« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rick Santorum trolls the GOP – prefers Obama to Mitt Romney

By: Ender (Diary)  |  March 22nd, 2012 at 06:25 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“True” Conservative Rick Santorum suggested that it might be better for us to stick with President Obama than going with Mitt Romney. I guess Leftist destruction of the country is better than electing a fellow republican. In reaching a new low Santorum said:

“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA.

It might be the case that once Mitt Romney clinches the nomination, Redstate site administrators would have to ban Rick Santorum for his flouting of site rules.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • texastaxpayer

    It is one thing to have your surrogates suggest something like that. Or for me an internet blogger to say Romney and Obama are twins (which I happen to believe) its another for a candidate to put himself in harms way like that. Guess he knows what he’s in for…. Seems to me he is going to be spending all his time defending this comment versus explaining his vision for the country. Not sure thats the best place to be in.

    I like Romney’s response however….

    “I am in this race to defeat Barack Obama and restore America?s promise. I was disappointed to hear that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican. This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America. Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure.?

    Gotta hand it to Mitt he doesn’t miss an opportunity does he…

    • garfieldjl

      Seriously, Santorum really can’t back away from this. He’s committed himself to this.

      That means Santorum can just keep pounding away that Romney is so much like Obama that there would be no point of voting for Romney in the general.

      It’s probably going to cause Santorum to implode, but he may end up taking down Romney too.

      • texastaxpayer

        He is committed… So the gloves are off…. Guess we will see how this works out but you can bet on one thing for certain. Everyone in washington with an R behind their name are going to circle the wagons around Romney and attack Santorum over this. Perhaps he can make a good enough case to take out Romney. But I think at best this is a murder suicide pact.

    • Ender

      candidate would say something like that about a fellow candidate.

      • garfieldjl

        I think Romney finally pushed Santorum too far, and thus Santorum gave his real opinion of Mitt Romney.

        This may sink Santorum’s campaign, but I think Romney’s campaign is going to implode too, this comment certainly has ensured he can’t beat Obama.

        • Ender

          I don’t think it’s going to be that major of a deal – doesn’t seem like many people are outraged and therefor I think the whole thing might disappear without much effect on either campaign. But it should be a major deal.

          • garfieldjl

            The fact that Santorum said that Obama was preferable to Romney (whom is a fellow Republican), is going to be plastered all over the place if Romney is the nominee.

            All the money Romney spent to buy this election will be used against him.

            The GOP better consider this a big deal.

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          if I am wrong correct me, but did Romney used to say he did not support the bailouts such as tarp, but he is now saying Bush saved the economy with the bailouts. I care less if they did save the economy because they bailed out the same people who are responsible for the mess. These people have no reason to do anything different next time because they will have gotten away with milking the taxpayers for billions if not trillions of dollars. I am sickened about this. Is winning that important that we throw conservatism aside and say well this is what we have. This is not what we have, Romney does not have enough pledged delegates to win, and they could abandon him if enough conservatives voice their disdain at team Romney lying their way to the wins he has had.

          I want Obama gone as much as the next guy, but I question whether we have to sell ourselfs out to do so. Are we really winning if we endorse the idea that you lie your way into the White House. How is the country ever going to trust conservatism or the Republican party if that is who we are. THis does make for a conflicted conservative over here.

          • rednation

            Many today are criticizing Santorum over this honest comment.

            Fact is, Romney is so close to Obama in ideology any slight net gain is negated by the loss of credibility we have on any key issue going forward.

            Argue against the centerpiece of leftism, national health care?

            Sorry, GOP, and conservatives, YOU voted for the father of Obamacare!

            Argue against on TV that Romneycare was ok due to states rights, 10th amendment?

            Sorry, right wingers, your guy Romney urged Obama to adopt the mandate over ALL the states, so there goes that.

            And so on.

            If Romney WINS, it’s even worse, as he’s the face of the party, and his leftist nearly the same as Obama views are discrediting us in front of indies, and trashing the Republican brand.

            Once his moderate idiocy ruins the country, who gets blamed? Us.

            A weak 2nd term Obama, setting the stage for 2016 is almost preferable to selling our souls for a guy who will likely KEEP Obamacare by choice, stabbing us in the back, who is likely to appoint stealth liberals like a David Souter to the high court, like he did in MA, is simply not dying on a hill for…

  • rednation

    1st, if we nominate Mittens, it’s over for conservatism.

    We lose all authority to argue to 3rd party mods, indies, and swings about issue after issue, starting with national health care in state AND even universal one size fits all mandates across all states IF Romney is the nominee.

    For Wills to say “Santorum needs to get this election is about MORE than HIM, and beating Obama is paramount” is the height of gall.

    This man wants to be prez more than any of them.

    He cares about himself, only.

    To suggest others need to keep focus on the real enemy, like it does not include Mittens, is just delusional.

    Sorry, Mitt, but you nearly about 94% almost as bad as Obama, it makes no sense to support you as a lesser of 2 evils until at least we have no other choice, and that means you OFFICIALLY get the nomination, and not before.

    Amazing nerve of Willard to accuse another of this, it’s just one more reason not to vote for this hypocritical liar.

    • garfieldjl

      It’s one thing if someone like me compares Romney to Obama, it’s another if a fellow Primary Opponent says it. Santorum went a step further though.

      I don’t think Santorum can win the nomination, but this may be the “miracle” Newt supporters were hoping for.

  • demsaresatanic

    For once, at least, you nailed it, as did Rick.

  • rednation

    Or anyone else’s, if we nominate:

    1) Obamacare father
    2) Recently prochoice
    3) cap and trader
    4) AGW is science fact
    5) fake capitalism/bailouts/stimulus taxpayer foots bill corp raider
    6) supported NATIONAL HC mandates, urging Obama on.

    And about 50 other things that could make him take over Kos’s job at the daily kos if he’s not elected.

