HATE Mitt Romney [and I'm not crazy about
Gingrich either - I love Ron Paul on fiscal policy, but I don't know
whether I can stomach his foreign policy].Posted by: Amelia Earhart


Nailed it.

Posted by: so not a RuPaul fan at February 11, 2012 02:12 PM (+Jr2Z)

573 I don't see any evidence that Obama has wandered away from his alleged upbringing, rather he seems to have faithfully hewed to it.

And that is an easily verified statement.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 11, 2012 02:14 PM (SAMxH)

574 MmHm. Okay, sweetie.
Posted by: runninrebel at February 11, 2012 02:08 PM (N/1Dm)

That's the reason I linked the video asshole. So people would see you are a liar. I know you can't accept it and you somehow beleive you and Santorum knows what's best for MA. Their arugument was about Romneycare, the entire thing.
Santorum as usual wants to get the feds involved in states rights.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 02:14 PM (MtwBb)

575 I give up, Santorum is the latest shiney object for the TRUE Conservatives.
Let's see first it was Bachman, then it was Perry, then it was Cain, then it was Newt, then it was...I can't remember who was after Newt before it was Newt again? Now it's Santorum.

I probably have the order screwed up but you true conservatives flip flop around so much it's hard to keep track of your unrelenting convictions.
Have a nice day.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 02:22 PM (MtwBb)

576 Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 01:51 PM (fkaOH)

So what, even if it is true, do you all want to beheld to some arbitrary standard for your life in your college years and early twenties? I mean the stuff we've all heard and read about our present office occupant didn't effect him one bit and it was all about him directly. So why should the spouses matter? Seems to me, God sent her Rick and look at the beautiful family they have and the life they've made for themselves.

I was reading earlier on breitbart's site that he's calling out the blaze. Finally someone is challenging beck. Beck seems to not care about anything except if you are of his faith, then you are ok. Months ago he was hawking the son of his mentor, when the guy didn't fly with the voters, he's taken to attacking Newt and Santroum, though he hasn't said much about Paul. Stopped listening to his radio show. It's what three hours and the information that is new is like ten minutes, you have to suffer through his looped CD of what he thinks are his greatest hits. So I think it's good breitbart called him out.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 02:25 PM (oZfic)

577
Their arugument was about Romneycare, the entire thing.
Santorum as usual wants to get the feds involved in states rights.

Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 02:14 PM (MtwBb)


Hey stupid --

One more time:

Santorum is a supporter of the 10th Amendment.

From an Associated Press interview:

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 02:25 PM (7+pP9)

578 And as a parting gesture, I want to see the liberals and progressives smashed into political impotence in the upcoming election. And further, I wish to see them relegated to that ineffectual impotence for the decades it will require to reverse the damage done to my beloved country.

And if that makes me a bad person, I will revel in it.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 11, 2012 02:28 PM (SAMxH)

579 Gee, its almost as if nearly all Republicans can't stand Romney and are desperate for someone else to step up. Hard to imagine.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2012 02:29 PM (r4wIV)

580 So the same nuts who supported newt are now supporting rick, while both are doing everything they can to destroy the best candidate we have, Romney. Thats why were called the stupid party as well as stupid voters.

Posted by: James at February 11, 2012 02:30 PM (IoTd/)

581 Nobody is mentioning the picture of this guy and his friends. http://tinyurl.com/7s9bwzj If my mom was right about"know thee by they friends" then I really like this guy's friends.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 02:30 PM (oZfic)

582
" I don't see any evidence that Obama has wandered away from his alleged upbringing, rather he seems to have faithfully hewed to it. "


Exactly.


And I'd like to know just how it was that Rick Santorum's father could have been [ what Michael Savage likes to call ] a "red diaper doper baby", but then suddenly - within a single generation - he's got a son who's running for President as a conservative Republican.


David Horowitz made that journey - for him, the seminal event in his conversion was the murder of Betty Van Patter by the Black Panthers.


And I'd really like to know what the seminal event was in the Santorum household which caused them to see the light.



Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 02:33 PM (ZXGJ4)

583 ♫ Here I come to save the day! ♫

Posted by: Mitty Mouse at February 11, 2012 02:41 PM (DTX4S)

584 Sarah Palin is scheduled to speak at CPAC at 4:30/

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 02:42 PM (oZfic)

585 And I'd really like to know what the seminal event was in the Santorum household which caused them to see the light.
Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 02:33 PM (ZXGJ4)


You're full of shit. Even if there was one you would find another excuse to still bring it up.

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 02:42 PM (GULKT)

586 If you believe that markets exist, and you believe that markets are far too complicated to be regulated or managed, then you should also believe they are far too complicated to understood or predicted by polls.
The GOP PR CW BS only exists to swarm polling info. It's one of the main reasons the GOP and the conservative movement is in such bad shape. [.i]


Well, they are far too complicated to be completely understood at all, but polls can still be useful in trying to ballpark certain aspects.

It's the 2nd part you say that should dismiss this idea of chasing polls. If polls are to be listened to (they are), then people will just try to game them (they do), and so, you shouldn't. Massive grain of salt with everything.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 02:43 PM (Ci0JG)

587 54 47 Mitt's gotta pull hard right, not sure if he can flip on so many issues
Posted by: Jean at February 11, 2012 10:42 AM (WkuV6)

I think he should latch on to the Catholic-Obamacare thing and ride it like a hot whore on a Saturday night.

I mean, just savage Obama as hard as he savaged Newt, and beat him like a rented mule over government overreach and his betrayal of his Catholic supporters. THAT sort of thing will get conservatives to rally to him.**CoolCzech

That's the problem: he can savage fellow R's, but when it comes to the D's he doesn't have it in him. His collaboration with Ted Kennedy does keep coming to mind.

Posted by: Kerry at February 11, 2012 02:43 PM (AYfPj)

588
So what, even if it is true, do you all want to beheld to some arbitrary standard for your life in your college years and early twenties? I mean the stuff we've all heard and read about our present office occupant didn't effect him one bit and it was all about him directly. So why should the spouses matter? Seems to me, God sent her Rick and look at the beautiful family they have and the life they've made for themselves.
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 02:25 PM

I totally agree with you on this.
Why did youget the impressionI didn't?

Posted by: Marybeth at February 11, 2012 02:49 PM (fkaOH)

589 "Santorum is a supporter of the 10th Amendment."

Ya right. He's a "compassionate conservative" ala George W. Bush all over again.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 02:50 PM (et2m1)

590 Stupid voters aren't voting for the only person they were supposed to vote for.

Don't they even know who they won't vote for? Apparently not!