    Willard the rat

    We lose any authority to argue anything key because we sold out principles hugely due to a perception that he was most electable.

    We are already being laughed at for exit polls that show that being a conservative was down on the list hugely to “best person in terms of chance to beat Obama” by like 75%-15% clip.

    It’s embarrassing, and in the long run, core movement conservatives and prolifers, who man the phones on elections and GOTV and drag people over broken glass, our base, no longer believes us and also ditches us for 3rd parties, not able to take it anymore of being asked to vote for yet another McCain.

    Their patience has run out, and who can blame them…

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      and the Republican Party should be absolutely outraged at the idea we are about to run the absolutely worse we have when it comes to politicians. Romney won with money and negative ads, and this is supposed to play well in the general election. This should not be the way it is, and giving up now is like giving up on conservatives. I see no reason to try to admit Romney is anything other than what he is, which is the very thing we have railed against for the last 4 years. The Tea Party rose in opposition to the Republican Party as well as Obama, and now we are supposed to sit back and say well now we took you out of the darkness, go ahead and run all over us. The Democrats screamed conservatives/Tea Party types did not care about small government, only about getting rid of the black president, how does this fit into that narrative. We should stay in opposition to this garbage no matter what Party is feeding it to us.

      • Scope

        is already being touted by the Obama administration by saying that they believe that Romney was the grandfather of the Obamacare legislation. His Romneycare advisors advised the Obama administration ferGodsakes. Romney will have no standing against Obama with the individual mandate. He has already suggested that the nation would be well off with his Romneycare. It pains me greatly that we are about to nominate someone who has been so close to the Obama positions it is pukable.

        • rednation

          Romney is a disaster. Far worse than Santorum or Newt.

          Santorum is bring proven right, he said Obama would simply laugh at Mitt and say he believes as I do on national hc, and his flimsy defense based on states rights, 10th amendment will be destroyed by video and op eds of his urging Obama to adopt the mandate nationwide.

          We give up this and other issues due to lack of contrast.

          The selection of Mitt is a total disaster. A loss no matter if we win in November or not.

          Congrats, Stupid Party.

      • rightland1111

        and the rest of the insider group has decided for us…who we need to vote for…and Santorum..he won’t shut up about social issues long enough to be competitive with Romney AND NOBODY LISTENS to Newt…So much for Sarah and Perry backing him…it didn’t fly. We’re stuck with the SOS/

  • rightland1111

    today when Obama was in Texas…what was some of the first things out of his mouth…Romney and how he had backed Obamacare…and he further stated (Obama) that some of the same people that were against Obamacare were helping behind the scenes….that was Mark Levin…tonight. So…that is how bad it is…and it will get worse.

  • Tbone

    He appeals to the dumbest Republican voters who didn’t have the sense to support Rick Perry. He obviously garnered all the losers who thought Herman Cain had a brain and the one who think Newt is too smart.

    The sooner Santorum crawls back to the nether reaches of PA, the better for all of us.

    • garfieldjl

      What he said about Romney happens to be true in his opinion, and I agree with Santorum on this. If Romney is the nominee we have no credibility and Obama easily wins re-election.

      • nepanyrush

        You already said there was a 50% chance you would vote for Obama if Romney was the nominee.

        It looks rather obvious that Romney will be the nominee. So please flip a coin and if it comes up Obama, go to Daily Kos and support your candidate.

        Also, if you cannot understand what is wrong with a major political GOP candidate saying we might as well have Obama as president rather than Romney, then one must wonder about your political instincts. I never heard such an outlandish thing. I really like Santorum and worked and donated to his campaign, but what he said is 1000 times worse than what the Romney adviser (not Romney himself) said. That is not just a gaffe, it is a statement that the Obama campaign will use over and over. That plus his labeling Romney as the “etch-a-sketch candidate” is extremely damaging for the general election. It may well have also finished Santorum’s political career unless he quickly backtracks. You, on the other hand, can keep on supporting Obama is Obama wins your coin flip.

      • Tbone

        that if breathing wasn’t a brain stem function he couldn’t take a breath.

    • jamesm

      Why are people upset if like they say, he won’t be the nominee.Hilarious.

    • cheetah2

      Perry’s gaffes were so benign compared to this!

      • acat

        Then, get to work promoting Perry 2016.

        Mew

        • cheetah2

          You are so right that conservatives need to rally around the best candidate early. We can make history if we do, whoever our president ends up being this fall. Sarah Palin took a stab at getting ready to lead early but she made some mistakes. (resigning as governor and doing a reality show loom big in my mind…)

          If Perry can keep fighting from Texas and get ready as Reagan did when he lost in his first try, I believe we do have a chance. I don’t have a lot of hope that our country can make it through another 4 years of Obama, but we do need a plan B for whatever the outcome is this fall. I like your plan!

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Santorum can just reset those comments like an Etch-A-Sketch after the primary election is over.

    • cheetah2

      Thanks you made me laugh!

  • natek58

    His statement is an allusion to the mind of the voter. “You (we) win by giving people a choice.” This is (again) a deliberate mis-reading of Santorum. You Romney-bots are pathetic.

    Go ahead and have your party. We’re going to go and start a different one.

    • nepanyrush

      Santorum said: “we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,?

      And nowhere does he say that is the mind of the voter. He made it clear that is his view.

      Perhaps it is a unintended gaffe and not what he really wanted to say, but if so, it is a 1000x worse than the gaffe of the Romney adviser because Romney never made the statement. The adviser made the gaffe and now Santorum is popularizing it and now doubled down by saying we might as well stay with Obama.

      It has become 100% obvious Romney will be the nominee. But if you want to see Obama win again and continue his destruction of America, by all means label anyone who support Romney a “Romneybot.” You can stay an Obamabot.

      • rednation

        It is being context screwed and you know it.