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 02:51 PM (Ci0JG)

591 When McCain jumped up to support Romney early it tells you who has the conservatives issues to heart.

Posted by: dumpsterjuse at February 11, 2012 03:03 PM (B6U0F)

592 I know the republican party hates Newt and all those politicians came out against him but, he's making a lot of sense and his speech at CPAC was great. I just wish I was a better researcher. I feel as though nanny p. warned him that they have something major on him that they will roll out right before the election. Cause she backed down too fast. I'm surprised that the folks on the so called conspiracy blogs haven't dug whatever it is up. Cause if you notice, nanny p. is very deliberate in her actions.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 03:05 PM (oZfic)

593 Since some folks kept bringing up Santorum 's PA loss, so the obvious question is why Romney didn't run for MA governorship again? The answer is obvious. At this point, Santorum is more electable than Romney in the general election. The current set of polls say as much! The fundamentals also look better for Santorum. If the left wants to attack Santorum 's Catholicism, it is a perfect opening for talking about secular fascism of Obamacare (and federal court striking down Prop . These are clear examples of secular fascism that all reasonable people should be concerned about. Santorum is the only one left who can credibly challenge Obamacare. He has done a good job so far. This issue will also generate more enthusiasm for the Rep base while dividing the Dem base. So it should be a great issue for us. Is Santorum a perfect candidate? No. But at this point he is simply more electable than Romney. It is obvious that Romney is a terrible candidate. He is worse than Perry in terms of gaffes. Who told Romney to talk as a "severe conservative"?

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 03:06 PM (RrBLb)

594
"You're full of shit."


No, I'm not.


Explain to me how you make Rick Santorum's father makes the intellectual/spiritual/moral journey from Red Diaper Doper Baby to having a "conservative Republican"son who is a few lucky breaks away from being the next leader of the free world.


They tried to tell us that BHOjr was "different", but he's proved to be every bit the hardcore marxist that BHOsr was in that 1965 article.




Posted by: Amelia Earhart at February 11, 2012 03:07 PM (ZXGJ4)

595 I probably have the order screwed up but you true conservatives flip flop around so much it's hard to keep track of your unrelenting convictions.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: robtr at February 11, 2012 02:22 PM (MtwBb)***

And you Mittbots just can't seem to comprehend why the conservatives don't want to line up behind Mitt the Honorary Kennedy. Imagine that.

Posted by: Kerry at February 11, 2012 03:09 PM (AYfPj)

596 Explain to me how you make Rick Santorum's father makes the
intellectual/spiritual/moral journey from Red Diaper Doper Baby to
having a "conservative Republican"son who is a few lucky breaks away
from being the next leader of the free world.


They tried to
tell us that BHOjr was "different", but he's proved to be every bit the
hardcore marxist that BHOsr was in that 1965 article.
---------------------
Simple! An intellectually honest person would see that a Marxist would love killing babies more than terrorists. Obama had a clear record of supporting infanticide. Santorum is the polar opposite of Obama on this issue. These are facts of real records we can talk about. This issue alone shows that Santorum is not Marxist. It should be obvious that Marxists are abortion fanatics.

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 03:09 PM (RrBLb)

597 If you don't want to replace the Marxist with the guy who loves to make deals with Marxists, then you are stupid and you hate America.

Posted by: Mini-Mitts at February 11, 2012 03:10 PM (DTX4S)

598 Their arugument was about Romneycare, the entire thing.Santorum as usual wants to get the feds involved in states rights.

Projection; It's more than just a river in Egypt.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 03:14 PM (Ci0JG)

599 I was reading earlier on breitbart's site that he's calling out the blaze. Finally someone is challenging beck.

Yes, thank gawd! Finally someone is taking it to the guy who is tearing apart America and forcing crypto-communism down our throats.

There is not a single more influential person in this country, and I am so glad to see someone finally challenging his authority and 'speaking truth to power' to that bastard Glen Beck and his multi-zillion dollar TV empire.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 03:16 PM (Ci0JG)

600 Romney has proven that he will not listen to conservatives and change his message, even if it would help him.
Santorum has been my first choice for a while because I think it would be easier to convince him to pull right - he's already half way there.
Romney supporters on this thread don't really like Romney, but they are going scorched earth on any not-Romney voter. That's not a good way to bring the party back together if your guy is not the nominee.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 11, 2012 03:33 PM (wWZWw)

601 His collaboration with Ted Kennedy does keep coming to mind.

Keep beating that Dead Kennedy!

Posted by: Colonel Haiku at February 11, 2012 03:39 PM (IQZP5)

602 Draft Rep. Tom McClintock at a brokered convention!

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 11, 2012 03:40 PM (8rmb5)

603 Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 03:16 PM (Ci0JG)

You guys think I don't listen to you, but I do and I began to listen with a skeptical ear and I examined a lot of what was being said and it truly became alarming. I told my mom cause she warned me about believing what he was selling as she put it and her answer was "well I'm an old dog, with experience and I can smell snake oil a mile away".

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 03:43 PM (oZfic)

604 Romney has proven that he will not listen to conservatives and change his message, even if it would help him.

Don't let the fact that Romney has gotten more conservative votes to this point than the other guys sway you...


Posted by: Colonel Haiku at February 11, 2012 03:43 PM (IQZP5)

605 Romneybots kind of make me want to support Rick Perry.

I mean, if other people get to be that obtuse, rewrite history and bubble themselves off from reality.... why can't I?

He's electable! The only one who can win!

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 03:45 PM (Ci0JG)

606 604
Romney has proven that he will not listen to conservatives and change his message, even if it would help him.

Don't let the fact that Romney has gotten more conservative votes to this point than the other guys sway you...




Posted by: Colonel Haiku at February 11, 2012 03:43 PM (IQZP5)
That is surprising since he had to have an invitation only emergency meeting with conservative leaders to just give his CPAC speech. If you look at the speech, it's as though they were following a check list of "what conservatives want to hear" and, the fact that he gave that speech at CPAC, allows him to disavow the speech in the future as "well I was trying to get conservative support, what did you want me to do?"

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 03:47 PM (oZfic)

607 Broker the convention and nominate Perry.

If Romeny can be pretended to have meaningful political advantage over Santorum or Gingrich, then Perry has a shot at winning a brokered convention. It's silly, but it's no less silly.

We're plum out of unsilly.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 03:47 PM (Ci0JG)

608 re:robot-rt

So you do agree that the fact that the GOP electorate will do eighteen circles in the air bare naked and not get behind your anointed one, is indicative of something?

Posted by: ZinnZann at February 11, 2012 03:49 PM (kevjL)

609 "Ya right. He's a 'compassionate conservative' ala George W. Bush all over again."

I suspect so, but then Romney and Gingrich aren't any better on the subject.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2012 03:50 PM (r4wIV)

610 "well I was trying to get conservative support, what did you want me to do?"

Translation: what do you want me to claim so you vote for me?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2012 03:51 PM (r4wIV)

611 O/T: Adam Corolla talking about the beach is hysterical. But, do not open at work or in front of your kids, cause as usual the language gets interesting and would offend little old ladies and bosses. http://tinyurl.com/78ybwna

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 03:53 PM (oZfic)

612 You guys think I don't listen to you, but I do and I began to listen with a skeptical ear and I examined a lot of what was being said and it truly became alarming. I told my mom cause she warned me about believing what he was selling as she put it and her answer was "well I'm an old dog, with experience and I can smell snake oil a mile away".
Who the hell is 'you guys'? I don't even watch Beck.

He's a snake oil salesman? Yah sure, the worst in the country! He makes Jesse Jackson look like a paragon of virtue. He makes the people behind Occupy Wallstreet look like Gandhi. He makes Jim Jones and David Koresh look like St. Thomas of Aquinas.

If anyone needs to be opposed, why it is that vicious, harmful, poisonous madman Beck, advocating all that violence on our streets. He is a seriousreal harm to our country, and getting rid of him is a moderate to high priority if we're going to get things right.

We got to get that bastard Beck! That guy, and all those followers of his, who are acting like the primary point of an election is to tell people who annoy you to fuck off, rather than conducting serious political analysis!

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 03:55 PM (Ci0JG)

613 So long, Republican Party. It was nice knowing you.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 03:55 PM (eOvu0)

614 And you wonder why I called it a psychotic stalker...

Posted by: buzzion at February 11, 2012 04:01 PM (GULKT)

615 70 Rick Santorum received very high ratings from mainstream conservative
groups during his time in the House (two terms) and the Senate (two
terms):

American Conservative Union -- 88%
Americans for Tax Reform -- 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee -- 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- 88%
League of Private Property Voters -- 94%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know, I'm really getting tired of this old talking point. This is not a 20 question multiple choice quiz on trivia. It matters when the few answers this data seems to suggest Santorum got wrong happen to be as bad as Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind.

Where in those scores does it talk about Santorum's $1 Billion in earmarks ?

Of the four remaining candidates, regardless of what the ridiculous polls are saying, I honestly think Rick Santorum has - BY FAR - the lowest chance of beating Obama. I think even Ron Paul could do better.

And yet THIS is the guy we're going to nominate ?

What an epic disaster.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 04:05 PM (eOvu0)

616
"Santorum is a supporter of the 10th Amendment."

Ya right. He's a "compassionate conservative" ala George W. Bush all over again.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 02:50 PM (et2m1)


Santorum was against "comprehensive immigrant reform".

So, in your book, that makes him an anti-10th Amendment "compassionate conservative" just like Bush 43.

People with your reasoning abilities used to get electroshock therapy. Now they just get large daily doses of Thorazine.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 04:06 PM (7+pP9)

617 There is a huge amount of pent-up frustration in America, and if the Republican is smart, he will ride it into the White House.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 11, 2012 10:53 AM (nEUpB)

Indeed, that is the question. Unfortunately, I don't think Santorum is smart enough to stay away from talking about gays and abortion or contraception, a topic that hasn't been controversial in almost half a century.

And if you think the media is going to help him stay away from those topics, you're nuts.

By the time Obama, the Democrats, and the media are done with Santorum, he'll be lucky to crack 35%.

And don't tell me about how that isn't fair. Yes, in fact, it is. When you go around telling people the gays should just not have the gay sex and that will fix things, or that states should be able to ban contraception, your idiocy is on full display and it is most certainly not the media's fault for shining a light on it.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 04:10 PM (eOvu0)

618 You picked one subject out of all the types of compassionate conservatism in order to dispute my argument? Santorum brags that he is a compassionate conservative and the rest of the web does agree that he aligns right up there with George W. Bush on the issue of compassionate conservatism. You know why it works? Because it appeals to the Jesus freaks, the social conservatives, etc. Guess what, I guess we're going for Round #2 of Obama. Not only we could have won Pennsylvania, we lost it because Jesus Redux wants to be president.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:10 PM (et2m1)

619 Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 03:55 PM (Ci0JG)

The danger with anyone in the media, rush, hannity, levin and beck is that people aren't discerning. They don't take what they hear and do their own research. Hence you get a lot of followers to these folks and they recite what was said that day as the gospel truth. It's good to have a lot of voices, beck is just one of them. I stopped listening cause the show is tedious. I didn't "buy in" to the television thingy. I will tell you though, a lot of people who were very big beck aficionados are no longer because he is transparently supporting candidate with the same religious beliefs that he has. Why else would he be going through so much trouble to attack the others? When you present yourself as the ultimate bringer of truth and then you have people saying that they think you are transparent, then you are going to lose audience share.

One of the things about Santorum that attracts people is his consistency. People can see if you aren't consistent. It's tough to pull off lying as the truth is much easier to tell.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 04:12 PM (oZfic)

620
I like santorum, but not when he goes negative, there's something about his face etc., that turns me way off.
I don't think he can beat obama, however, because I don't think he'll get the indis and the blue dogs. I think Romney is the only one, and he has started and saved businessess and knowshow to do it.
Don't give me, well he lost some, YES he did and I hope he does it to the government!
Go ROMNEY/RUBIO.

Posted by: No Fan at February 11, 2012 04:13 PM (rsOPT)

621 If earmark is an issue, then Ron Paul is definitely a hypocrite.
http://tinyurl.com/7zzdt8b

Then given other baggages, he should be dead-last.


Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011,
one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks.
Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010,
again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark
requests include:
$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.$2.5 million from taxpayers for "new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting."$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an "Economically Disadvantaged" area.$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a "Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center."$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to "encourage parents to read aloud to their children."$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).$4 million from federal taxpayers for the "Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative."$11 million from federal taxpayers for a "Community-Based Job Training Program."$2 million from federal taxpayers for a "Clean Energy" pilot project.$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.$1.2 million for a "Low-income working families Day Care Program"$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

All of the above earmarks can be found on Paul's own congressional website.
While Paul does not digitize the requests prior to FY 2011, they're
still available as PDFs. Paul typically will make the earmark request,
but then votes against or abstains from voting on final passage, so he
can maintain his claim to have "never voted for an earmark", even the
earmark requests he himself made. He defends the practice here.

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 04:15 PM (RrBLb)

622 Santorum: Fighting Gays, Contraceptives, Atheists to Save America 2012!

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:15 PM (et2m1)

623 Romney is a one trick pony. He is all about the economy and if the dems manage to have the economy roaring and people getting jobs, then what will romney run on?

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 04:16 PM (oZfic)

624 Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 04:12 PM (oZfic)
You stopped listening that you talk all the time about what you heard on his radio show all the time. And its just not your bullshit "My friend told me that Beck said," its you talking specifically about what you heard.


And this "People can see if you aren't consistent. It's tough to pull off lying as the truth is much easier to tell" coming from you is hilarious since you are lying in that very post.

Posted by: buzzion - dirty Papist at February 11, 2012 04:16 PM (GULKT)

625 jeremy lin fan: Rigging the unemployment count does not fix the economy.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:17 PM (et2m1)

626 116 I think Santorum lays out a reasonable argument for the connection between strong families and fiscal conservatism. It is the breakdown of the family unit that is a leading contributor to the need for ever-growing social services and a larger and larger safety net.