        You know it.

        His argument is well taken, since in elections like this of contrast, if the public masses (not the partisans) vote for 2 that are too alike, the incumbent (devil they know) will win out, for obvious psychological reasons.

        If Romney wins, the destruction of American will proceed much is has under Obama, except it will have an R next to its name and th destruction of our brand will be tossed into the mix as well.

        Do you honestly believe the father of Obamacare, whose advisors agreed with the blueprint, where Mitt urged Obama to adopt the national mandate on all 52 states will repeal it and honor his word instead of “fixing it” and keeping it?

        That’s the problem. Rick told the truth to us about ourselves, and we do not like it.

        Deal.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          sweater boy says is “taken out of context”.

          • texastaxpayer

            What is it with those sweater vests??

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            fools who think he’s actually a conservative that bother me.

          • texastaxpayer

            What sins has Santorum committed that disqualified him as a conservative? Just curious so kindly keep the “jack ass” comments to the absolute bare minimum please…

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            The only issue he’s been “conservative” on is abortion and marriage. Everything else he’s done in office is Huey P Long all over again, just on the right. Out of the Huckabee mold. Erick’s written two excellent pieces about him and big government and Powerline analyzed his votes in the Senate and found him to be on the left of center with his career senate votes vs. the Republican caucus in the Senate, not a shining light of conservatism by any measure.

            The guy is a chameleon, every bit as bad as Romney, or maybe worse in that regard. In addition, he’s never shown leadership on a conservative issue out of office until just before the Iowa caucus.

            The only way Santorum can be called “conservative” is if one complete ignores everything he’s done as an elected official. Combine that with the fact that he’s never had a private sector job and you’ve got Obama’s resume.

          • acat

            If Reagan-conservatism is a three legged stool, Santorum’s a golf tee!

            Mew

      • gekster

        He can see he won’t win, and is grasping at straws.
        Most animals do get more viscous when cornered and can’t see no way out.

        • rednation

          Romney destroys the party.

          He will likely give us another David Souter, so any benefit or difference in hard terms from Obama will be negated.

          It’s not desparation. It’s refreshing honesty.

          • jamesm

            This is one of the more likely outcomes. The base of the party has rejected him.They will always reject him.

          • morrigan

            >”The base of the party has rejected him.”

            I don’t know why so many people around here keep saying this, but it is not supported by any data.

          • gekster

            even mbeckers dead white cat is better than obama, and for all his flaws, Romney is far better than Obama.
            Is Romney the perfect choice?
            NO.
            But he will still be better than Obama.
            I think alot of people are going through thier grief stages, and it seams those in the denial stage are lashing out.
            I’ve only been back for two days, and I have seen tons of it.
            I

          • rednation

            I have voted Republican for longer than most on this site have.

            I just recognize Romney for who he is by experience.

            And he really is not much better than Obama, and worse, he’s worse LONG TERM in terms of the damage and blame to the brand and the dilution of that and credibility to THIRD PARTY OBSERVERS.

            Swing voters.

            We will never have credibility, again, based on ONE CYCLE thinking on all the critical left vs right issues of the day, and it’s not worth it, or selling my soul to hold my nose for the 15th time while my country is taken over the cliff at 150 mph with Dems, and 94 MPH with my OWN GUYS.

            Romney is likely to lose as Santorum says anyway, no matter what we do since he CANNOT contrast himself.

            A hollow victory in November, while it makes us all feel good for getting rid of whom I agree is the WORST president of my lifetime, is not worth it if we have to nominate a the person whose the architect of Obamacare AND whom urged Obama to apply a NATIONAL mandate on top of it, making him a total socialist.

            Romney is about equal to Obama under the hood, it just took one honest pol like Rick to say it.

            Once you move into the brand destruction, the leftward lurching and moving of our policy views to accept and take barely watered down leftist positions on AGW, NHC, etc. you are left with a prospect worse than Obama winning and us keeping him in check with congress and preparing for a big win in 2016.

          • acat

            QED

          • texastaxpayer

            Who created the department of energy *with the noble goal of reducing our dependency on foreign oil* and the department of education.

            Guess you could counter with Reagan but let’s face it the damage was done and for all intents and purposes permanent….

          • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

            Nixon is responsible for price controls, EPA, environmental impact statements, OSHA, and Jerry Ford. So yeah, he destroyed a conservative GOP.

          • acat

            Reagan lost in 1968 and was “in the wilderness” when Nixon won .. there *wasn’t* a conservative GOP at the time.

            Mew

          • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

            The only problem is Goldwater, Tower, Hruska, et al were ignored by squishes like Chuck Percy and Mark Hatfield.

          • acat

            Which is my point.

            There weren’t nearly as many conservatives, Goldwater and Buckley and Reagan were still formulating conservative ideology.

            Very different from today.

            Mew

          • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

            How is John Boehner vastly different from Jerry Ford? How is Mitch McConnell vastly different from Hugh Scott? I suppose some are wildly optimistic that the House will elect a new conservative Speaker, and a GOP majority in the Senate will elect a new conservative Majority Leader. I think this is silly wishful thinking, and conservatives will continue as a minority with no role in leadership.

          • acat

            which doesn’t change that there are more of them – the South had barely realized there were *two* parties… and the religious-conservatives hadn’t really started migrating from the Dems to the GOP yet.

            Higher numbers doesn’t put us in control. Better organization does.

            Your assertion that Nixon destroyed the GOP fails because, then as now, conservatives don’t have enough control of the GOP to matter.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            The conservative movement was much younger and still licking its ’64 wounds. The Democrats radicalism kept the GOP alive at the presidential level after their ’68 convention much as Dem incompetence paved the way for Reagan in ’80.

            Certainly Nixon’s policies hurt America and the conservative movement, but their wasn’t much of a GOP, especially at the state, local and congressional level in ’68.