Without strong families, you get an enormously higher rate of people dependent upon social services. You get a higher rate of school dropouts, underemployment, crime, teen pregnancy, etc etc. Look at what the breakdown in the family structure has wrought within the black communities. Without strong families, we get a larger and larger welfare state.

So those who say socially conservative values have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility are just wrong.
Posted by: mama winger at February 11, 2012 11:03 AM (P6QsQ)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
yada yada yada....

And what do you think Rick Santorum is going to do about an issue that 80% of this country either doesn't care about, or doesn't agree with you about ?

Everyone keeps telling me, swear to god, cross my heart, Santorum isn't going to legislate my activities in my bedroom.

So which is it ? Is Santorum going to fix the culture all of a sudden, or does he just THINK these things and won't act on them ?

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 04:17 PM (eOvu0)

627 Fellow RINOs have no fear, CAPTAIN SWEATERVEST will lead us to victory in November.

Posted by: MC at February 11, 2012 04:18 PM (VlZvE)

628 And this "People can see if you aren't consistent.
It's tough to pull off lying as the truth is much easier to tell" coming
from you is hilarious since you are lying in that very post.

Posted by: buzzion - dirty Papist at February 11, 2012 04:16 PM (GULKT)
crabby, I will, when prompted by a friend, put on the show, but usually I can't leave it on for more than 10 minutes. When I comment about what I've heard in those then minutes it's because it just annoyed the heck out of me. I have to listen on the computer, he's not on the radio anywhere in NY. That should tell him something right there.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 04:19 PM (oZfic)

629 Santorum's real flaw, at least the one that most of the comments mention, seems to be electability. That worries me too.

What evidence is there that Romney is electable? He's lost every race I've ever seen him run. He's losing now.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 11, 2012 04:20 PM (wWZWw)

630 Everyone is wringing their hands that Santorum will be defamed by the MSM, but how can you fail to realize that will happen to anyone who is the nominee?
I think Santorum brings some good traits with him and would provide a great contrast to the empty-suit currently in the WH.
People need to buck up just a little and the Republican party needs to get over the "next in line" approach, because that really is killing us.


Posted by: Jocon307 at February 11, 2012 11:06 AM (V8xI5)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, Santorum has so much more built in negatives for them to exploit, AND those negatives do not play particularly well with the average voter.

The media will attempt to destroy whoever is the nominee. Its just that the anti-gay, abortion, crusader approach is a layup for the media in front of an electorate that will respond "Eewwwww"

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 04:21 PM (eOvu0)

631 625
jeremy lin fan: Rigging the unemployment count does not fix the economy.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:17 PM (et2m1)
I don't think it would be fixed, but it will look like it's fixed. Perception to many people is reality.Don't sell Santorum short, the Holy Spirit is working overtime on this election.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 04:22 PM (oZfic)

632 I agree with deadrody. You think the margin between Obama and McCain in 2008 was bad? Try watching the margin between Obama and Santorum : Fighting Sodomy, Gays, & Atheists 2012 be much worse.

You don't win elections in this country by only getting social conservatives (less than 10% of voters but <3 Santorum).

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:23 PM (et2m1)

633 Santorum: Fighting Gays, Contraceptives, Atheists to Save America 2012!
Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:15 PM (et2m1)

You should really be pooping on a cop car while you type comments like that.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 11, 2012 04:23 PM (wWZWw)

634 What really cracks me up is that this country self identifies as only 40% conservative.

I mean, you do realize that is more or less Rick Santorum's ceiling here. Sure, there are probably some "independents" that hate Obama so much that they'll hold their nose and vote for the social conservative, but I honestly don't think that numbers is very high.

The thing to remember, however, is that not all of the 40% conservatives are fire-breathing anti gay, abortion is my only issue voters. They aren't.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 04:25 PM (eOvu0)

635 633
Santorum: Fighting Gays, Contraceptives, Atheists to Save America 2012!

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:15 PM (et2m1)



You should really be pooping on a cop car while you type comments like that.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 11, 2012 04:23 PM (wWZWw)
You know what happens with people that push the same tired old talking points, like Rick Santorum doesn't like gays? Ultimately it comes out that he's had a friend who was gay for eons.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 04:25 PM (oZfic)

636 Posted by: Sad Dad at February 11, 2012 04:23 PM (wWZWw)

Yes because the sane fiscal conservative Republican in me agrees with the OWS? Thanks Social Conservatives for delivering us another Huckabee.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:25 PM (et2m1)

637 633 Santorum: Fighting Gays, Contraceptives, Atheists to Save America 2012!
Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:15 PM (et2m1)

You should really be pooping on a cop car while you type comments like that.
Posted by: Sad Dad at February 11, 2012 04:23 PM (wWZWw)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right. Because if you don't support the Santorum agenda, then you must be an ultra-progressive socialist sympathizer, right ?

Yeah, good luck with that approach. I feel so much more inclined to pull the lever for Santorum now.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 04:26 PM (eOvu0)

638 139 You guys honestly believe the same Romney who trashed Reagan, advanced Romneycare, supported homosexual "rights", raised taxes, was pro-abortion, said he would defend social security, and refused to support the surge is going to be a substantial improvement over Obama?
Posted by: Chris at February 11, 2012 11:13 AM (Hhjot)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uh, YES, actually. Have you been asleep for the last 3 years ? You actually think Romney could even approach the level of suck that Obama is putting on us ?

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 04:28 PM (eOvu0)

639 The media will attempt to destroy whoever is the nominee. Its just that
the anti-gay, abortion, crusader approach is a layup for the media in
front of an electorate that will respond "Eewwwww"
-----------------------
If our side is too stupid to have an easy answer for this attack, then we deserve to lose. All we have to do is to bring up Obamacare and the gay fascism in front of our eyes. Why some people on our side are so afraid of the gay/abortion fascism? This is a perfect opportunity to bring up the fascist aspect of Obamacare. There are examples of the secular fascists shoving down communism and gay sex education even in elementary and middle schools. Have those ready and shove it right back in them. All in the context of the secular fascism of Obamacare and how it will destroy the economy and freedom.

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 04:31 PM (RrBLb)

640 deadrody, the funny thing is the social conservatives like to repeat falsehood especially when the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, not the Commonwealth. Taxes is the same thing when I've pointed this out they were fees which the "burden" went up from 9.2% to 9.8%. People like to assume that tax burden = tax raises which is not the same thing. As for abortion, the commonwealth again pushed that, not Romney.

By the way, Santorum will viciously defend Social Security no differently than any other presidential candidate that comes our way. Ron Paul is probably the only moron who won't.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:31 PM (et2m1)

641 LAI, it isn't that we're too afraid. It's the fact we're going to polarize the voters outside the social conservative sphere and the independents which either candidates needs will be driven away, not closer to the Republican party. They've had enough of George W. Bush & Jesus for 8 years.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:33 PM (et2m1)

642 Because if you don't support the Santorum agenda, then you must be an ultra-progressive socialist sympathizer, right ?
---------------
Santorum is not perfect, but he is better than Romney at this point. Some people may have that impression if you are overly concerned about a theoretical theocracy issue while totally not concerned about the secular fascism of Obama for example. How many "moderates" on our side have held Obama to the same standard wrt Santorum for his support for infanticide?

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 04:34 PM (RrBLb)

643 I'm starting to think Obama may win reelection this year, but his second term will be as bad as Bush's was, because the Senate will go Republican and kill everything he wants to do, and he'll lose public support rapidly. The bad thing is that we won't repeal Obamacare and it will be a bitch for President Ron Johnson to do it in 2017.
Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2012 11:28 AM (A0UFZ)

The problem with this is it will only make the atmosphere in DC even more noxiously partisan. AND it will inevitably lead to Obama trying to impose his agenda through executive orders, perverting the powers of the executive branch, begging a future Republican POTUS to do the same, all of which will end up with the Obama agenda via executive order being decided in court. And the possibility that by the time such agenda reaches SCOTUS, that Obama will have packed it full of liberals.

An Obama second term is bad on the surface, but the potential for even worse can be found deeper in the way Obama will try and implement his transformation.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 04:36 PM (eOvu0)

644 Fox is saying that Romney won the straw poll at CPAC

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 04:37 PM (oZfic)

645 It's the fact we're going to polarize the voters outside the social
conservative sphere and the independents which either candidates needs
will be driven away, not closer to the Republican party. They've had
enough of George W. Bush Jesus for 8 years.
------------------------
That 's the style issue that Santorum needs to address, and I agree with that. Someone will need to get to him on that issue. But the contraception ruling is the perfect mitigation of that flaw. He is simply the best of the four left. With Gingrich, we will lose the conservative women. Romney 's problem is also obvious. He will lose the independents as well if not more. Santorum at least can generate more enthusiasm for the base and it shows in the polls. Perry was my guy, but at this point, Santorum is probably the best of the rest. A vote for Santorum is also good for SMOD at this point. This is probably the best we can do. Vote for Santorum and hope for SMOD. If not, we can have the 2nd best in Santorum.

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 04:38 PM (RrBLb)

646 Yep. Romney 38%, Santorum 31%, Gingrich 15%, Paul 12%.

Heh.

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 11, 2012 04:38 PM (GoIUi)

647 The problem with this is it will only make the atmosphere in DC even more noxiously partisan. AND it will inevitably lead to Obama trying to impose his agenda through executive orders, perverting the powers of the executive branch, begging a future Republican POTUS to do the same

The proper answer to this, if it is at all possible for the congress to drop a pair, is to impeach him and manage out the clock with President Biden in charge.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 04:39 PM (Ci0JG)

648 Santorum is doing pretty well since we are talking about activists here. Santorum and Gingrich combines for 46%.

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 04:40 PM (RrBLb)

649 646
Yep. Romney 38%, Santorum 31%, Gingrich 15%, Paul 12%.

Heh.


Posted by: Miss Marple at February 11, 2012 04:38 PM (GoIUi)
Interesting, they let you vote online. My conservative friend who went to CPAC for 4 years straight but didn't go this year has posted on his fb how pissed he is with the conservative party since he had no idea they were conducting the straw poll online. Not sure what that means, just that he's a real conservative, got the invite to CPAC this year but didn't go cause of work and he didn't know he could vote online. I'm waiting for him to say what he really thinks.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 04:41 PM (oZfic)

650 Realistically, the anti-romney sentiment seems to be large enough, flipping between the candidates, that if the rombots would just give up the ghost, they could decide our nominee between Santorum and Gingrich.

But they won't... because they hate america and want Obama to win.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 04:41 PM (Ci0JG)

651 If they can't get their ball they're going to go home and take the whole party down in flames.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 04:42 PM (Ci0JG)

652 manage out the clock with President Biden in charge.
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 04:39 PM (Ci0JG)

I just got douche chills.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 11, 2012 04:43 PM (wWZWw)

653 #650 Oh, stuff it. What you have with Romney support are people who are pragmatic and see the choices through that template. Social conservatives or firebrand types want Santorum or Gingrich. No one hates America within the conservative movement; it's just a disagreement over the best way to get rid of Obama.

I am content to let the voters decide. I don't vote until May. It's quite likely that this will be decided before I go to the polls.

I will vote for whoever the nominee is. My first choice was Perry and since he's out, I am just going with whoever wins.

But Santorum is going to have to step up his organization and quit whining.

I found out today that he called the WSJ and complained about unfair treatment. This is not very presidential.

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 11, 2012 04:47 PM (GoIUi)

654 #650 Oh, stuff it.

What, it's not fair if I repeat rombots lines against Romney? The majority of Romney supporters say the same things about everyone else.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 04:53 PM (Ci0JG)

655 I found out today that he called the WSJ and complained about unfair treatment. This is not very presidential.


Posted by: Miss Marple at February 11, 2012 04:47 PM (GoIUi)
Do you have a source?

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 04:53 PM (oZfic)

656 592 I know the republican party hates Newt and all those politicians came out against him but, he's making a lot of sense and his speech at CPAC was great. I just wish I was a better researcher. I feel as though nanny p. warned him that they have something major on him that they will roll out right before the election. Cause she backed down too fast. I'm surprised that the folks on the so called conspiracy blogs haven't dug whatever it is up. Cause if you notice, nanny p. is very deliberate in her actions.
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 03:05 PM (oZfic)

Newt is still a better candidate than RS for all his flaws, and I don't want Romney. When he's "on" he can be persuasive, which is even better than preaching to an audience of converts. I don't think he really expected the concerted and intense GET HIM from what should have been friendly fire, he can take it from and take it to the enemy.... He didn't expect a tabernacle choir of condemnation after winning, (and winning on the merit of his message.). He's undisciplined and vain. He's got baggage, and he won't stay on the reservation. All this is right there for anyone to observe. Of the three, however, he's the only one with a snowball' chance in the general who won't stamp the GOP with a "government belongs up in your business" brand and actually has some respect for ordered liberty. Broker me a SMOD though, and I think I'm ok with it.


The Santorum wins a really for notmRomney, a really popular guy

Posted by: Sarahw at February 11, 2012 04:54 PM (LYwCh)

657 Hell, Andrew Breitbart was shouting it at CPAC, not even in support of Romney, but still - if you don't agree with me, you want Obama to win.

If you want Obama to win, you must surely hate America.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 04:55 PM (Ci0JG)

658 I'm a guy that's a 10th Amendment supporter which I'm fine with letting states determine their own fate. However I don't believe in the encroachment of the federal government taking away states choices to participate in something they do not want such as Obamacare. Romneycare was purely 100% 10th Amendment action by the Massachusetts. Romney may have started it at the advice of the Massachusetts Commonwealth and it was left victim to the commonwealth to put in their own crap. Romney could not have vetoed the reform anyways because it was veto-proofed. After Romney was out of office, Deval Patrick made many more changes to the reform that it caused it to run out of money faster than expected. So it became a mixture of Romneycare and Patrickcare.