            Then came Watergate…

          • acat

            Just look at those popular vote totals….

            Nixon: 31,783,783
            Humphrey: 31,271,839
            Wallace: 9,901,118

            Without Wallace’s presence on the ballot, several of the southern States Nixon won would likely have gone to Humphrey.

            You are correct, though – Reagan sought to do a deal with Rockefeller to block Nixon and force a contested convention. Rockefeller backed out, though, and sided with Nixon instead.

            I believe your assertion “there wasn’t much of a GOP, especially at the state, local, and congressional level in ’68″ applies solely to the South, which refused to acknowledge the existence of the GOP, instead battling it out between “blue dogs” and “liberals”.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            cited. Yes, re The South, but w/o the Solid South, the GOP was a permanent minority esp at the congressional level.

            The reason Wallace could be a factor was due to the radicalism of the Dems proper and that LBJ wouldn’t win the war.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            In most ways both are much healthier today given the GOP majorities in the states and the House of representative in DC. We still live in the wake of the tea partier-driven historic 2010 landslide. But we have the gradual slouching towards Gomorrah working against us, with the jury out on how the populations of the takers vs the producers/liberty lovers shake out electorally.

            Was the conservative movement hurt by Bush-DeLay spending and even more by Bush’s refusal to Defend conservatism? Yes. But isn’t the main harm that the Housing bubble occurred on his watch? I think so.

            The main asset we have now is that Obama and the Dems had that super-majority, passed all they wanted and people are living under Obamaism and don’t like it. They have accountability now, unlike how the credit got mixed in the 90s.

            We should win in a landslide this year and I think we will, no matter the nominee.

          • acat

            conservatism and the GOP out of this, win or lose.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            that can be used to enact the policies we favor because we think they maximize liberty and prosperity. Clearly liberals will always occupy the Dem party, and my reading of history is that the GOP is far superior for most our our history. I do think that we need radical conservative change, as I know you do, but America needs this menace of Obama gone for the sake of damage control and a recovery.

            But on the issue of what is true conservative thought and policy, I have a column coming out this weekend on an “epiphany’ of sorts that has been building for months if not a few years and it involves what i have come to see as the mistaken policies of free foreign trade and what it has wrought for the US for the past 20-50 years….coming soon

            preview: Pat B’s 1998 The Great Betrayal and Charles M’s 2012 Coming Apart…GC reads books…smile

          • avagreen

            But isn?t the main harm that the Housing bubble occurred on his watch? I think so.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

            You may have meant to say this, but just in case…….

          • gekster

            Do a search on Bush and Fanye/Freddy Mac, and you can get a few speaches on Bush & McCain giving the warning.

            (from under the vid on the website)
            “The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and what thus became the 2008 financial crisis — starting in 2002 (and actually even earlier — in the Clinton and Carter White Houses. Democrats resisted and kept to their party line, extending loans to people who couldn’t afford them — just like you would expect of socialists”

          • Scope

            to a degree. From my memory, Bush and McCain in fact did warn of the oncoming crisis. Go back to the Clinton administration, when I believe it was Franklin Reins was found to be as corrupt as they come. Gingrich was not on board with the Republicans that wanted to reign in the Freddie and Fannie debacle, even as they knew it was a debacle. Look at the warnings that came from Bush and McCain in the Bush presidency, and tell me how many Republicans took the oncoming disaster seriously? That was at the same time that Gingrich was advising Freddie that there “wasn’t much support to change the business model with Freddie.” If I am not mistaken, Gingrich also said just a year before the crash that the entities were sound and in other words should not have any changes. That is one of my very biggest arguments against Gingrich. There are others, but, for me, that was a deadly position to take, as we all know what happened less than a year later. Yet, that is the smartest man in the room?

          • acat

            I’d be interested in seeing it.

            I know Frank and Dodd were insisting that we remain calm and that all is well …

            If Gingrich was, in fact, echoing Frank and Dodd, then we have a problem, but .. there’s a difference between that and advising Freddie Mac that “there isn’t support” (i.e. the GOP have their heads in the sand) … which unfortunately was the truth.

            Mew

          • garfieldjl

            1. Gingrich was a private citizen, he wasn’t in the position of having to uphold the public trust.

            2. Consultants only have access to the the information their client chooses to provide them. The odds of him knowing about Freddie Mac’s real financial situation is rather low.

            He was a consultant with dozens of clients, he wouldn’t have had access to Freddie Mac’s financial information.

            Good grief this is like blaming the janitors at Goldman Sachs for what the CEO and other higher up people did.

          • rednation

            Please review the Nixon SCOTUS picks and confirmations.

            What was the result?

            How about this. Nixon was literally forced to resign, but the worse thing he did was to be a moderate, advancing all sorts of non-conservative things, which we are still paying for.

            Look at how he governed in office, Reagan he was not.

            Our principles matter a lot more than many want to think of the pragmatic school. Over time, we are losing to the leftists, because they fight for their beliefs 24/7 without apology and our side in state after state lists beating OBAMA as most important candidate quality while being actually considerably right wing as being far less important, hence Romney’s double misguided support.

            Double, since he’s the least electable candidate. And because nominating on that basis MAINLY is suicide over time, suicide in terms of preserving the brand, and suicide in terms of having credibility when presenting our views to fence sitters…

          • acat

            Get real!

            This is Ford vs. Carter at best… Nixon vs. Carter at worst.

            Mew

            (yes, I know Nixon never ran against Carter)

      • jamesm

        Don’t come whining in November. Romneybots are personally responsible.

        • Kyle-MI

          I will vote for the Republican come November, whoever that may be. If you can’t then you should rethink what party you support.