With the reform that happened in Massachusetts Oregon Health Plan in the past, the Democrats saw their opportunity to force their bullshit on the country as a whole skipping past the whole 10th Amendment requirement under the argument that they can do it via the commerce clause despite insurance organizations are forbidden from working across state lines. Massachusetts did what we all embraced, exercising their 10th Amendment right.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 04:56 PM (et2m1)

659 Mitt Romney is a Democrat and should leave the Republican Party. IF he is the nominee I will not vote for him. If Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich is the nominee I will be much more excited about voting in November, PERIOD. My dreams would come true if Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan jumped into the race.!

Posted by: Pragmatic at February 11, 2012 04:59 PM (elHhH)

660 I'm sorry I missed the Romney bash. I bet it was epic. I'll vote for Santorum with no hesitation if he's the nominee. I'll even donate some dinero. But Rick and the Romney haters ought not count all their chickens before their fucked. Rick won't be securing any delegates from Virginia and Indiana and very few from California. He also better hope Gingrich gets out before Texas.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 11, 2012 05:01 PM (DDAJf)

661 Yep. Romney 38%, Santorum 31%, Gingrich 15%, Paul 12%.Heh.
Posted by: Miss Marple at February 11, 2012 04:38 PM (GoIUi)

And that gets you how many delegates?

Posted by: TendStl at February 11, 2012 05:05 PM (kb15i)

662 "Mitt Romney is a Democrat"

I must have missed the part where Romney hated the fiscal conservatism free-market like Democrats do.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 05:06 PM (et2m1)

663 656... sarahw doin' what she does best: spreadin' da h8te!

Posted by: Colonel Haiku at February 11, 2012 05:08 PM (CmHfg)

664 @658: Yeah, well the fact Romney made the best of a bad situation with Romneycare and likely prevented the outright socialization of Massachusetts medicine is something the anti-Mitt folks won't ever acknowledge. They hate him "With the Heat of a Thousand Suns" for not governing like Barry Goldwater, when they know perfectly well that Goldwater could never be elected governor in that state.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 05:09 PM (niZvt)

665 And that gets you how many delegates?


As many as those 3 Santorum wins you were creaming about did.

Posted by: Colonel Haiku at February 11, 2012 05:10 PM (CmHfg)

666 Santorum ? I can't believe that the2010 election's Tea Party mandate might be squandered by running a social Conservative with little to no fiscal credentials (e.g. supported NCLB, Medicare D, earmarks,union suck-up) in 2012.
I'm a pro-lifer and probably come down 75% in favor of theSoCons on most issues, but that isn't what the 2012 election is about.
Try jobs. Debt. Spending. FFS, is it that hard forthe GOP to understand ?
The fact that Obama's turned out to be a holier-than-thou scold who believes in ever-bigger-Government is a gift to Republican candidates. The electorate hasn't liked being lectured to and is starting to remember that Big Government doesn't work.
Sohow shouldwe seize that opportunity ? By running our own holier-than-thou scold who has his own grand ideas for Big Government mandating "community service" for your kids, managing your morals, your family values, and your bedrooms. Really ?
The Republicans I know that support Santorum spend 99% of the time talking about how bad Mitt and/or Newt is.
Most of them don't even know the list of Santorum's FiCon deadly sins I rattled off above, or the benevolent totalitarianism of his vision for Faith-Based Big Government - AKA putting the "Leviticus" back in "Leviathan."
They've heard the words "Santorum" and "Tea Party" in the same sentence before, they know the evangelicals like him, and he's not Mitt Romney.Bingo - instant Great Conservative Hope.
Sadly, the general electorate is much less SoCon than the GOP. I can't see how Santorum tops 40% in a general election, evenassuming he getsevery Anyone But Obama vote. He's going to alienate large numbers of voters with flamethrowing rhetoric on social issues that a) he won't have the power to affect anyway and b) aren't as important as jobs, debt and spending in 2012 (and probably 2016 as well).
Themost signigicantimpact the Presidency has on the culture wars is through Supreme Court appointments, and I don't see a bit of difference between the kind of justices Romney, Gingrich or Santorum are likely to actually seat on the Court. A Santorum dreamJustice (one who is both anti-Roe and anti-Griswold) wouldn't be confirmed if he made it past the Judiciary committee.
SoCon issues are important, but they are secondary to fiscal priorities in 2012. 2010 told us so. SoCons can feel free to ignore the electorate, but the only result will be four more years of a President who isa disaster forboth sides of the Conservative coin.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 11, 2012 05:14 PM (BB+qs)

667 @665: BINGO.

Only the rabid fringe voted in those 3 contests. Let's see how the real primaries go.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 05:15 PM (niZvt)

668 WTF is up with thespacing...

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 11, 2012 05:15 PM (BB+qs)

669 Romney supporters cannot play the electability card as much anymore. So this straw poll is a big deal for them. It is obvious now that Romney is a terrible candidate. He is a gaffe machine, and it is not even funny anymore.

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 05:22 PM (RrBLb)

670 I'd rather vote for Santorum, but I will support Romney if he wins the primary.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 11, 2012 05:24 PM (wWZWw)

671 "He is a gaffe machine" and Obama isn't?

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 05:25 PM (et2m1)

672 Only the rabid fringe voted in those 3 contests.

Miss Marple? Does that deserve a 'stuff it'?

Or do only stupid people who vote for stupid candidates have to stuff it?

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 05:26 PM (Ci0JG)

673 Most of them don't even know the list of Santorum's FiCon deadly sins I
rattled off above, or the benevolent totalitarianism of his vision for
Faith-Based Big Government - AKA putting the "Leviticus" back in
"Leviathan."
-----------
We know, but Santorum is better than Romney for sure. At least Santorum was against individual mandate and TARP when both Romney and Gingrich supported. them. Of course, Santorum sucks compared to a perfect or true conservative. His conservative score in only in high 80s. Romney is not even a conservative. So in the real world, Santorum is a better choice among all the imperfect choices left. This falls into the "perfection fallacy" trap. This is a common technique used by the left against conservatives.

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 05:27 PM (RrBLb)

674
"He is a gaffe machine" and Obama isn't?
------------
Obama has the entire media spinning for him. Not much for Romney. If you remembered, the Romney supporters used to tout his debating and speaking skills a lot as compared to Perry. Now it is obvious that Romney is worse. The bad thing is that Romney doesn't even try to articulate conservatism, much less giving a gut answer. That 's the fundamental problem with the Romney campaign!

Posted by: LAI at February 11, 2012 05:29 PM (RrBLb)

675 Most of them don't even know the list of Santorum's FiCon deadly sins

But I thought Santorum was the "true" "pure" con only supported by frothing mad goldwaterites?

I thought Mit tRomney had centrist appeal.... I'm so confused!

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 05:29 PM (Ci0JG)

676 @658: Yeah, well the fact Romney made the best of a bad situation with Romneycare and likely prevented the outright socialization of Massachusetts medicine is something the anti-Mitt folks won't ever acknowledge. They hate him "With the Heat of a Thousand Suns" for not governing like Barry Goldwater, when they know perfectly well that Goldwater could never be elected governor in that state.
Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 05:09 PM (niZvt)

When does this argument stop? If you have conservative principles and KNOW you won't be able to get elected as one, much less GOVERN as one....then don't try to be governor. Please with all due respect, even though none has been shown, articulate something other than this.

Posted by: TendStl at February 11, 2012 05:31 PM (kb15i)

677 LAI you would think you haters wouldn't have to lie and exaggerate if Romney was really as bad as you try to make him out to be. You guys are so deranged with your hatred that you have extended that hatred to anyone that supports Romney. In your deranged world , Ann Coulter has been reduced to a RINO and John Bolton's mustache is now no more conservative than Tom Sellecks mustache.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 11, 2012 05:31 PM (DDAJf)

678 667 @665: BINGO. Only the rabid fringe voted in those 3 contests. Let's see how the real primaries go.
Posted by: CoolCzech at February 11, 2012 05:15 PM (niZvt)

I will accept your thesis as long as you have proof. I mean, you do have proof right? I mean, really?

Posted by: TendStl at February 11, 2012 05:33 PM (kb15i)

679 LAI,

Not true. When the whole 15% tax came out, it came out that he actually underscored himself to how much he paid. Especially when it was true he did pay that much in regards to specific things but overall in the bigger picture, he paid a shitload more than any of us here at AOS does. I don't think the "poor" gaffe is a gaffe at all. He is correct on that part but we treat it as if it was a bad thing. Here at AOS, we're also not concerned with the poor because we are focused on middle class Americans which is the grease of this economy, not the poor. We aim to grow the middle class and hopefully make some of them in the upper class. Obama wants the exact contrary where he wishes all of us were poor and he plays the Winners Losers game as long he gets paid off.

Santorum has made plenty of gaffes himself such as the comment about women being too emotional. Now if it comes to the generals, the media will push Santorum to show his true colors about himself, a full blown social conservative with a strict interpretation of the bible.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 11, 2012 05:35 PM (et2m1)

680 677 LAI you would think you haters wouldn't have to lie and exaggerate if Romney was really as bad as you try to make him out to be. You guys are so deranged with your hatred that you have extended that hatred to anyone that supports Romney. In your deranged world , Ann Coulter has been reduced to a RINO and John Bolton's mustache is now no more conservative than Tom Sellecks mustache.
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 11, 2012 05:31 PM (DDAJf)
Now we have no logical reason to oppose Mitt right? Come on say it, say it...call is anti mormon bigots....
And yes Ann Coulter has lost her fucking mind. "Three cheers for Romneycare!" are you serious?
John Bolton said it succinctly, he is the most electable in his opinion. He didn't call Santorum a theocrat, or Gingrich a fucking liberal. I respect his opinion and he left it at that.

Posted by: TendStl at February 11, 2012 05:36 PM (kb15i)

681 When does this argument stop?

Certainly not whereMcConnell and Boehner "make the best of having a bad situation". They are fantastic rock stars, are they not?

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at February 11, 2012 05:40 PM (Ci0JG)

682 No you have to use the all to common underwear snipe in your comments before I can make a call on bigotry. It can't be repeated enough, you Romney haters have no self awareness.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 11, 2012 05:42 PM (DDAJf)

683
And what do you think Rick Santorum is going to do about an issue that 80% of this country either doesn't care about, or doesn't agree with you about ?

BZZZZT!!!

According to your fellow Romneybot pep, under non sequitur, see this entry.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 11, 2012 05:42 PM (7+pP9)

684 "Romney is a one trick pony. He is all about the economy [...]"

Well, halle-fucking-lujah, as far as I (and most of the general electorate) is concerned.

Posted by: lael at February 11, 2012 05:45 PM (reptD)

685 Sweet Meteor of Death on National Health Policy http://tinyurl.com/7sq4lpd

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at February 11, 2012 05:48 PM (qvify)

686 223 >>>Either anybody can beat Obama or no one can.

I have no idea why some people keep saying this. It's not true. It was
never true.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 11, 2012 11:46 AM (hIWe1)

It's obviously true. The 2012 election will be a question about what America really is, not who will be President. If America wants to remain even a smidgeon of its traditional and unique character then it will reject Barky out of hand. Shit, Barky should be wearing an orange jumpsuit warming a federal cell, right now. The fact that he isn't is powerful proof that there is no America left to save, but the vote in 2012 will be the definitive answer to that. Either America will totally and unequivocally reject the little Jakarta street kid or there is no America left, anyway.

That's how the situation is.
Posted by: really ... at February 11, 2012 11:51 AM (X3lox)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow, what utter and complete wishcasting nonsense. About 75% of this country does not even begin to think of an election as a "question of what America is". Get your head out of your ass already.

That may be what you and I think it is about, but the VAST majority not only don't see it that way, but if you tried to describe it to them in those terms they'd look at you like you were retarded.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 05:50 PM (eOvu0)

687 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at February 11, 2012 05:51 PM (7W3wI)

688 687
Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

and we have a winner!

Posted by: Colonel Haiku at February 11, 2012 05:56 PM (CmHfg)

689 Not Romney endorses the SMOD... Santorum's been calling out Obama for months...

http://tinyurl.com/bvbqk3a

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at February 11, 2012 05:58 PM (qvify)

690 #655 Paul Gigot on the Wall Street Journal show on Fox today. I think they rerun it overnight, or you might find a transcript.

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 11, 2012 06:00 PM (GoIUi)

691 684
"Romney is a one trick pony. He is all about the economy [...]"

Well, halle-fucking-lujah, as far as I (and most of the general electorate) is concerned.


Posted by: lael at February 11, 2012 05:45 PM (reptD)
You won't be able to win on the economy alone. It just won't happen. Romney talks a good story but he's only going to come in and tweak the government, as it is, to death. He likes the way it is and it's obvious if you watch him with a discerning eye. Just like he likes ombamnycare the way it is, cause he should, he's the father of it and until he found out the American people didn't really like it, he was beaming with pride that his little baby (rmoneycare) was growing up to cover the entire country.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 06:03 PM (oZfic)

692 I meant to ask this earlier. I thought that Bobby Jindhal gave a fabulous CPAC speech. Nothing like the guy who timidly gave the republican answer. He was very impressive and he's quietly raising holy hell in his state.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 11, 2012 06:05 PM (oZfic)

693 " 18 Dear GOP,

Thanks guys for all the help. Really, from the bottom of my heart, thanks.