          • rednation

            There comes a limit on sane options. At some point you have to say no more. The establishment fools stupid voters, uses their money, endorsements, tricks at state level chairs, and support and angles to have divided conservatives like Santy vs Newt or Huck vs Thompson to allow their moderate to slip by and then says:

            “Shut up and vote for him (Mitt) because at least he’s a BIT better than the other side’s clown!”

            Well, no more.

            After McCain last time, it’s almost absurd to think in a contrast cycle with a weak incumbent, we should swallow and vote Mitt.

            No way.

            If we do, the establishment wins. If we don’t, we get Obama, and both are evil. There’s no such thing as th lesser of ONCE they start approaching each other in terms of unthinkable scale as THESE TWO ARE.

            It’s like saying do you want a bullet in the head execution style by Hitler or Mussolini?

            You vote Romney and you also die without respect. You stay home you have your self respect and principles and you die.

            I am seriously considering death.

          • RedRedhead

            You don’t have to vote for anybody.

            However if enough people believe what you are stating it’s all over. The democrats and socialists will win on the national scale perpetually.

          • jamesm

            We all will but we are talking primary

  • jamesm

    Will he flip? Yes. That’s what he does. A zebra cannot change his stripes. If he becomes president we will see him pursuing many of the same policies as Obama. His words are BS.

    • rednation

      Too bad so many rank and file repubs cannot see past their desire for electability that they insist upon selling us down the river to elect somebody that trashes our brand and loses our credibility when we appear to defend our conservative views and we have them say, you agree with climate change, you elected and nominated a global warming proponent, etc.

      We lose the future over one cycle.

      Rick was right.

      • jamesm

        people that will see thru this nonsense of electibility. If this guy wins conservative views are pushed to the back page and the country loses. If he loses the country is doomed. There are just too many people willing to buy into this phony electibility argument. Conservatives will not support this guy. I am glad to see you stand up for what is right. Forget about the fuzzy squish Repubs. They own this guy and will bear evey ounce of blame

        • Xasteius

          I intend to support them whoever gets the nomination, for even I’m wary of Newt.

          • jamesm

            Although outnumbered over here we don’t give up or soften. The bay area is not a conservative bastion. Stuck with Pete Stark forever.

          • texastaxpayer

            That’s enemy territory like Massachusetts or New York…. Ohio… That’s the front lines…

          • jamesm

            is a target rich environment.

          • texastaxpayer

            ;)

        • acat

          Let’s put the old girl down and get on with rebuilding.

          Mew

          • jamesm

            minded. Obama got elected. He was left of Hillary. Romney is left of every other potential GOP candidate. Each party is choosing the left wing. So..yes we need to rebuild but not with this current generation of establishment leaders.

          • acat

            what are you doing about it?

            We must build a bonfire in congress to hold Romney’s feet to …

            We stand a chance to flip the Senate and keep the House .. but only if we get to work.

            Mew

          • jamesm

            http://www.petestark.com/priorities/ratings

            If Romney were running against this guy I would vote for Romney. I don’t t

          • acat

            …

          • jamesm

            democratic district. He will hold this seat for as long as he chooses,

          • acat

            There is such a thing as a district where the opposition have given up.

            Ever consider trying to make the primaries interesting? Find someone – anyone – to run against him…. get an idea of the anger and frustration in the district.

            Remember, Barney Frank was once a sinecure as well …

            Mew

          • morrigan

            >”Romney is left of every other potential GOP candidate”

            Certainly based on the candidates stated positions on the issues, Romney is not to the left of the other candidates. You may not believe what he says, but he is not running to the left of the other candidates. He’s running on straight-down-the-line conservative orthodoxy.

            Will he brake some of his promises if elected? I’d be surprised if he doesn’t. Even Reagan broke some of his promises. The moral there is that conservatives need to stop investing so much of their hopes and dreams in one individual. Conservatism needs to be a movement, like liberalism is, if it hopes to match liberalisms influence.

          • garfieldjl

            I really wish I was wrong, but I know something of history, thus I’m probably not.

          • acat

            Romney was elected, or worked, etc. etc.

            The question is where, between the record and the campaign statements, one believes Romney actually is…. and I don’t think we know.

            I suspect, from what he’s said and later walked back, that Romney is a technocrat/centrist, and that he will get to D.C. and do small Conservative things but largely will try to make government more efficient.

            This isn’t a bad thing in itself, and it’s certainly better than Obama, but it’s disappointing given the potential for better.

            Mew

          • morrigan

            And Santorums record contradicts Santorums campaign statements, and Gingrich’s record contradicts Gingrich’s campaign statements, etc. For that matter, Obama’s record contradicts Obama’s campaign statements, and W’s record contradicted W’s campaign statements in many respects.

            Can we all stop acting like we are political virgins who have never seen a politician change his positions before?

          • dgofastorgohome12

            All politicians are flip floppers. They all say what they think you want to hear and then do what they want when they get in office. Obama promised the Dems a whole lot or stuff and hasn’t delivered. That is why his approval ratings are down. Dems thought they were electing a god. I laugh when i hear that Obama can’t get something done. I think that when people do finally get in office they find that it is actually hard to get bills passed. This is because they have a hard time convincing enough politicians from the other side to vote on an issue. Both parties hate each other and they don’t want to compromise. A great leader is one that can get everyone to listen and to follow them. A great leader is hard to come by.

          • lineholder

            Conservatism should be more along the lines of a “movement”. And I have often wished to see such a movement become more organized.

            But where it seems to become a problem is that Conservatism is defined as different things by different people. Liberalism has long since held to specific goals and objectives, and this has served as their point of focus in just about everything they do.

            I wish we could find points of agreement amongst ourselves as to what the goals and objectives of a Conservative movement should be. A lot of people provide the answer “limited government”, etc., but they have vast differences in opinion on how this should be achieved.

            Hopefully, we can begin to define a few points amongst ourselves that will help us to bring things into focus. Even if it is simple things, like “protecting and preserving the Constitution”, this would be better than no focus at all, I think.

        • rednation

          Trouble is most people watch Rove and do not really study elections and even current polls. In critical swings, wimpy Sweater Vest has repeatably beaten Romney vs Obama. He just did again today, well into the point where tons are going to head into the bandwagon effect.

          Too many stupid people. It’s our downfall.

          Trouble is the Squishes never learn. They have been unlearning at least since 1936 on these national elections. Landon, Willkie, Dewey, Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney, etc.

          It never ends or changes. It’s sad, really.

          • acat

            By starting to run Dec. 1 – before the guy they’re going to run against is even sworn in.

            Only once has this happened… and even then it was a nail-biter.

            Palin came the closest to starting to run in 2008, with her FB posts .. but she dropped out early. Nobody else even came close.

            Tell me again how it’s the Squishies fault that Conservatives can’t get it together when we know what the Squishie plan is.

            Mew

  • Kyle-MI

    If you won’t let my candidate win, I am taking my ball and going home. Or worse, yet, I am playing for the other team.

    So you (and you candidate, Santorum) would rather destroy the country with four more years of Obama just because GOP voters don’t want to follow your brilliant lead. You people are pathetic.

    You deserve the country you are going to get. I just wish my family and I didn’t have to live with the garbage you will put us all through.

    • gekster

      ;)

    • garfieldjl

      1. I’m not a Santorum supporter.

      2. I personally believe that Romney would be just as destructive to this country as Obama. I don’t believe that Santorum would be destructive, I don’t believe Newt would be destructive.

      A ham sandwich would be better than Obama, unfortunately a ham sandwich would also be better than Romney.

      • rednation

        +2

        Romney MIGHT be almost as destructive to the country, in office but clearly over time in dilution of brand and blurring of positions on critical defining issues of our side vs the philosophy of leftists.

        We then have no credibility with third parties on issue after issue when we try to distance ourselves on AGW, NHC, cap and trade, life, you name it.

        Not so in clear totality with Newt or Santorum.

        It makes us feel better, short term, even to have a person RUNNING as a conservative like Romney up there and winning against Obama, but the long term losses are palpable.

    • rednation

      And his potential to do more damage over TIME than even one more checked (if we hold onto congress) term that sets up a real conservative for 2016.

      Though, in all cycles, no matter what our chances are, the Establishment will back ANOTHER ROMNEY to ostensibly attract moderates, indies, etc.

      I would gladly give up Santorum for an even better conservative with fewer bad votes, though I do not see than arriving in the flesh..

      I am not mad that “my guy Santorum is not the annointed one so I am taking my toys and going home” I see that the country is being destroyed by ever moderating our brand name with ever more leftist tilts that ultimately make it about us winning and cheering our team that has an R on it prevails, despite having most of their positions being near identical to the hated D team.

      It’s not worth it. 4 years of Obama compared to 20+ years of having the Establishment push moderates down our throats and telling us we could do worse.

      We can do better.

      • natek58

        The Establishment keeps expecting us to put up the votes that they themselves can never deliver. Romney has been consistently polling at 28%. That’s his base – and it already includes some socially conservative people. We are expected to bring in the rest and we get nothing – ever.

        Have the Republicans stopped ONE abortion from taking place? Have they prevented Homo-Marriage from breaking out all over the place? Have they really tried on these issues?

        NO!! NO!! and NO!!!!!!!!!

        We get nothing from this alliance with these clowns. We need a Socially Conservative Party that will negotiate its support. Only when real commitments to progress on our issues are shown will the SCP give its support to a Republican nominee. With Romney, I would expect this hypothetical party to withold its support entirely and urge its members to vote for a third party candidate.

      • Kyle-MI

        With Obama still as president, Obamacare will NOT be repealed. We will not have the votes to overcome a veto. It will be iffy even with a Republican president.

        And you can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye for the next couple generations. Do you seriously think the Senate GOP will unite to oppose any Obama nominee? The best we can hope for would be a stealth liberal.

        With Romney we have a chance. With Obama we know for certain what will happen.

    • hweila

      I’m not a Santorum supporter, and didn’t vote for him in my state’s primary, but he’s absolutely dead on with this. If anything four years of Romney might actually be worse because, as eight years of George W. Bush taught us, Republicans in Congress (and often even in the country in general) cannot be relied up to oppose a Republican President when he lunges to the center and the left in the same way they will when a Democrat is in the White House.

      If Romney ultimately emerges as the nominee, the best case scenario remaining for conservatives is Obama in the White House and Republicans controlling the House and Senate. Thereby strangling his domestic agenda and forcing him to spend four years taking vacations and trying to build a foreign policy legacy like so many other 2nd term Presidents.

    • funwithknives

      But can we at least grant him the power of reason and being somewhat of a thinker? Aren’t some of his boafides credible?

      He sees what shape we’re in, and knows somewhere down in his continually changable mind what he HAS TO do, as a minimum.Then it’s Up To Us to keep an eye out for slippage and keep ‘condition yellow’. (Yes, it HAS come to This…)

      Is it what you wanted, or expected? (Insert Snort of Derision *HERE*) Well, me neither.
      But given the Two most obvious choices , knowing that both are no-where near close to expectations ,”what’s a guy gonna do…??

      This has been ongoing since Woodrow Wilson, more or less.Not gonna be solved shortly , and probably not in my lifetime.
      Palatable? No way, but this is the battle we have.

      Ya’ gotta start somewhere, don’t ya?

    • funwithknives

      But can we at least grant him the power of reason and being somewhat of a thinker? Aren’t some of his bonafides credible?

      He sees what shape we’re in, and knows somewhere down in his continually changable mind what he HAS TO do, as a minimum.Then it’s Up To Us to keep an eye out for slippage and keep ‘condition yellow’. (Yes, it HAS come to This…)

      Is it what you wanted, or expected? (Insert Snort of Derision *HERE*) Well, me neither.
      But given the Two most obvious choices , knowing that both are no-where near close to expectations ,”what’s a guy gonna do…??

      This has been ongoing since Woodrow Wilson, more or less.Not gonna be solved shortly , and probably not in my lifetime.
      Palatable? No way, but this is the battle we have.

      Ya’ gotta start somewhere, don’t ya?

  • redmymind

    Why are his dones so upset and all bent out of shape over Santorum’s remarks?

    Do they serious think BHO Lite/Etch-A-Sketch stands a chance against the genuine article? . . . Not in their wildest dreams!!!

    Love their attempt at humor, though.

    • rednation

      +2

      Romney cannot win, not because we are not united, but because election history in contrast cycles shows when the middle and swings are offered up a guy similar to the one in office, even if they are not entirely happy with him, they choose the devil they know over the one they do not and must gamble on.

      Romney’s biggest weakness is not us fighting.

      Romney’s biggest weakness is not a brokered convention.

      It’s Romney!

      • acat

        don’t get second terms.

        This race is not the GOP’s to win, it is Obama’s to lose.

        Do you understand the difference?

        Mew

        • redmymind

          what about a weak president who can’t fix the economy but is a heck of a charismatic figure who can practically sell ice to the Eskimos???

          Ever think about that, tux???

          BHO may be a disaster as far as his presidency goes, but he sure is slick when it comes to turning the tables on the GOP.

          Add to that the fact that he’ll easily out-gun the pathetic, flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal on several fronts, just some of which are:

          1. $$$

          2. Army of MSM drones and pundits (who BTW would love nothing more than a BHO-BHO Lite match-up, just like the GOP establishment)

          3. Far superior oration and debating skills, even without his teleprompter

          4. The ability to actually CONNECT with his audience even on the worst of his days (what a concept that would be for Romney).

          Romney, on his best day and all suited up, just can’t connect and has a damning proneness to really stepping knee-deep in it when he makes a gaffe. AND, he basically hands over the issue of Obamacare to Obama on a silver platter.

          Sure, BHO does not deserve to get a second term, but sending BHO Lite after him is like being stupid and then taking a stupid pill on top of that.

          So, I challenge you, my fury fish-eating friend, to find ONE bad U.S. president in history who nonetheless had the perfect combo of luck, sheer charisma, and the sheepish following of the liberal institutions and the powerful media who are convinced that he can do no wrong–even in the plain sight of utter failure.

          And what’s Romney gonna tout? Fox Noise and his buddies Hume, Krauthammer, Gummy Bret, and the rest of the establishment butt kissing gang of pseudo-conservatives???

          Your black-and-white tuxedo coat is a plus, as is your proven wit and clever arguments, but try to top this one, kitty!

          R-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-u-f-f-f-f-f-f-f!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . . . . Wuff, wuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acat

            Yes, Romney’s lousy, but this race was never his to win .. it remains Obama’s to lose.

            Obama losing would be *helped* by our having a better candidate, but it’s not mandatory.

            Mew

          • redmymind

            The scenario I’ve described for you precisely portrays Obama at his very worst (with his donors drying up) and Romney at his very best–all suited up, rehearsed, and mouth-washed, etc. The clown/compulsive flip-flopper would STILL lose to BHO.

            Put it another way, this fake–Romney–is simply losing to another fake–Obama–who’s simply better at the game, not to mention coming to the game BETTER ARMED.

            The thing with BHO is not that he goes into 2012 with a big, ugly baggage from the standpoint of our liberty and many other issues we conservatives hold dear . . . perhaps even “sacred.”

            No. Many naively think BHO’s GOT TO lose just by virtue of the bum economy, etc.

            I think, . . . “Not that easy.”

            BHO has a singular “gift” of being able to essentially reframe his utter failure as the fault of the GOP. Just look at his poll numbers. They should be in the SINGLE DIGITS considering what he’s done, but that he lingers in the menacing 50/50 range speaks to his ability to re-package and re-sell his BS quite convincingly to his base and left-leaning independents.

            Now, is it “mandatory,” as you put it, that Romney lose to BHO?

            No, because it’s not “mandatory” that he become our nominee.

            Ruff!

          • acat

            Would a more .. starkly contrasted .. opponent have some advantages? Yes.

            Would a more conservative candidate have a significant advantage? Absolutely.

            Am I happy that we seem to be stuck with Romney? Hell no!

            That said .. Romney’s approach – “Obama’s a nice guy, but…” does have some merit, and Romney is a near-equal to Obama in terms of proxy hit jobs and dirty campaigning.

            It’s not going to be fun, especially when the moderate squishies sour on Romney in September, just like they did with Dole, McCain, etc. … but it is Obama’s race to lose.

            You’re right, Romney may not be our nominee .. but every delegate he adds makes it more likely.

            Mew

          • redmymind

            You’re one stubborn kitty that needs to chase more laser dots on the wall!!!

            Now that I’ve got that off my chest . . . hmmmmmmmmmm . . .

            Alls I’m saying is that all that stuff you’re saying that Romney is capable of (the “positives,” if you will, as far as fight and spittle left in him) Obama can well out-do with flying colors. That’s all. Simple physics . . . the heavier object wins.

            There is simply no edge Romney has against Obama, whether money-wise, connection-wise, media-wise, personality-wise, charisma-wise, OR PRINCIPLE-WISE.

            Romney can proclaim himself a “conservative” all he wants and say all the right things and spew off all those slick (but out-of-touch) rehearsed lines, but the bottomline is, he has a credibility problem. Nobody trusts him. He’s a serial flip-flopper. Mr. Etch-a-Sketch. Do you think BHO will let that one pass? Hell no!

            Plus, Romney is giving away the Obamacare issue on a silver platter (I’m sure he’s got lots more at home).

            So . . .

            YOU now want to reframe the whole issue as your guy (say, Mr. Moon President) being the BETTER choice but Romney nevertheless being a “better-than-nothing” choice for president.

            As you know, I’m a Santo guy myself, but that’s irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. My point is, it will either take a Newt or a Santo to win this election. Mitt simply has no edge against BHO. He’s basically a carbon copy of the statist, and the diehards will rally around the genuine article.

            So no, I don’t think just any of the remaining 4 can beat Obama. Only two can: Santo or Newt.

            So no, Gato, this is not a question of “degrees,” as you’re evidently attempting to frame it. ONLY the aforementioned two guys have a chance against BHO. It’s not a question of who would be “ideal” and who would be “acceptable.”

            Sure, there’s a chance they might lose, but for Romney it’s a no-brainer that he’s GOING TO lose to BHO.

            Stop caving into the Romney “inevitability” rhetoric, or whatever formulation of it you happen to subscribe to. He is not an option if we want to make BHO a one-term president.

            Now, . . . what do you say to that? Let’s hear it, whiskers!!!

            R-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-ufffffffffffffff!!!

      • morrigan

        It’s a mistake to assume that the country at large thinks as you do. Does the typical American voter believe that Obama and Romney are very similar? I’ve seen nothing to make me think so, and even if he does believe that his opinion will change once we get into the general election campaign.

    • clintonformccain

      NT

    • jamesm

      ’cause he ain’t and the left of center is freaking out. 7.2% odds of Romney not winning. I kinda like those odds. At least there is a small chance. Come on Mitt..you are good for another gaffe

  • Filibuster Keaton

    “It might be the case that once Mitt Romney clinches the nomination, Redstate site administrators would have to ban Rick Santorum for his flouting of site rules.”

    I’m honestly wondering who’ll still be here by November if Romney clinches the nomination. Santorum’s just saying what half the Conservatives I know already have.

  • artaustria

    “I’ve told you HIS sins – and I died for you.” That will be his “famous last words” – going on forever, again and again, for the next four years or so…

  • steve962

    …about Santorum, through some twist of fate, actually *getting* the Republican nomination. (IMHO, Santorum is quite possibly the worst choice *ever* for President we could pick…)

    What I’d forgotten, and am now happily reminded of, is that Santorum suffers from severe shoot-himself-in-the-foot disease — invariably at some point in a major campaign he’ll say something so off the wall crazy that people finally see through the hype and realize just how *bad* a candidate he’ll be. There are still several months left before the convention, and the media attention is so tight, that it should be easy for him to bury himself deep enough that we hopefully will never hear from him in American politics again.

  • morrigan

    An awful lot of conservatives want to see a good and virtuous man, with a Bible in one hand, a copy of ‘The Road To Serfdom” in the other, and a stack of National Reviews on the bookshelf, go into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and go all “Jesus among the money changers” on the left and liberals.

    And then they all lived happily ever after.

    If you buy into this model of politics, Romney is a poor candidate. But I think the model is flawed. Reagan was the nearest we’ve come to sending a Conservative Paladin to DC, and he could do no more than stem the tide for a while. None of the current candidates make for a credible Paladin. It’s not realistic to think that we’ll see one in 2016 either.

    Changing the culture and the country requires an army of conservatives. Lot’s of conservatives in the House, in the Senate, on school boards, elected by lots of conservatives among the population who think and act conservative on a consistent basis.

    Is that a tall order? Of course it is. But the size of the critical mass needed to accomplish this is not any greater than that needed to elect the Conservative Warrior President. If anything it’s smaller. But it will require consistent effort, day in and day out, and not a big push once every four years.

  • ennaneko

    GOP is composed of a lot of cynical, angry, pensive dudes.

    GOP draws dudes who are into old school idealism. They’re the types that would say stuff like… “I’d rather get punched in the face than kneel to you.”

    brawk taer gawr… blachtar… time for blood wine.

    It’s something to do with testosterone.

    This Santorum impresses us. We admire his tenacity. Worthy of leadership.

  • Stricia

    Is this the depths you must sink to?
    “… cynical, angry, pensive dudes”

    Really?

  • ennaneko

    I’m not criticizing.

    Cynics are smart.
    Angry is good.
    Pensive means you’re a thinker.

    If you you’re a dude that doesn’t bite on bad bologna, cares enough to get angry, and thinks about the state of things…. you are most likely a Republican male.

  • ennaneko

    a conservative male.

    • civil truth

      …when responding to another comment.

      “Leave a Comment” is when you wish to comment directly to the diary itself.

      You need to be particularly careful when the comment you respond to is the last comment on the page because its easy to get confused.

  • Pingback: Motor Vehicle Crashes – How To Proceed After Being In One | abneyparkforum.com

  • Pingback: Handy orten

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: Archie Morimoto

  • Pingback: Albert Burkhard

  • Pingback: free music downloader

  • Pingback: good read

  • Pingback: work from home

  • Pingback: computers software

  • Pingback: peliculas online

  • Pingback: Intimates

  • Pingback: home business

  • Pingback: atlantis slots machine

  • Pingback: the exterminator slot review

  • Pingback: vakantie oostenrijk

  • Pingback: harvard

  • Pingback: apo janitorial

  • Pingback: clean

  • Pingback: Plus Size Dresses

  • Pingback: Kush Los Angeles

  • Pingback: Marijuana Hollywood

  • Pingback: Los Angeles medical marijuana,

  • Pingback: Empower Network System

  • Pingback: Paslode Im350

  • Pingback: Costco Wholesale

  • Pingback: Big Island Tours

  • Pingback: sports news updates

  • Pingback: directorio

  • Pingback: natural techniques to enlarge

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: Michele Kief

  • Pingback: slow pc fix

  • Pingback: cool transport