Yours in perpetuity,
Barry
Posted by: Barry O. at February 11, 2012 10:28 AM (fYOZx)"

I think he can beat you Barry. You're such a huge ridiculous fuck up, and even Democrats like havign jobs. You're fucked buddy.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 11, 2012 06:06 PM (a9mQu)

694 " 684 "Romney is a one trick pony. He is all about the economy [...]"

Well, halle-fucking-lujah, as far as I (and most of the general electorate) is concerned.
Posted by: lael at February 11, 2012 05:45 PM (reptD)
"

Sure. That's why Romney is suddenly down in the polls. Luckily you're way too smart to pick up on stuff like that while you're out prophesying according to your various visions and omens.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 11, 2012 06:12 PM (a9mQu)

695 " Wow, what utter and complete wishcasting nonsense."

No, as 2006 and 2008 and 2010 amply demonstrate, wish-casting is "only Romney can win and the GOP always must veer left and avoid controversial rhetoric to win independents over and Americans want to see cooperation in congress. "

Posted by: cackfinger at February 11, 2012 06:15 PM (a9mQu)

696
I haven't had time to wade through almost 700 comments to see whether anyone has already mentioned that the reason the republican heavies asked Romney not to go negative on Santorum so as to not alienate Catholics in their hour of need.

Unintended consequences are about to bite Obama on the bum. Can you imagine in the current climate that the bishops, or many Catholics for that matter, could advocate for Obama over Santorum.

Posted by: Decaf at February 11, 2012 06:16 PM (xBNGZ)

697 277 It's also fascinating the left is still flogging the Terry Schaivo thing after all these years. Sheesh.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 11, 2012 12:09 PM (azHfB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really ? That is only the watershed moment of clarity for conservative overreach. That was a horrendous moment for small government supporters from ANY political affiliation.

You really think the government should be inserting itself into individual families ? Really ? Good lord.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 06:22 PM (eOvu0)

698 Santorum:

One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

No chance this guy wins.

Posted by: Peter at February 11, 2012 06:24 PM (KJjzd)

699 " You really think the government should be inserting itself into individual families ? Really ? Good lord. "

When the "families" are a husband who has moved on and is dating someone else is trying to enact a nonexistant DNR despite her parents?

Posted by: cackfinger at February 11, 2012 06:29 PM (a9mQu)

700
Rick won't be securing any delegates from Virginia...
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney





Romney does remarkably well -- if you don't allow other people on the ballot.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 11, 2012 06:42 PM (kdS6q)

701
re: post 215 ghost of joe pa

"When [Santorum] lost in 2006, it was to Bob
Casey, Jr. If you don't live in Pennsylvania you wouldn't realize what a
legend Bob Casey Sr. was ... one of the last high-profile anti-abortion
Democrats and a well liked governor in a state of "bitter, clingers." ..."

Yes, this is true and it seem many do not realize this. Casey, sr. was one of the last good dems and his son was HAND PICKED to run as part of the dems very good plan to run some more (shudder!) conservative candidates in order to get control of congress.

I'm actually amazed that this little detail of Santorum's loss hasn't been mentioned more.

Posted by: jocon307 at February 11, 2012 06:47 PM (bbVJG)

702
You really think the government should be inserting itself into individual families ? Really ? Good lord.
Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 06:22 PM (eOvu0)


The government did insert itself. The court was part of the Florida State government.

Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 07:01 PM (DTX4S)

703 @ 694. I'm not prophesying anything. Obviously I neither represent nor have have a good handle on "true conservative" sentiment, since the "yeah, Santorum 2012!" sentiment absolutely baffles me. You got me: I don't get it. I don't have my finger on the pulse of so-called "true conservatives" nowadays.

I'm only speaking for myself. Romney appeals to *me* more than the other candidates in large part because his campaign focus (and his credentials and experience) has so much to do with finance and economics.Whereas there is nothing about Santorum that, to *me*, recommends him to be the the 2012 nominee.

I am and continue to be strongly against Newt 2012 too, but at least I understand the attraction there. Newt did so well in the debates (especially fighting back against fallacious MSM premises) that after a while I pretty much forgave him for the "right-wing engineering" crap (and I *really* hated him for that). At least until he went all in on the OWS-style "vulture capitalism" crap.

Santorum? As a small-l-libertarian, fiscal conservative, there is nothing at all about Santorum that would make me favor him over Romney. Nothing at all. The only reason I would ever support someone that skeeves me out as much as Santorum is if I were convinced he has an excellent chance (much better than Romney) of beating Obama in the general election.

Which-- please. That's coo coo for cocoa puffs.


Posted by: lael at February 11, 2012 07:26 PM (reptD)

704 The government did insert itself. The court was part of the Florida State government.
Posted by: eman at February 11, 2012 07:01 PM (DTX4S)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not talking about the Florida Courts. I'm talking about CONGRESS led by one Mr. Santorum and friends passing a law specific to that case.

The Obamacare mandate is not much more intrusive than that.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2012 09:17 PM (eOvu0)

705 Yes, while it's clear that Mitt has not sealed the deal, it is also clear that Santorum has not been vetted yet. When the voters find out that he voted for ONE BILLION $$ in pork for things like a teapot museum and a sheep institute, I can only hope they will be aghast.
Santyvoted to spendour hard-earned tax dollarson ridiculous things like the above and then went in Hannity and said he was PROUD of being an ear-marker. Then he had the nerve to badmouth the Tea Party when they say we are Taxed Enoguh Already.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 12, 2012 02:42 AM (KL49F)

706 "There is a huge amount of pent-up frustration in America, and if the Republican is smart, he will ride it into the White House. "

Absolutely, and I expect that to happen at this point. Things could change, but Santorum can easily win at this point.

I'm not a Santorum fan or a fan of any of them, its just hilarious to watch Mitt fans pretend he's any more a fiscal conservative than Santorum.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 12, 2012 11:43 AM (r4wIV)

707
Santorum summed it up. Before the Presidential election of 1860 Lincoln had losted several elections in his home state of Illinois. The leading vote getter for the Democrats wasJohn C. Breckinridge, he had been Vice President. He should have been a sure winner!After the election he became a General in the Confederate Army and took up killing his fellow Americans.

Posted by: burt at February 13, 2012 01:19 PM (OzqQM)

708 Its Pleasure to understand your blog.The above articles is pretty extraordinary, and I really enjoyed reading your blog and points that you expressed. I really like to appear back over a typical basis,post a lot more within the topic.Thanks for sharing…keep writing!!!

Posted by: The Wolf Gift iBooks at February 14, 2012 05:55 AM (zy04H)

709 That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.

Posted by: Private Games ePub at February 14, 2012 06:34 AM (Bdrvt)

710
That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.

Posted by: All There Is ePub at February 14, 2012 07:10 AM (ezy8s)

711 This is an excellent post. It is very informative. Thank you so much. I'll be a regular viewer.

Posted by: Stephen King The Stand AudioBook at February 14, 2012 07:31 AM (ucZCN)






Processing 0.12, elapsed 0.1577 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0483 seconds, 719 records returned.
Page size 438 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat