« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

No Surprise, Iowa Social Conservatives Are About To Shoot Us All in the Foot Again

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 28th, 2011 at 04:02 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’m hearing several campaigns and external pollsters have a surge for Rick Santorum. With the National Review folks fawning over him again, it probably means a surge is real and any surge by Rick Santorum is another factor ensuring Mitt Romney wins the nomination. (To be fair, this doesn’t look like real momentum)

Santorum has no money or organization outside of Iowa and cannot win the nomination, but Iowans love a guy who sucks up to them and makes sure they know he loves the babies.

As a pro-lifer myself, I have to throw up a bit in my mouth that Iowa conservatives are seriously considering Rick Santorum, which will only help Mitt Romney, a guy who even after his supposedly heartfelt conversion to life put some seriously pro-abortion judges on the Massachusetts bench hiding behind the “Well it was Massachusetts for Pete’s sake” defense.

Let’s remember Rick Santorum could not even win re-election in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Rick Santorum also supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the U.S. Senate back in 2004.

But most damning to me is Rick Santorum’s actual record in the Senate and House of Representatives. I keep hearing him say he was such a paragon of fiscal conservative virtue, when he was anything but that. He was as go along to get along as all the other Republicans who led to our downfall.

Making Santorum worse, he was always the guy saying, “I had to do this, but wait till I get to leadership. I’ll be there for you in leadership.” It’s what he is saying now. Only it isn’t true and never was.

He supported steel tariffs in Pennsylvania, which did him little good in his own re-election effort.

He supported No Child Left Behind.

He supported the prescription drug benefit.

He supported the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, according to Club for Growth, “Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.”

Santorum decided, after leaving Congress, to oppose earmarks, but he sure did love them while he was there. He voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, but he voted to extend milk subsidies to save the poor Pennsylvania farmer.

In the House, Santorum opposed NAFTA and offered legislation to impose steel tariffs. He wanted to tax imported honey and Chinese imports.

Throughout his career, Santorum has tried to have it both ways. For example, as the Club For Growth documents

He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005. But on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage, which he later boasted about to skeptical voters in a 2006 campaign brochure he released called “50 Things You Didn’t Know About Rick Santorum.”

In other words, the Santorum I have observed for a decade is the Rick Santorum on the campaign trail now — a guy trying to have it both ways through too clever by half stunts like voting against the minimum wage while authoring a bill to raise the minimum wage so no one can pin him down on his record.

Rick Santorum is more conservative than Mitt Romney. He is a strong social conservative and has taken a lot of bullets from the left because of his stand. But he is not as strong a fiscal conservative as he claims and the real issue here is social conservatives in Iowa risk Mitt Romney’s election by supporting a guy who cannot get traction or money outside of Iowa.

Rick Santorum will not be the nominee. That’s the reality. But his rise hurts Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry in Iowa — all of whom have better organizations and better shots beyond Iowa.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Bill S

    He’s better than Ron Paul.

  • expanding_man

    Problem with the Iowa poll is obvious. It sampled ZERO independents or democrats. Although many people fault PPP’s Iowa polls for oversampling independents and democrats, noone thinks that there won’t be a significant number of independents/dems who switch affiliations on the date of the caucuses in order to vote.

    The sampling error skews the results. This may be the reason Santorum does so well relative to Perry who soe believe will get some non-republican votes at the caucuses. Santorum will get zero crossover votes.

  • kindredsoul

    is polling well among independents in Iowa?

  • elayman

    And I’m happy if Paul can knock down Romney, but generally speaking if you don’t vote for a viable GE candidate on a primary ballot, there will be no national ballot opportunity.

  • DerKrieger

    …very hard on winning more House seats, a strong majority in the Senate, and more state level offices because we may have to force the hand of whoever is POTUS and also advance conservatism without him.

  • mjs65

    How dare those evil social conservatives do what you’ve been complaining the House Republican’s won’t do…..stand on principle!

  • expanding_man

    Large crowds, spending ad money, running as an outsider, etc. point to decent numbers amongst independents. I guess we’ll know soon enough. Hope he does well, but not willing to make any predictions about Perry in Iowa other than the fact that he’ll finish ahead of Santormum, but maybe not by much.

    Santorum has no chance at getting 16% of the caucus votes.

  • thirstyboots

    Check my previous comments .He’s already in 3rd in the last CNN poll. Perry and Bachmann don’t have much potential to grow because, besides their hardcore supporters, nobody likes them. With Gingrich going down, Santorum is the last man standing and he’ll benefit from that.

    I’d say right now Santorum is the favorite to finish 3rd.

  • carolynr

    nt

  • freemanja1991

    Has a bunch of loyal supporters. Perry isn’t hurting as bad as generally perceived. It’s gonna be a mess. I live in Story County this will be ugly.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    there are a few things to remember:

    1) Ron Paul won’t win, and Santorum is better than Paul.

    2) The winner of Iowa doesn’t often win the nomination. (George W. Bush was, however, a notable exception.)

    Personally, I think the media is trying to build up Santorum in order to hide the fact that Perry is cramming coffee shops and restaurants wherever he goes, while Santorum and Bachmann get anywhere from 11 to 30 participants. But that’s just my personal opinion.

    Perhaps Santorum is surging. But like a few cartoon characters I could name, he’ll likely get hit in the head with a New Hampshire anvil. Figuratively speaking, of course.

    It’ll all come out in the wash, you see. Voting officially starts next Tuesday.

  • rharrison

    since the collective media decided three weeks ago or so that Santorum should be the new ‘flavor’. Everyone else has had a full vetting and then some but not him.. Frustrating for those who support Perry. Something to note in the current Time/CNN poll is the question which asks which candidate you would support for the nomination and which one you wouldn’t. Perry by far has the highest support of any of them. Not sure it translates to votes but it’s something.

  • carolynr

    There was a real state’s rights issue there and people need work. Perry figured that if he was pro-life that would be enough…but oh no…Iowa…although they tout their evangelical status…are just about the *&()*&) corn…which should go in the cow’s belly…not my engine.
    What do I have to do…go on the DesMoines Register and threaten to get a movement going to buy Citgo.

  • jakeofalltrades

    and the entire state of Iowa has been drinking it.

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

    And, keep in mind, these self-righteous jerks are the same ilk that transported Mike Huckabee into national prominence.

  • expanding_man

    I think since Iowa moved to the early slot in the primaries (in ’72 if I’m not mistaken) the nominee of both parties has always won EITHER Iowa or NH. Excetions were McGovern I think an Bill Clinton.

    Looking back at history, you must win at least 1 of these two states or you are OUT. We forget how quickly support erodes for the losers.

  • clintonformccain

    With Rick Perry’s decision to channel Jerry Falwell in Iowa, the Republican nomination process is left with one candidate who even has a plausible chance of beating Barack Obama…. Mittens.

    It’s really a depressing state of affairs. The Republican party, unfortunately, is caught in a black hole of leadership during a generational change. Meanwhile, half the primary voters seem to be interested in “sending a message” by voting for he most outrageous candidate they can find. It’s a good thing Christine O’Donnell didn’t throw her hat in the ring.

  • sunshinek67

    Woefully behind in enthusiasm as well. Does anyone really put money on these polls and their accuracy? Perhaps it is just another media gimmick. Put Rick Santorum’s record up against Rick Perry, there is just zero comparison there. Iowa needs to step down, once and for all. Put in a more reliable red state to be first in the nation.

  • heraklios

    If you’re talking about social conservatives then I think you’re on the wrong website…

  • heraklios

    If you’re talking about social conservatives then I think you’re on the wrong website…

  • http://www.WILLisms.com WILLisms

    “I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.” -Rick Santorum

  • Adjoran

    Santorum endorsing Specter, the incumbent of his own party who had endorsed him in his first run, under pressure from his own President, is unforgivable.

    Gingrich endorsing Dede Scuzzyfuzzy for an open seat in a race he had no reason to be involved with, and trashing conservatives who supported Hoffman instead, well, that’s acceptable?

    No sale.

  • sunshinek67

    a false narrative indicating a Santorum “surge” splits the conservative vote even moreso, mainly hurting Rick Perry who incidentally is drawing enthusiastic crowds and has a substantial campaign organization unlike Rick Santorum.

    I realize he visited all 99 counties, sometimes drawing 3 people in the audience. But he cannot be taken seriously beyond Iowa.

  • Bill S

    And if the national GOP had any guts, they’d do something to strip them of their “first-in-the-nation” status. What an embarrassment.

  • sunshinek67

    garnering Mr Santorum a reported 50 folks in attendance. Mind you, some of those might be store employees.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Maybe you’re the one who’s lost?

  • heraklios

    Before this year, I would have never imagined that Republican primary voters would select a liberal, who would be considered a centrist in the Democratic Party, as the Republican front-runner. Conservatives really do need a party of our own unless we can engineer a takeover of the GOP in the next couple of years. Let the GOP represent the “mushy-middle, the Dems the left and a conservative party for the right and center-right.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    They epitomize everything that’s wrong with government.

    PANDER TO ME! PANDER TO ME!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ,

  • Fernman

    Why stop at the House Republicans???…
    The Senate Republicans have thrown away Reagan principles years ago and skipped town this past week too scared to face the music.

  • bzip

    Hang in there Perry supporters. Just keep the faith and know Perry will make it in the end.

    Perry is already working SC to a degree:

    Jindal robocalls for Perry in South Carolina
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/jindal-robocalls-for-perry-in-south-carolina/

    Hang in there Perry supporters. Just keep the faith and know Perry will make it in the end.

  • heraklios

    With one you have a terrorist sympathizing, Marxist, race-baiting, aloof bastard.

    With the other you have an elitist, snobbish, Gordon Gekkoesque, weird, liberal, wuss.

    Does either description sound like someone we want as our President?

  • quill67

    My preference is simple anyone but Romney or Paul and do not like negative campaign of Bachman.

    Santorum lost PA because he was too conservative for liberal state.

    His zero tax on manufacturing could sell especially in PA, Ohio and the rest of the “rust” belt.

    This would be a fun race if it weren’t for Romney and Paul.

  • trapperjohn

    We really don’t have any good choices. I’m not buying your defense of Gingrich…he would be crucified in the general. He has handed out ammunition to his opponents by the train load.

    I like Perry but he flubbed it big time by not being prepared for the debates and there isn’t much we can do about it now.

    I’ll take Santorum over Paul or Gingrich.

    But I’m getting ready to vote for Romney in the general.

  • kindredsoul

    My guess is that Mr. Santorum was actually availing himself of a post-Christmas sale on kitchen tables. By the look of the store employees, they’re having none of it. :)

  • Fernman

    What’s the point in winning more House seats when you have a scared person as Leader of the house willing to compromise on principle because he is unwilling to face Obama.

    With a coward as a leader, what is going to prevent Boehner from chucking principles, integrity and any financial and social principles out the window when Obama starts inundating him with lies and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times is against him?

    Boehner is spoiled goods, no many to any Republican until the so called leader is removed.

  • jakeofalltrades

    I read the book, but not in German.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • jakeofalltrades

    It being true that a Republican In Name Only is anyone who doesn’t vote with their team (the GOP).

  • tailfins1959

    Google “spreading Santorum”, if you don’t know what I mean! This is not an endorsement, rather just being amazed at the shock value.

    Should we take steps to prevent “spreading” from happening to someone we really do like? Tell me Lieutenant McClane? Do you want someone you really care about to be next? I am comparing Santorum to Harry Ellis in the movie “Die Hard”.

  • bzip

    In regards to Santorum
    My educated guess is: Even if Santorum does do well in Iowa (maybe in the top 3) Santorum isn?t going any farther than that. Santorum doesn?t have the overall appeal in the national scene and the money/resources to go beyond Iowa. That is pretty much the same problem with Bachmann.

    Neither Santorum nor Bachmann have the appeal nationally and they don?t have the backers to keep them competitive in the end.

    So in the end let?s say Santorum does well in Iowa and in the process drags Perry down some in the Iowa caucuses. Santorum isn?t going anywhere in NH, nobody is except Romney for the most part.

    Here comes SC, can anyone tell me honestly that either Santorum or even Bachmann will appeal to SC and have the money backers to make either one of them competitive ? I don?t think so. In other words both Santorum and Bachmann are very restrictive type candidates for the Iowa social conservatives but won?t be very appealing most everywhere else.

    Perry has the backers and resources to compete in SC and that should end any Santorum or Bachmann surge.

    So, even though any surge in Iowa by Santorum or Bachmann makes it harder for Perry, Perry will prevail in the end. You have to have faith and I have lots of faith.

    I am assuming that Newt is going down and won?t be much competitive after Iowa, I could be wrong but all the trend show Newt going down both nationally and to Iowa.

    Iowa polls are getting messy right now. PPP shows one thing and CNN shows another but both show Newt going down and caucuses aren?t easy to poll for either.

    Perry is already working SC:
    Jindal robocalls for Perry in South Carolina
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/jindal-robocalls-for-perry-in-south-carolina/

  • cajunchosid770

    IMHO I think for Perry to be the nominee we need him to win Iowa. This is the first choice.
    But here is my other scenario:
    Let Ron Paul win Iowa,
    Mitt with NH,
    then it comes to SC. If Perry beats Newt in Iowa and comes in 3rd, behind Paul or Romney this sets up the stage for Perry to be the conservative alternative to Mitt. But Mitt needs to lose Iowa otherwise he will have Iowa and NH as I don?t see him losing NH. If Mitt wins Iowa and NH he will be the nominee.
    So let the vote for Iowa be Paul, Mitt and then Rick Perry.
    Whoever comes in 3rd in Iowa will be the non Mitt candidate people will rally around. We need that to be Rick Perry. If Perry comes in 3rd and Newt 4th, then Newts guys will flock to Perry and Perry can skip NH and fight it out in SC and go for the win there.
    So I think it is not a bad thing if Ron Paul wins IOWA. Let him win it if it cannot be Rick Perry

  • Wubbies World

    .

  • pj2012

    thanks for the news on Jindal. ;-)

  • bzip

    Some news on Santorum and Bachmann, if you hadn’t read it by now:

    Santorum rejects pastors? pleas to merge campaign with Bachmann
    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/28/santorum-rejects-pastors-pleas-to-merge-campaign-with-bachmann/

    Super Defection -Pro-Bachmann Super PAC switches to Romney
    http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/12/28/web-bachmann-pac-goes-romney/

    Des Moines Register Iowa Poll results on Republican presidential race to be released at 7 p.m. Saturday
    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/28/des-moines-register-iowa-poll-results-on-republican-presidential-race-to-be-released-at-7-p-m-saturday/

  • expanding_man

    If Mitt wins Iowa and NH the primary is absolutely over.

    I know this might be hard to hear for some, but it’s the truth. Sucks.

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

    It will be the fault of the true conservatives that didn’t run of the poor campaigns run by those that did run. I see no logic to EE’s headline claim re a connection between an eventual Romney as nominee, a good Santorum showing in Iowa and Iowa social cons being at “fault”.

    I wish all conservatives would rally around Perry and FTR, my preferences after Perry are

    2) Newt
    3) Bachmann

    Rest sans Paul tied for 4th.

    I would vote for Obama over Paul…

  • rec0n

    n/t

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    That was my first thought and fear.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Perry is going to win this thing. (Oh, and I see my own governor is hard at work. I have me some braggin’ rights ;) )

  • irishgirl

    I was going to say “bitter end”, but it won’t be bitter, because he’s going to prevail. Go Perry!

  • bzip

    You people crack me up. Two states out of 50 states (Iowa has 28 delegates, NH 23 but now it is 12 delegates) and neither state is winner take all.

    Explain to me how anyone can win the nomination with the very most of 40 delegates with only two states having gone?

    I am sick to death of listening to pundits and people like say it is over after NH if Romney wins both. Explain to, please explain to the American people in all 50 states how it is over?

    I am awaiting

  • reggie182

    It appears that with respect to the legality of abortion in cases of rape and incest, Gov. Perry has recently flip-flopped himself.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/27/perry-on-second-thought-i-now-oppose-abortion-in-cases-of-rape-and-incest-too/

    Sorry folks, but when you take the stance that if a person’s daughter or mother gets raped then they have to have the baby, you’ve taken an extreme position that will scare the heck out of millions of women and will be devastating to a general election campaign.

  • WY_Cowboy

    I mean, really! If Santorum were a contender, we would be thrilled to have him. NEWSFLASH! Bachmann and Perry don’t have a prayer for the nomination either. If SoCons vote their principles and conscience, GOOD! At least somebody is. Besides, I can’t imagine a bigger disaster than nominating another Texas governor who can’t talk without sounding like Porky Pig – of course other than Ron Paul.

  • sunshinek67

    highlighting the split conservative vote. The media teams see the enthusiasm for Governor Perry in Iowa. Not good for them and their agenda. Maybe Santorum did get a boost from VanderPlaat and his 99 county tour, the latter of which is very admirable I will say. Persistence does produce character, right?

    I have to be very honest here, I do not know much about Rick Santorum’s record, only what Mr Erick has submitted. He performed well in debates, no? He went after Mitt Romney for sure, and Rick Perry too, which incensed me a bit. But that’s politics, not bean bag.

    Instinctively, on its face I am not excited about the prospect of Rick Santorum carrying the conservative torch. I fear that both his and Bachmann’s continued presence in this race dilutes the goal of putting a strong conservative candidate first up against Mitt Romney and ultimately against Barack Obama.

    Perry has proven that he can raise money, and run a national campaign. Forget about the Virginia debacle for a second, he did receive contributions from all 50 states in his first 49 days of fundraising. He has broad appeal nationwide, that is factual. Not so sure about Rick Santorum.

    I think JRub, who by the way is gloating mightily right about now, and the GOP establishment folks want to muddle the conservative vote by pushing a false narrative that Rick Santorum is in 3rd place in current Iowa polling to inadvertently promote their chosen Mitt Romney. If Rick Santorum was doing that well, how come he has audiences of 3 people at his “events”? This makes no sense.

  • SoFiMil

    After at least one, but preferably two non-Romney candidates drop out, Perry is there to pick up those votes.

  • gekster

    When people se this, they will say “What an idiotic post”.

  • snowshooze

    The Democrats would take him under wing in a heartbeat.
    They just can’t run him right now.
    Gosh, but it would help our ticket.

  • circlegranch

    Perry still stands a good chance to do well there. With or without Nikki Haley, Romney did terrible in the southern states last time and there’s nothing to indicate he will do much better this go-around. (He did finish 2nd in Florida, but FL is its own can of GOP worms).

  • seanl

    The things that you list as negatives on his record are the same things that every single Republican in the Senate supported. By your logic every single Republican Senator in 2004 is persona non grata to conservatives. Ridiculous.

    Furthermore, it is not like any of these things you listed are deeply held beliefs by him. The Senate leadership told him to support these things and he obliged.

    You just had a post where you criticized Ron Paul for not be “one of the guys” and therefore couldn’t get anything done if he were to be POTUS (which I agree with). So it is bizarre that you are criticizing Santorum for being responsive to the Senate leadership and not being a “maverick” like Paul.

    And if it came down to a race between Romney and Santorum then you don’t need organization. Republicans would reject Romney no matter what kind of organization he has when presented with that choice.

  • expanding_man

    It’s all about momentum. Nothing else matters. If you don’t win one of the first 2 primary states, historically you do not get the nomination. Losing candidates get abandoned pretty quickly. It’s not any more complicated than that.

    I wish it was otherwise b/c I like Perry. Sometimes we don’t get the results we want. I’m not telling anyone to stop fighting for the candidate they support. Far from it. However I do tell it like it is.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Along with massive fraud and disgust over TARP/bailouts/status quo etc etc.

    I’d rather see Santorum running against the invisible Casey jr than getting battered in the nationals. It is good to see he has the capability to fund-raise and run but my gut* says Perry will win Iowa and the media will act shocked and surprised that someone they tried to bury by ignoring/puffing up others defies their picks… If he does win Iowa Perry will likely be a close second.

    *no guarantees but then again I was all for Cain and dead wrong about his long term prospects…

  • circlegranch

    He isn’t denying he’s changed his mind and it mainly was after a woman spoke to him, sharing that her mother had been raped and she was the product of that. She told him she was glad her mother didn’t abort her.

    This is the very difficult piece to this and you’re right, its where politicians often lose female votes because the thought of a pregnancy following incest or rape is incomprehensible for most.

    Perry does, however, support choice if the mother’s health is in danger. Here’s a consideration: what about her mental health? What if a woman tries to commit suicide or threatens her own health, or becomes so emotionally/psychologicallly harmed that she can’t function? Wouldn’t the choice clause regarding her health then apply?

  • WY_Cowboy

    I truly don’t understand why EE insists on burning down every barn. If Santorum ended up surging to the point that he could topple Romney, EE and everyone at Red State would be doing cartwheels and we all know it. To suggest that Santorum isn’t the most pure conservative is like making the assertion that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Mastery of the obvious. However, I doubt there is anyone who could ever pass the EE purity test – even Reagan.

    BTW, if EE were intellectually honest, he could never support Paul Ryan either. It would make him sick to his stomach to think Iowans would consider supporting Paul Ryan. Just sayin.

  • thirstyboots

    http://emilyslist.org/scorecard/

    They rate Gingrich as the most pro-life candidate, followed by Bachmann, Romney and Paul.

    Perry is the most abortion friendly candidates.

    Obviously, for those crazies at Emily’s List they’re all awful anti-choice extremists who hate women.

    But this may help explain Perry’s recent “conversion” and why he hasn’t been able to catch fire with social conservatives in Iowa.

  • kamiller42

    His latest battle is defunding Planned Parenthood. He passed parental notification and women’s right to know legislation. Just review his record or ask the Right to Life organization.

    http://www.texasrighttolife.com/action/YPDLQNNBRV38/Rick-Perrys-ProLife-Record

  • pj2012

    I think this picture of Santorum campaigning speaks for itself.
    http://www.timesherald.com/article/20111226/NEWS06/111229682

    Thanks TH… I needed a good laugh today. ;-) This whole Iowa caucus polling spin madness is giving me a headache.

    Rick Perry is drawing standing-room-only crowds…

    The Media sure likes to spin… yeah sure Perry’s drawing large standing room only crowds in Iowa… BUT… and here’s the Media Clowns spin… DE WITT, Iowa (AP) ? Rick Perry is drawing standing-room-only crowds in Iowa even though many aren?t planning to support him. (pure bull or what?)

    and… on the other hand Santorum draws empty seats and we are to believe he’s surging? Give me a break… is the Media spinning Santorum into a surge or what?

  • expanding_man

    To follow up on my point, Nate Silver gives a bit more detail in discussing the CNN Iowa Poll:

    “According to entrance polls in Iowa in 2008, for instance, about 15 percent of participants in the Republican caucus identified themselves as independents or Democrats on the way into the caucus site. Although the way that voters self-identify is not technically the same thing as which party they are officially registered with, this is probably a good proxy for what percentage of voters changed their registration to Republican when they signed in at the caucus location.Most other pollsters are making some attempt to account for these voters.”

    Again, I think the sampling error in the CNN poll skews the results. Perry will outperform the CNN Poll.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/new-iowa-poll-may-understate-pauls-support/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    //no text//

  • seanl

    Santorum is just honest about it. You’re argument is silly.

    But of course we can always nominate McCain (one of the few anti-earmark senators) as our nominee. He would surely beat Obama! Oh wait…

  • sunshinek67

    pictures are flowing in all over Twitter right now, Perry’s last event for today estimated crowd at 200 people.

  • dcarter888

    I’ve lived in MA exactly how many (R) judges do you think are in that state? Erik what is with your Romney hate? If you are mad at Romney for Romneycare then why do you forgive Newt for also going with Heritage Foundation on Romney care. So Heritage Foundation is conservative and so is Newt but Romney is not?

    Romney will win and will become the next Reagan and I can’t wait to rub it into you as no one has been more hateful toward Romney than you are!

  • bzip

    The media is aiding Santorum is trying to give Santorum momentum. That is obvious. The real question is – will the public buy into this, will the public assume by media reports that Santorum has momentum and hence the public starts moving towards Santorum. That is the real question, the one we have to worry and wonder about. It is amazing what the role of media can play, give the public a certain perception and let it build from there.

    A interesting question that follows this line of reasoning is ask at;
    (though right scoop doesn’t add in all the fact that the media is making this all up but the question holds true):

    2012 Poll: With Santorum surging, are you more likely to vote for him?
    http://www.therightscoop.com/2012-with-santorum-surging-are-you-more-likely-to-vote-for-him/

  • pj2012

    in Iowa if what you say is true, which I have no reason to doubt. Do you have any links to these pictures?

  • sunshinek67

    and it looks like he might be right if these “polls” are any indication of the real momentum on the ground right now in Iowa. He has already said that even if he doesn’t place in the top 3, he is pushing on.

    Winning Iowa would be good momentum, for the right candidate that has the organization and funds to run a national campaign. Perry has this, while Santorum doesn’t.

  • conservativemusician

    Agree with kamiller42. Perry is pro-life and he has not wavered in his position over the years, unlike Romney. Also, if you look at the total number of “strikes” against each of our candidates in this poll, Perry has the least, so Perry should be the most palatable candidate for women voters, right?

    I don’t take much stock in polls like this and I certainly don’t think Perry’s recent “conversion” as you said had anything to do with him clarifying his stance on abortion. I also believe that Perry is doing just fine among social conservatives in IA as his recent uptick in polling indicates. I sincerely hope Perry will be the Tebow of the IA caucuses.

    Perry 2012

  • pj2012

    nt

  • tricianc

    Rick Santorum gets an A- for support of EthanolSubsidies, Mandated Fuel Standards and for Taxpayer Funding Projects from TheIowa Corngrowers Organization bit.ly/sLWJcU

  • David123

    Is any other prospective nominee more likely to carry Pennsylvania against Obama than Santorum is?

    Rick Santorum has been a solid, consistent social and defense conservative.

    Rick Santorum’s support of Specter made a lot of sense and helped to get Alito and Roberts confirmed. We are better off with Specter having won the general election in 2004 than we would have been had Toomey lost it.

    If Santorum doesn’t go the distance, and Perry does, I think Santorum is more likely than Bachman to endorse Perry. If Perry is the nominee, Santorum would complement him well as VP.

  • jonerik

    I’d love to see some links to Perry crowd pictures. Seriously, I could use SOMEthing upbeat heading into the caucuses.

  • bzip

    With 70-80% of primary voters NOT wanting Romney and with only 2 states weighing in: Iowa, NH you aren’t going to get Perry’s backers walking away that quickly, period.

    Now people like: Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman who already don’t have big backers and aren’t doing well and no possible path – will jump ship after Iowa and NH but Perry with his backing, his resources, his pro-Perry PAC with $55 million – they aren’t walking away after 2 races, it won’t happen

  • tomatin

    I’m sick of the whole thing already. Romney is going to win and all the hopes of a real conservative will be dashed again like in 2008. Then everyone on RS will rationalize why we need to vote for Romney. Sorry but I refuse this time to settle for another establishment candidate shoved down my throat. I can do it with good conscience because Romney won’t do a thing to end Obamacare, cut entitlements or cut the deficit because he just doesn’t have any conservative integrity at all.

  • texasref

    in Iowa will be split between Paul and Gingrich, without having to add Santorum to it.

    Let’s face it folks, you read it here first, it’s going to be Paul, Romney, and Gingrich finishing in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in that order in Iowa on Jan 3rd. One of those men will be the next president of the United States, so I’m going to adhere to the 11th commandment from this point forward as it regards those three men because I don’t want to say or do anything in 2012 that will tear down our nominee.

    Sorry Perry voters, he isn’t going to win Iowa. He isn’t even going to show. And thank you for your service, Senator Santorum–just take I-80 and drive east. (Governor Perry, just take I-35 and drive south). (Oh, and Michele, keep up the good work in Congress–you just follow Perry but turn north when he turns south).

  • carmen

    … for those of you who have been part of this “industry” a lot longer than I have:

    At what point (if ever) do you feel as if this field is TOO crowded – and that, in the interest of advancing the conservative message, personal egos should bow to nobility and 2nd tier candidates (who have been in the basement since the ‘beginning’) should line up their support(ers) behind ONE true conservative — like Perry, for instance — who has the money, the ground game, and the actual overall machine in place to truly WIN. Say what you will about Santorum’s or Bachmann’s conservative ‘street cred’ – they simply will NOT be the nominee. Why do they insist upon dividing conservative support and thus thrusting Romney – who can’t beat 25% in ANY poll – to the nomination? It seems absolutely self-defeating to the conservative cause, to me at least. And maybe I am entirely alone here, but, I think the old adage “take one for the team” would do us a world of good right about now.

    Am I THAT far-removed from the political reality as to think that folks would unite to SAVE this country – even if it meant waving good-bye to their personal aspirations?

    I just can’t imagine McCain 2.0. I really, REALLY can’t. I voted for McCain. And I felt dirty afterwards (except when I reminded myself that I was also voting for Palin). I really don’t want to feel that way the next time I submit my ballot. Romney would absolutely make me feel that way. (But I’d do it, if for no other reason than to make sure Obama is a one-termer).

  • pj2012

    is a viable candidate for the general election. I just took that poll you mentioned… and you can imagine my pick was NO. There was 147 votes for yes they would support Santorum if he is surging… that’s NUTS!!!!

  • texasref

    If Romney wins Iowa, it’s all over.

  • tomatin

    To try and spin Santorum as not conservative enough is disingenuous spin.

    Like with Gingrich I think it’s unfair to pick on Republicans that backed Bush’s policies. Face it if you went against Bush, Rove and his gang would make sure you did not get support from the RNC when you ran for reelection. In retrospect it’s easy to criticize rank and file Republican for going along back then when there was huge pressure on them to go with the party line.

    Since Santorum was freed from the shackles of a purple state he’s been nothing but a straight line conservative.

  • texasref

    How on earth could a superPAC that favors Bachmann suddenly go team mittens

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    From this morning, a tweet from Arlette Saenz: “Perry has arrived to a packed house at the Machine Shed in Urbandale. My estimate is over 200 people.”

    http://twitter.com/#!/ArletteSaenz/status/152014190775771136/photo/1

    Here’s another from this afternoon:

    http://yfrog.com/ocwrwmnj

    And another from this evening:

    http://twitter.com/#!/ArletteSaenz/status/152165353420632064/photo/1

  • thirstyboots

    It’s a ranking from their perspective. Click the link and you can check their criteria (they cite the legislation/statements that justifies their rates).

    Yes, Perry has the least number of streaks so he’s the most palatable to “women voters”… from Emily’s List perspective (meaning from pro-abortion women voters).

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    No text :)

  • tomatin

    Because it looks like Romney is going to win which mean he will lose against Obama. All Obama needs to do during a debate is face Romney and say you agreed with me before you didn’t agree with me on a half dozen or so issues and thanks for Obamacare. Elections are about contrast and Romney offers none.

  • expanding_man

    but I respectfully think otherwise based upon history. Perry’s support has always been soft support. He rocketed up in the polls then most of his supporters scattered like rats as his campaign matured. I think he’s getting some traction in Iowa now. He needs to win there. His supporters will abandon him if he doesn’t win Iowa or NH.

    This is a phenomenon that’s not unique to Perry. I’ll be true of the other losing candidates as well.

  • bzip

    Yep, its nuts but see how easy it is to fool the public. Just send out some bogus polls and keep stating over and over in the media reports that someone is surging and then you get the momentum going.

    The question is: Will people really buy into this, will it translate into Iowa caucuses turn outs for Santorum.

    It is important that anyone and everyone try to send out these pictures, try and get the message out and stop the bogus media reports.

  • pj2012

    where’s your data to back them? eh?

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Perry? The most abortion-friendly candidate? Did they even bother to look at his record?

  • pj2012

    ;-)

  • jakeofalltrades

    Supporters of Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, and Romney.

    Supporters of Perry and Gingrich (the only ones other than Romney who may be nominated) think the field should be consolidated and it is too crowded. Perry supporters have thought this way since he announced. Cain supporters thought this when he was on top (pun intended).

    The reality is that in every democratic republic I know of, people generally stick to their guns and vote their hearts in the primary. It’s as true here as in France. Thank God we have dozens of primaries and some caucuses drawn out over months so that poor performers drop out.

    On the bright side, it usually ends up being between two candidates after South Carolina so we can actually have a majority rather than a plurality decide the fate of the party.

    That is why Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are almighty.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    I agree with your second scenario and think it’s probably the most likely. I expect a long, knock-down-drag-out primary. Mitt won’t sew it up right away. I even wonder if he’ll have a solid victory in New Hampshire. It’ll be interesting to see!

  • veto

    Love em hate em its besides the point, Ron Paul has one of the best ran tech savvy campaigns in modern history. He has 0% chance of winning but knowing the Paul camp if he finishes in the top two in Iowa they will do what Gingrich and the rest can’t they will run a non stop barrage of anti-Romney ad’s full of flip flopping.

    So in the end Paul could come in handy in bringing Mittens back to earth, Gingrich don’t have the money to do it, but I bet you after Iowa the Paul campaign will have money bomb after money bomb to blast at Romney before NH.

  • pj2012

    but here goes… you take the picture URL and place it in this html code img src=” URL goes here “ and don’t forget to put these > < at each end to close code. Give it a try… good luck.

  • conservativemusician

    n/t

  • Samsara

    Here are the Republicans who voted against this budget busting giveaway. It’s not a very long list.

    House:

    Wamp, Zach /Shadegg, John / Toomey, Patrick / Smith, Nick / Ryun , Jim / Tancredo, Thomas / Pence, Mike / Paul, Ronald / Norwood, Charles / Musgrave, Marilyn / Flake, Jeff / DeMint, Jim / Culberson, John / Garrett, Scott / Feeney, Tom / Emerson, Jo Ann / Miller, Jeff / Chabot, Steven/ Burton, Dan / Barrett, James / Moran, Jerry / Jones, Walter /Hostettler, John

    Senate:

    Chafee, Lincoln / Ensign, John / Graham, Lindsey / Gregg, Judd / Hagel, Charles / Lott, Trent / McCain, John / Nickles, Don / Sununu, John

  • pj2012

    the image URL location of the pic, sometimes ending in gif, jpg format

  • jakeofalltrades

    n/doubt

  • carmen

    … I think (“guess” maybe is a better word here?) that maybe this particular primary is more frustrating due to (in my opinion) this perfect alignment of potential-disasters we’re facing coupled with the abomination that was the McCain candidacy. We can’t afford (in ANY sense of the word) that kind of historical redux.

    In my heart of hearts I just don’t think the United States, as founded, will exist beyond 2013/2014 if we don’t select the right candidate. I truly believe it’s *THAT* dire – which is why – if it were me – I’d bow out gracefully and throw my support behind a “more potentially successful” conservative at this point: because the country is on the brink, and that would be more important to me than anything else – my own ambitions included.

    But I do understand that this is a process. I just think that we don’t have any time for “Oh well, we can try again in 4 years”. I just don’t see this particular window being open in 2016. Or ever again.

  • jakeofalltrades

    <img src=”http://www.mywebsite.com/filename.jpg”/>

  • sunshinek67

    Arlette Saenz (ABC), Rebecca Kaplan(CBS) and Carrie Dann (NBC). I’m holding a precious three year old baby girl right now, so a bit challenged to link the pictures myself :)

  • Paul Fallavollita

    I’m no Santorum fan, but what’s the point of the GOP winning if the candidates it runs are just Democrats with the edges smoothed off? If we can’t get an authentic conservative, we should just let the Democrats run their course and pick up the pieces later. I often think that voters won’t make the right choice until they wake up, and to wake them up they need to feel some pain and lose their comfortable lifestyles–rule by the Left will do that for them.

  • onemovoter

    both NH and Iowa only have a 50% record of going for the winner.

    SC is about 80-90% predictive and Nevada for the last 60 years has been 100%.

    ONE big HOWEVER. The rules have changed this year for all the primaries. It used to be all winner take all, so that after 3 or 4 states you could tell who had a good lead. This time it’s not that way till after April 1st. Texas is probably going to be on April 3rd along with a bunch of other southern states. This bodes well for Perry obviously.

    LP does have a very good point, Perry is packing them in at his stops with standing room only. The stories of Bachmann’s race across Iowa are where she barely stays for 10 min and then heads on. She’s pissing more people off than helping.

  • thirstyboots

    McCain, Sununu, L. Graham, Gregg, Hagel… those were the guys with the guts to actually oppose the Medicare bribe.

    Many “social conservatives” are nowhere to be seen. They’re all very conservative as long as the GOP is in the opposition. When we had the power, they quickly stayed behind Bush’s agenda with pleasure as long as he’d keep throwing red-meat about gays.

  • jakeofalltrades

    for search engines

  • pj2012

    I don’t think it will work… because a vote for Bachmann or Santorum is a wasted vote. If Santorum and Bachmann’s people got behind Perry on Caucus night then Perry has it made! Oh… Wake up people!

  • Langley

    Pat Toomey (you know, the Club for Growth guy who Santorum backed Specter against in 2004) is now representing Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey went on to become the President of the CFG after barely losing the 2004 primary. He is now in the Senate representing Pennsylvania; Specter and Santorum are not.

    Santorum is not a fiscal conservative. He was in Senate leadership during the bad Bush years of “compassionate conservatism.” If Iowa voters go all ga-ga over his social conservative credentials without looking at his economic record, and give him a one-hit-wonder win (or close 2nd or whatever) in Iowa, they only make themselves even more irrelevant and damage a candidate like Perry who actually has a thoroughly conservative governing record.

    Santorum’s not going to go on to be the nominee. If he somehow does, great, we get George W. Bush part II (again, look at Santorum’s record supporting big government programs).

    You know who this benefits? Mitt Romney.

  • seanl

    a lot of those people you listed including Judd Gregg (off the top of my head) voted for cloture then turned around and voted against knowing that it will pass. So people like Judd Gregg actually voted for it.

    And a lot of those House members who voted against it probably would have voted for cloture as well if the House had such a rule.

    Nevertheless that is an extremely small minority of Republican Congressmen.

  • Ann_W

    With the rest of the world in the mess it’s in, and with Obama then being a lame duck, it could be very, very bad. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

  • Langley

    These are Perry’s personal beliefs, which he’s entitled to have.

    Perry has also said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that abortion policy should be left up to the states per the 10th Amendment, unless a Constitutional Human Life Amendment is passed.

    So Gov. Perry’s personal beliefs aside, this means nothing policy-wise.

  • jakeofalltrades

    the parasite classes will be the first to be eliminated.

  • cajunchosid770

    A romney win in Iowa and NH will give him the momentum and sense of invicibility that will carry him through. Many people are fence sitters and want to back the winner.
    The media will play it up also.

    If Perry wont win Iowa then let Ron Paul win it and Perry come in 2nd or 3rd. A finish behind Newt I think will not be good either.

    If Paul wins Iowa and Perry finished ahead of Newt then Perry becomes the alternative to Mitt and can win. I would have him skiop NH and go to SC and campaign.

  • onemovoter

    Smokey Row Cafe in Oskaloosa

    also… follow on twitter if you have it…

    Arlette Saenz

  • seanl

    From your list: Gregg, Sununu, and Graham voted for cloture. Hence they voted for it to get passed.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00457

    And lets be honest, the only reason McCain and Hagel voted against it is because of their dislike for President Bush.

  • onemovoter

    Machine Shed in Urbandale

    About 200 standing room only at that event. Other earlier events are the same way.

    Perry is also having Sheriff Joe Arpaio with him on this second leg. He had Louisiana Gov Jindal for the first leg which people loved.

    Main St Cafe in Council Bluffs here is another packed house overflowing.

  • windwaker24

    are still in this to help Romney. It makes no sense for them to be in this race. They have no organization anywhere besides IA. I wonder if Romney promised them something (cabinet position, campaign debt payoff, etc.). These two are starting to get on my nerves. Bachmann and Santorum have no nationwide plans that I can speak of to get this country going, yet they feel the need to suck up all of the air for candidates who do have a vision to at least try to get something done (Perry and Newt). I hate people who waste time, especially considering the importance of this election. Sometimes I wish a giant cane would descend from heaven and yank both of them off the “stage” like in the old cartoons. :)

  • zooboy

    Shame on all those Christian social conservatives for having the audacity to support the candidate that they think best represents them. They obviously don’t deserve that right or responsibility! And shame on them for reliably supporting conservative economic policies and a strong military defense (Both the other legs of the conservative coalition)! (They are also the most loyal bloc of Republican voters.) They’ve got their gall!

  • clintonformccain

    Any Republican who tries to make abortion an key issue in the 2012 campaign is either a fool or hopelessly undisciplined. This is not an evangelical election cycle. It’s the economy, stupid.

  • Tbone

    unless they are complete idiots?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    This is about picking a nominee.

    Nobody cares about you have to support somebody who can’t win, except you and the black pride in your heart.

  • JSobieski

    Given how non-sensical past Iowa results have been (I think Perry is the logical choice), I think Santorum is going to pull off a Huckabee.

    Social conservatives are always afraid that fiscal conservatives are corrupted by libertine social policies.

    I assert that Iowa is Exhibit A to the opposite—social conservatives who support ag subsidies, ethanol subsidies, tariffs, and other bad economic ideas have been corrupted by economic liberalism.

  • Tbone

    no bearing on the nomination process. Instead, they have 100 times more than they deserve. The system is nuts.

  • clintonformccain

    must be thinking of the kind of centrist Democrats that used to exist. This new Democrat party is not your father’s Democrat party. There’s nobody even remotely like Mitt Romney in this new Democrat party. Those people are truly nuts.

  • trickamsterdam

    general. But whatever, right? By the way, Newt was right, the seat went to the D. But also whatever, right? Hell, some people actually blamed Newt’s endorsement for that, anyway. Yeah, right.

    BTW, It’s also local government’s decision how they chose who represents the Party (a conservative principle)…but I guess the national party does know more right…right?

    Santorum is tied w/ Paul among Republicans as the most unacceptable candidate (62%).

    I grew up in PA, and he is beyond a joke. He’s spent all this time in Iowa, and in one poll, he was behind Huntsman! He says he’ll only drop out if he finishes “dead last”. Yeah, because he’s going to do better in the states where he hasn’t campaigned…LOL!

    The sad thing is: he may actually be right. Those people don’t know him., like the people in Iowa and PA do (dismal polls in Iowa, 18% defeat in PA).

    Nor was the PA thing because the state is turning blue from purple. Look at Toomey and the Governor, only four years later.

    Santorum will be cut to pieces the minute any attention is put on him:…he is worse than you could possibly imagine. And he is just as unelectable as Paul.

  • superpatriot

    Although Mitt is doing well in Iowa, things could easily change next week.

    Iowa has a strong, evangelical, christian group that are anti-Romney. I therefore think it is very unlikely Romney will win Iowa.

    It really depends who the evangelicals will back. They backed Huckabee last time.

    We’ll all keep hoping they back Perry.

  • sunshinek67

    sorry if I mess it up, need those instructions again to post a video. Same as pic?

  • jakeofalltrades

    I hope your video is at youtube.

    Click the Share button on the video and then click Embed.

    Make sure the Use Old Code option is checked, and change the size to 400 wide. The height should adjust automatically.

    Copy and paste the code into your post. Voila, you’re done.

  • seanl

    Ben Nelson until the end of next year etc.

    They are all pretty comparable to Romney.

  • seanl

    without his head exploding.

    And let’s be honest. Santorum is a real conservative. Perry only became one when Texas started becoming a decidedly Republican state in the 90′s.

  • greyeagle

    No it is not over for Perry. Iowa is merely a snapshot. In fact Iowa doesn’t always pick winners. It is pretty good at choosing a candidate who does not win the GOP Presidency though. I guess you would like it to be over if Romney wins, however, a LOT of GOP voters will NOT vote for Romney.

  • jakeofalltrades

    n/body

  • seanl

    laughable.

    Santorum is very intelligent and has an impeccable background. Once his name recognition goes up and people start learning about him Obama is going to have a problem on his hands.

  • seanl

    and a lot of people are going to want to hear what Santorum has to say.

  • greyeagle

    Yep, Florida is its own can of worms. It has been trending conservative Republican. I don’t think Romney can win here. Perry should have a very good chance here. Obama won’t do well here this time.

  • sunshinek67

  • jakeofalltrades

    You really think Santorum can win?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ,.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Those liars smeared Perry the same way they smeared Bush, and you fell for it.

  • sunshinek67

    ….. :)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    …

  • jakeofalltrades

    and no one in this discussion supports or Huntsman or Romney (though their religion has nothing to do with it – only realism and conservatism, respectively).

    The rest of the lot are brothers and sisters.

  • windwaker24

    When he was a Fox News contributor, I used to get up when his segments were on and do something else (make my lunch for the next day, take a shower, use the bathroom, etc.) His incessant whining got on my last nerve. He always acted like he had a chip on his shoulder. I was waiting for him to break out a “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha” rountine. :)

  • greyeagle

    Boehner is doing a good job. However, there is a limit to what can be done, because Dems are in control in the Senate and Obama is in the WH. Get control of Senate and toss Obama out of WH, then a lot can get done. Until then, not much as much as we would like.

  • onemovoter

    Yes that is right.. Ron Paul is at a his “rally for Veterans”. Seems that Bachmann is having huge defections happening.

    Also Bachmann’s superpac has also switched to supporting Romney. I really don’t see her surviving after Iowa.

  • greyeagle

    is controlled by the Dems.

  • seanl

    sorry I don’t toe the pro-Perry line of this blog. Shoot me.

  • heraklios

    I’m not sure Romney would have even been considered to the right of Hilary, much less any Republican

  • jakeofalltrades

    n/growingup

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    by the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania (59% to 41%), they won’t stop laughing for hours.

    Then they’ll read that he supported Arlen Benedict Specter against a good conservative candidate, and they’ll laugh a couple of hours more.

    Rick Santorum wouldn’t even carry his home state in a general election against Obama, a very beatable incumbent President.

  • snowshooze

    Like giving them everything they asked for and then throwing in a tip.
    I wished he would have played golf Head to Head with Obama…
    You could have put that on PPV and sent the proceeds to pay down some debt.
    Oh, the last debacle was Boehner called back all the troops for a mass surrender.
    Yeah, great job there Johnny.

  • heraklios

    I used to like Michelle but I became suspicious of her some time ago. Today, her state chairman switched to Ron Paul. With Gingrich’s collapse, he looks like our only hope to stop Romney from sweeping IA and NH. I hope IA and NH voters will strategically vote Paul and then we can ditch him when we move down to SC.

  • jakeofalltrades

    lol

  • heraklios

    He just switched parties in the late 80s. Back in the 80s and before, most Texas Democrats were more conservative than most northern Republicans anyway. You’re argument is apples to oranges

  • bzip

    Bachmann is in melt down mode :-) .

    Super Defection -Pro-Bachmann Super PAC switches to Romney
    http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/12/28/web-bachmann-pac-goes-romney/

    Michele Bachmann chair defects to Ron Paul
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/michele-bachmann-chair-defects-to-ron-paul-108965.html

  • snowshooze

    At least Michelle has some.

  • greyeagle

    Will not abandon him. The true ones anyway. I have been a supporter since he was Agriculture Commissioner in TX. He has always been a conservative. So no his true supporters will not leave.

  • sunshinek67

    His horserace forecast after the Bloomberg debate, her campaign “dead” with the softball thrown by Mitt Romney, paraphrased “I need you to stay in” Her SuperPac quietly switched allegiance before Christmas in Iowa to Romney. Her Iowa chairperson just now has switched over to Romney, AFTER attending a Bachmann event earlier today.

    The fix is in. Mitt’s $$ talk~

  • seanl

    If anything Bob Casey was the incumbent in that race. Given that fact, it’s perfectly understandable he lost in a state that went for John Kerry that election.

  • clowngirl

    Wasn’t that the case just a few days ago?

    How many polls are actually showing Santorum with these big gains? ( so far I’ve only heard about one)

  • macphisto96

    Not sure why you’d be happy if Paul knocked off Romney. I’ll come right out and say I support Romney. but those who do not want Romney have nothing to gain with a Paul win. It may cause other true GOPers down the line to panic and punch the Romney ticket for fear of Ron Paul, especially if Romney cleans up in NH.

    If you don’t want Romney then you need a Gingrich or Perry win in Iowa. South Carolina and Florida will shift depending on what happens. If Santorum does surge and knocks Gingrich into 3rd then he and Perry will be gasping for air after NH. Social cons in SC may swing to Santorum while others will just move to Romney out of inevitability.

    Romney’s also close enough in Iowa that his GOTV dollars might help him out with the caucuses. I forget who it was that said weather will play, but I agree. If it is a cold, crisp day without flurries then Romney may get a lot of people to the caucuses.

    Romney’s ally in the primary is enforcing his inevitability – and that also will be his asset with Republicans if he does win the nomination. I’m all for a drawn out fight if it’s someone else, but I think Romney being the candidate for a longer period of time will give him more time to build the anti-Obama rhetoric and more time for upset GOPers to decide he’s the lesser of two evils. If GOPers show up and the middle stays where it is then he should win the general.

  • greyeagle

    I think Romney promised her something. She has attacked Perry several times in debates, but never Romney.

  • bzip

    I don’t think you can call this a “normal” primary season.

    How many primary elections have we had a frontrunner who the voters don’t want by 70-80% margin?

    You just aren’t going to get those 70-80% voters running to Romney after Iowan and NH, it isn’t going to happen and because of that the money isn’t going to dry up for Perry who already has the money backers on his side (something Santorum/Bachmann/Huntsman/Newt don’t have).

    How many primaries have we had where Ron Paul actually might be the winner?

    As far as I am concern, the real test starts in SC and by then we would have drop a few and still have a few candidates. Perry being one of them with his resources, big PAC’s and big money backers.

    It is clear that Perry is in this for the long haul.

  • seanl

    kind of disappointed in her.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    ~~no text~~

  • snowshooze

    Fish jumping… the world being so beautiful.
    Yeah.. it’s almost enough to make me shed a tear.
    Live and let die.

  • seanl

    sure

  • greyeagle

    The way Rick Perry talks is called a drawl. I am from TX and also have that drawl. However, you do not need to be insulting. If you are a Ron Paul supporter that explains the insults about Governor Perry.

  • heraklios

    All this talk about inevitability and “building anti-Obama rhetoric” is silly. If Mittens wins, once a halfway attractive third party candidate enters the race (Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, even Sarah Palin), all of the national talk will focus on Romney’s inability to nail down his base. It will dog him until the end, because, of course, he will never nail down his base because true blue conservatives will never vote Romney.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    `no-text’

  • bzip

    We already have two polls that contradict each other, the PPP polls has Santorum at 10%, the CNN poll has him at 16% and the CNN poll looks very bogus to me and others.

    It will be interesting to see what a poll like the Iowa insider advantage says, I am sure there will be one before the caucuses.

    In the end though, Santorum goes no further then Iowa. He has no chance in NH, he has no resources to be competitive in SC and he is too limiting is his appeal outside of Iowa.

    So once again Iowa with a Ron Paul win and a Santorum in the top 3 or 4 is really going to make Iowa look bad.

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

    And this idiot is living proof.

  • bobguzzardi

    cannot win Pennsylvania and there is a reason for that: the more votes get to know him and his record, the less they like him and the less they are likely to vote for him

    In 2006, Rick Santorum received 797,000 fewer votes than in 2000.
    Official Penna. Statistics 2006, when Santorum lost to Bob “98%” Casey, 2,393,984 to 1,684,778, that is, Incumbent Rick Santorum received 709,208 fewer votes than Democrat challenger Bob Casey who was one of the first Pennsylvania Democrats to endorse Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in Democratic Primary.

    2006 Pennsylvania vote http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=24&OfficeID=2

    In 2000, Rick Santorum ran for an open Senate seat and received 2,481, 962 or 797,184 more votes than he received in 2006

    http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=2&OfficeID=2

    In 2006, incumbent Senator not only received fewer votes total, incumbent Rick Santorum received fewer votes in every county in Pennsylvania.

    2006 Senate vote by county http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=24&OfficeID=2

    compared to 2000 county by county vote http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=15&ElectionID=2&OfficeID=2

    To put it another way, the more people to know Rick Santorum, the less likely they were to vote for him. And there is a reason for that, Rick Santorum’s Bush Compassionate Conservative Voting Record. Rick Santorum was part of Republican Leadership because he supported the Bush Big Government Agenda.

    On a more personal level, Rick Santorum came no limit to in the 2004 Toomey Specter primary which Pat Toomey lost by 2% despite outspent, at least, 3 to 1.

    After that, Union supported Arlen Specter helped swing union money to Rick Santorum including $50k from John “Johnny Doc” Dougherty of Philadelphia’ IBEW 98, the highly political electricians union.

    Many of the Toomey Team met with Rick Santorum during the 2006 election because we felt we were being taken for granted, and I remember, vividly, Sen. Santorum’s arrogant disdain for young, idealist young conservatives. It was a sickening, and not an isolated, incident.

    I knew Bob Casey as probably the nicest and most decent politician in Pennsylvania but whose record, as I foresaw, is radically Big Government and he votes with Barack Obama 98% of he time.

    I contributed, personally, to Rick Santorum’s campaign and to State committee over $30,000 in that election and attended the last Santorum fundraiser in Chester County as the numbers showed Santorum being crushed because there was, in my mind, no other alternative, America was at war with Radical Islam and Rick Santorum understood the threat whereas Bob Casey did not and does not. Rick Santorum was counting on this view . As it turned out, many thought there was an alternative and Rick Santorum became former Senator Rick Santorum.

    Ronald Reagan won Pennsylvania twice and faux Reaganite George H W Bush won in 1988 and that was the last time Penna. voted Republican in Presidential race.

    In 1994, Rick Santorum ran as a Reagan Republican; after he went to Washington, he was seduced by the power, the money and the prestige and, opportunistically, embraced Earmarks and GW Bush Big Government Establishment to the detriment of the party and the country, The Republicans lost in 2006 because they sold out their brand as Limited Government Economic Freedom advocates and Rick Santorum is iconic sell out.

    Pennsylvania electoral victory is indispensably necessary to national victory. Lose Penna. lose the Presidential election.

    Rick Santorum cannot win Pennsylvania; Rick Santorum cannot win the Presidency because he cannot win Pennsylvania and we will have four more years of Barack Obama Socialist Bankrupt policies.

  • sunshinek67

    Conservatives need to get the message out, Bachmann is a spoiler for the conservative movement, and Mr. Erickson nailed it immediately after that Bloomberg debate. Her bus tour in Iowa has turned into a joke. She stayed in to serve noone but herself. Traitor

  • heraklios

    He is 20 points underwater in KY right now. Conservatives hate him because he’s a sell out. Democrats hate him because of all the abuse he piled on them for 30 years now. His protegee, David Williams got thumped by 20 points for Governor this year and unless something dramatic happens, McConnell will follow him to the exits in 2014

  • snowshooze

    So, I am glad he did a good job.

  • macphisto96

    I can understand why people don’t like Romney, but equating the guy to Obama is lunacy.

    Romney will certainly AT LEAST have a cabinet made up of people that have worked in real world, not one filled with snobby academics who are detached from reality. That’s a huge improvement right there. I’d bet he’d also do what he could to curb regulation that has skyrocketed under Obama. Another huge improvement. And he’d at least try to lead.

    I will vote for the Republican nominee. I like Romney and I did in 2008 as well, but I held my nose and voted for McCain because he would have been a far better President. And so many of the attacks on Romney apply to him. Heck, many of them apply to George W. Bush. No Child Left Behind. Medicare Part D. There’s plenty of wreckage there.

    Romney at least has a history of turning things around, finding solutions for problems, and turning deficit into surplus. We can debate about the finer points there, but the guy has turned around companies, turned around a state, and turned around the olympics. That’s a strong argument to make to a general electorate that wants to see more jobs, wants to see the deficit shrink, and wants to see their bills go down (energy independence push helps here).

  • gekster

    ….

  • bzip

    Very nice picture, jammed pack Perry event. Thanks so much for sharing the picture sunshinek67.

    Since we are on Perry news :-) . Just found this:

    Perry says profits from federal lands would help solve national debt
    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/28/perry-says-profits-from-federal-lands-would-help-solve-national-debt/

  • greyeagle

    is a bunch of hooey. I am from TX and Perry has always been pro-life. That has never changed. So if this is a Democratic attempt to kill off Perry to help Obama, it has failed.

  • heraklios

    .

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

    I happen to be one.

    I’m talking about single issue values voters. And they are jerks. They almost gave us Huckabee, who wouldn’t have been much better than Obama. Now, they’re potentially going to “make a statement” again in Iowa. The only statement they’re making is “Hey! Look at us, we’re stupid.”

  • snowshooze

    Shall we lay bets?

  • Samsara

    nt

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

    oops

  • clowngirl

    And Perry has tons of executive experience. Does Santorum have any?

    Perry also has a history of balancing budgets and a record of creating jobs.

    I like Santorum ok but he won’t have the luxury of spending several months exclusively focusing on each state and having little or no scrutiny during the general election. It’s hard to imagine him beating Obama or even being more than a spoiler in NH, SC or FL.

    When presented with 3 candidates who are equally social conservative, I don’t understand why Iowans aren’t uniting behind the one who is also strong in other areas and who could actually win.

    Unless it’s just because Perry has drawn fire – both from Romney and the media – and Santorum hasn’t yet.

    And I suppose Santorum has had plenty of time to court local endorsements.

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

    nt

  • snowshooze

    Romney could never measure up to that.
    Perry could have.
    The Democrat party is no-more.

  • David123

    First a thought experiment – if the Republican primary was down to Romney, Paul, and Santorum, Santorum would start to look pretty good, wouldn’t he? Nominate Ron Paul? – yeah, right.
    And if the choice was Romney or Santorum, who would you pick?

    So is Santorum electable? Well he’s won statewide races in Pennsylvania twice. Which Republican has a better chance of carrying Pennsylvania against Obama than Santorum? And if Obama can’t carry Pennsylvania, is he going to carry Virginia … or North Carolina…. or Ohio… or …? If Santorum can climb the hill to getting the Republican nomination, the hill Obama must climb to get re-elected turns into a cliff.

  • heraklios

    tearing apart companies, firing workers, selling assets and then earning huge bonuses out of what he was able to fleece from these companies. Mittens’ “business experience” is a lot of spin if you ask me.

    He is just another spoiled rich kid who got into Harvard because of his Governor daddy. He’s been an elitist, out of tocuh snob his whole life. He mixes well in the NY financial community but hasn’t a clue about the concerns of ordinary Americans. Sadly, these many deficiencies will be put on full display by the onslaught Barry O’s crack political team will unleash on him. Given how Mittens has treated other Republicans in his two campaigns (see Newt Gingich), not too many people will be sorry to see him taken apart

  • greyeagle

    Your statement about Perry is not true. Perry was a conservative Democrat and changed to a conservative Republican in 1989. He was NEVER a liberal.

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

    We play with them.

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

    nt.

  • sunshinek67

    either way, her campaign is imploding right before our eyes on the eve of the Iowa vote. Her supporters have to see this. Wish they would get behind a stronger conservative candidate! Those Iowans are going to mess up the media driven momentum to favor Mitt Romney. His $$ are working overtime these days to get this bagged up.

  • snowshooze

    Either Bain did it, or the business imploded.
    If there was a buck to be had.. someone will get it.
    Man, I am sorry, this isn’t personal…but I have to kill you now.
    Ok, so… do you think the undertaker is a Vulture?
    It is a dirty job. It has to get done. If not for money….
    What would anyone want to do it for?
    That would be sick.
    Not to defend Willard here, but only to demonstrate reality.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    unfortunately, a zealot. One of those people who give lip service to fiscal and other matters but who’s total being is all tied up in just a narrow bunch of social issues. To the point where he throws every other consideration away in pursuit of those issues.

    That is why he was not reelected.

  • acat

    Measuring something changes the outcome…

    The more attention Iowa and New Hampshire get, the more they get measured, and the more they’re changed as a result.

    There is a tipping point, though – where the good of Iowa (Ethanol, social-conservative-at-all-costs) is no longer an acceptable cost to the GOP…. and we’re at or past that point.

    Iowa is well on its’ way to voting itself a laughingstock.

    Mew

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    With all respect, you can say EXACTLY the same thing about all of the other candidates. They all have a core of maybe 10-20% who will not vote for them. In Paul’s case that is over 50%.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …and if her chair joining the Ronulan tinfoil hat brigade, she might not get much of anything in Iowa at all.

  • axistogrind

    I promise if Santorum wins the nomination, that I will vote for Obama. I will not support Rick Santorum going back to washington in any capacity, and if values first voters fail to coalesce around a conservative who has executive experience, and the ability to last past Iowa, then they at least shouldn’t waste a vote on Santorum, because the rest of us will never take their cacuses seriously again. A vote for him accomplishes nothing. I can’t support Ron Paul either, but I would give money to his campaign down the road to keep Rick Sanctimorium out of office, if necessary. I truly dislike him. He is the John Edwards of the Republican party without the cheating, and I see fake in every fiber of his being. We don’t choose senators for good reason.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    nt

  • greyeagle

    Not hardly. He did some minor work, but was NOT the Chairman. AL Gore said so in his own words. That was a liberal lie.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I cannot believe that for a second. If Obama does that all Romney has to do is say, I don’t want the same program rammed down the throats of every state, let the people decide.

    I am not a Romney supporter, but if he wins he will beat Obama like a drum. He is everything Obama is not, Successful, competent, and a problem solver. Obama has the same negatives as Jimmy Carter.

    Carter ran against the so called radical unelectable Ronald Reagan, guess what? Reagan won in a landslide.

  • David123

    … and that plus “Bush-fatigue” did him in in 2006.

    Rick Santorum supports traditional marriage – as do most Americans. Rick Santorum is pro-life, and the Democrats picked supposedly “pro-life” Casey to run against him.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Like a Certain Person named louisianapatriette, who was originally following Michele Bachmann like a hawk over Google News . . . until she spotted an article mentioning that a Certain Texas Governor was considering a presidential run. As they say, the rest is history.

    Michele Bachmann supporters are Tea Partiers for the most part, I’m sure, and I think her support will split between Paul and Perry, with most going to Perry simply because Bachmann’s base is likely made up of social conservatives. I could be wrong, but that’s what I’m guessing right now. I do NOT think her base will flock to Romney.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    At one time Gore was considered the most conservative of all the Democrat senators, back during a time when that party had a few conservatives.

  • jakeofalltrades

    n/link

  • seanl

    I suspect more of them will go to Santorum.

  • acat

    My take is that the best the Tea Party can hope for is an “Asian F” (weak finish) in New Hampshire for Romney… and Santorum has no chance of making that happen. Neither does Bachmann. It’d have to be a combination of Perry and Huntsman.

    Santorum also has no real chance of winning South Carolina, the Gamecocks fans are predominantly either Tea Partiers who would prefer an actual fiscal hawk over Santorum or Romney, or ole’-boy-network types who are more likely to favor Perry or Newt.

    Then there’s Florida, which is trending *very* hard toward fiscal-conservative – outsider. That’s certainly not an audience Santorum can play well in, but it’s one Perry – as an outside-DC guy – can do very well with.

    But.

    For Perry to do well in New Hampshire, to start this whole chain of dominoes that leads to not-Romney winning the nomination, he needs to be seen as credible in Iowa .. and he can’t do that if Santorum wins in Iowa.

    Mew

  • sunshinek67

    keder, said something to the effect he will never understand the mental gymnastics it would take to convert from Bachmann to a Paul candidacy as her Ia chairperson jumped ship.

    EE had it right, she stayed in to split. She saw no other path to win, but wants to take her supporters with her to Camp Romney, thinking she will get some sort of position in his would-be Admin. Watch out, she will endorse Romney. in a matter of time.

  • sunshinek67

    sucker ;)

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    will not exactly make me fall in love with him, We have been in three shooting wars in the last three + years and all we have to show for it is a lot of death, a lot of debt, and a lot of instability in the middle east.

  • onemovoter

    You really need to read this recap of the 3 conservative candidates, Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum.

    Bachmann – Perry fight for votes in Iowa

  • acat

    C’mon, this guy is barely more qualified than Obama, and just as much an ideologue. Just because you agree with the ideology is no reason to not demand competence… which he ain’t got.

    Mew

  • sunshinek67

    and those from Santorum’s? Wow, the media thinks we are just THAT stupid. What they are hoping for, is those silly folks that don’t pay attention and research candidates, the American Idol crowd that depends on their smart phones to deliver the latest msm media push narrative headline.

  • sunshinek67

    …… ;)

  • seanl

    [rolls eyes]

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

  • sunshinek67

    :D

  • heraklios

    because all factions of the Republican coalition (Business Republican/Tea Party/libertarian/social conservative) would unite behind any of the others.

    Gary Johnson has already said he’s in. He will be a major threat to Romney among Tea Partiers and libertarians. If someone else sees an opportunity to get publicity (Donald Trump) or sell books and keep their name in the spotlight (Sarah Palin) they will jump at the chance.

    With Mittens, the GOP is playing with dynamite if we really want to beat Barry O

  • heraklios

    lol

  • Samsara

    Newt lobbied for it.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70332.html

    Perry and Huntsman took positions against it at the time.

    http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/12/another-look-for-huntsman/

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/romney-tries-to-pin-familiar-flip-flop-label-on-perry/

    Bachmann was a State Senatorat the time She is against it in principle

    http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Michele_Bachmann_Health_Care.htm

    Ron Paul voted against it.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Thank you a thousand times, jakeofalltrades! Amazing how much technical stuff I’ve learned on RS: first I successfully put a video up here, and now I can post pictures! Sorry about the size, didn’t realize it would be so big…but ain’t it cute? :D

  • jakeofalltrades

    Back in reality, Santorum will not outlast Gingrich and Perry. The latter two will never drop out until Bachmann, Huntsman, and Santorum are gone or bankrupt. Which should be a few hundred hours from now; don’t change that channel!

  • pj2012

    Perry is gaining steadily. Go to RCP to see average of most current polls in Iowa and over time. I think this CNN/Time’s poll is an outlier and not consistent with Santorum’s other polling.

    Insider Advantage 12/12 – 12/12 Perry was at 13%
    Insider Advantage 12/18 – 12/18 Perry now at 16%

    Insider Advantage 12/12 – 12/12 Santorum was at 7%
    Insider Advantage 12/18 – 12/18 Santorum now at 3%

    CNN/Time 11/29 – 12/6 Perry was at 9%
    CNN/Time 12/21- 12/27 Perry now at 11%

    CNN/Time 11/29 – 12/6 Santorum was at 5%
    CNN/Time 12/21- 12/27 Santorum now at 16%

  • gekster

    Ain’t been around much, have ya.

  • pj2012

    Santorum isn’t drawing the good size crowds that Perry is right now… so I think it’s the media pushing the “Santorum is surging” meme.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Is this sarcasm?

  • windwaker24

    I wonder if he can still grow scruff on his face. Very niiicccceee! ;)

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …because Romney mostly appointed very liberal ones…

  • 1bunny

    I covet this pic/video for my own use. So appropriate : ) especially when trolls come out to play.

  • acat

    I hope, one day, to live up to his genius.

    Mew

  • jakeofalltrades

    Perry’s a stud, dude!

    To fit the image better, just do this:

    <img src=”http://www.mywebsite.com/filename.jpg” width=”90%”/>

  • acat

    I want someone who knows how to win one, and then win the peace.

    Mew

  • sunshinek67

    then why is he drawing sizable crowds in Iowa? Read the embed reporters comments, go to the Iowa news sites, and most news stories accounts elsewhere. Folks interviewed before and after Perry events, generally say the same thing: they weren’t sure about Perry until after they met him in the meet ‘n greet. You are being extremely disingenuous with your remarks. No surprise there, you are always criticizing Rick Perry in these RS rooms. That’s good for political discourse however, in that it provides a point of reference. We wouldn’t be able to appreciate the good without you.

  • jakeofalltrades

    I just noticed the scrollbars in your post – that changes everything.

    Do this instead:

    <img src=”http://www.mywebsite.com/filename.jpg” width=”400″/>

    But make it 300 if you’re in like the 20th reply since the space is smaller.

  • acat

    Oh wait, it was Huckabee.

    Nevermind.

    Mew

  • pj2012

    Santorum polling better than Perry… RCP does an average of the polls which shows Perry in 4th. I think this CNN/Time?s poll is an outlier and not consistent with Santorum?s other polling. Santorum isn?t drawing the large crowds that Perry is right now? so I think it?s the media pushing the ?Santorum is surging? meme.

    Insider Advantage 12/12 ? 12/12 Perry was at 13%
    Insider Advantage 12/18 ? 12/18 Perry now at 16%

    Insider Advantage 12/12 ? 12/12 Santorum was at 7%
    Insider Advantage 12/18 ? 12/18 Santorum now at 3%

    CNN/Time 11/29 ? 12/6 Perry was at 9%
    CNN/Time 12/21- 12/27 Perry now at 11%

    CNN/Time 11/29 ? 12/6 Santorum was at 5%
    CNN/Time 12/21- 12/27 Santorum now at 16%

  • SoFiMil

    On addition I see Bachmann endorsing Mittens, but her supporters not following her to the the Flipper.

    And for all the angst she portended against Rick Perry and Newt over a parsing of a social issue, she gave Romney a complete free pass on his earlier position on abortion.

  • David123

    What was a major cause of “Bush fatigue”? “Bush-lied, People died!” That easy to remember false slogan implied that Bush had lied us into war in Iraq over WMDs that supposedly weren’t there.

    Bush should have defended his actions more. Santorum did. Rick Santorum pointed out that many chemical weapons from the Sadaam-Hussein-era were indeed found in Iraq.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

    WMDs can be either chemical, biological, or nuclear. Since Sadaam Hussein had chemical weapons he had WMDs.

  • acat

    which is why, like clockwork, Casey Jr. is up in 2012.

    Being stupid in defense of your candidate is not helpful.

    Mew

  • sunshinek67

    but as Mr Erick pointed out earlier in a separate diary, this election is jobs-OWS centric. Romney being the poster boy for corporate greed at the expense of the little guy. He is a terrible candidate for the GOP, a serial political loser that has a bunch of money to buy endorsements and media headlines, thus creating this whole “inevitable electable” myth.

  • acat

    He’ll fall off the board completely once Santorum’s goose is cooked.

    Mew

  • pj2012

    good job! ;-)

  • jakeofalltrades

    Which would make sense, since Santorum only has one anonymous supporter.

  • sunshinek67

    ……. ;)

  • texashistorian

    and if you like social programs- model cities program for example. He just wasn’t a ‘new left’ Democrat like the bunch that has taken over the party. He was good only in the sense that he was somewhat fiscally aware, and believed in a strong national defense. But he was a big government New Deal liberal, no doubt about it, and of the sort that would never get my vote unless it was either him or someone like Obama .

  • texashistorian

    Santorum’s mom :D

  • acat

    I gotta wonder about.

    Mew

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Just because other people think they have no chance isn’t enough to convince them to stop running until the first election results thin/slow/stop the donations flow. When the fuel for the campaign to go on stops flowing they’re done. Won’t know until the votes are counted there.

  • sunshinek67

    There used to be such a thing in Texas as a conservative-Democrat. I won’t bother you with the particulars. uh

  • jakeofalltrades

    :D

  • acat

    As Tipper was never elected, gotta be via Al, eh?

    Mew

  • geotan

    After you throw your tantrum you will vote for Romney over Obama or you prove yourself to be shortsighted and irrational. Romney’s vision is very conservative and he has clearly articulated that vision hundreds of times since 2007. He will do most of what he says. Do you think he won’t repeal Obama care after saying it hundreds of times? Do you think he won’t lower capital gains taxes? Cut federal programs by asking is it worth borrowing money from China? Reforming entitlement spending? How can you question this? Is Romney a pathological stone faced liar of a criminal mastermind class? That is what you are saying! Ridiculous and small minded.

  • clowngirl

    Hope it only motivates more Perry and Gingrich supporters to go caucus.

    If Santorum places in the top 3 – or even 4 that may mean he hangs on as a spoiler for awhile. :(

  • acat

    I’ve been arguing the “Yes, Saddam had WMDs including a uranium enrichment program” point for over a decade now, I know the details.

    I’ll even agree that neither Bush was particularly effective at communicating just how and what Saddam had.

    All that said, so Santorum defended him. So what?

    Show me why Santorum understands the DoD, where his service experience is, where he’s worn the uniform, where he’s visited the troops.

    We’ve elected a senator who’s good at spouting rhetoric in D.C., I’d rather not repeat the error.

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    But the new bunch is off the edge.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    And whoever goes first is going to get pandered to. It’s unavoidable, unless you have a super-Tuesday-like primary first.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    ….there’s always collateral damage, though. I don’t look forward to that day at all.

  • snowshooze

    It is a hard sell in TV land.
    I am a realist.
    What it is, it is.
    And Bain wasn’t in a popularity contest.
    Their job, make money.
    If not them, someone else would have done it anyway.
    See my analogy of the undertaker.

  • acat

    MICROWAVE VANILLA PUDDING

    2 cups milk
    1/4 cup cornstarch
    2/3 cup sugar
    1/2 teaspoon salt
    2 eggs, lightly beaten
    2 tablespoons butter
    1 teaspoon vanilla

    Measure 1 1/2 cups of milk into a 4 cup microwave-safe bowl.

    Microwave on 3/4 power (or high) until steaming and heated through. Do NOT boil.

    Whisk two eggs in a separate 4 cup bowl until lightly frothy.

    Combine cornstarch, sugar and salt in a 1 1/2 quart casserole dish.

    Stir 1/2 cup cold milk into the cornstarch mixture until well blended.

    Gradually whisk in hot milk until no lumps remain.

    Cook in microwave until mixture is thickened and glossy, about 3-5 minutes; stir several times.

    Beat half of the hot mixture into 2 eggs.

    Whisk the egg mixture into the remaining hot milk.

    Cook on high for about 3 minutes, or just until pudding begins to boil.

    Whisk well, stirring in butter and vanilla.

    Pour into individual serving bowls.

    Refrigerate until chilled.

    Serve garnished with fruit or, for the holidays, a pinch of pumpkin pie spice.

    Mew

    p.s. Cat’s Pumpkin Pie Spice blend

    1 tsp cinnamon
    1/4 tsp nutmeg
    1/4 tsp allspice
    1/4 tsp clove

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    Don’t have a credible showing in the first few primaries and the contributions dry up. No money means no staff on the ground, no ads on the air, and no jets to zip you and your staff to speeches and rallies.

    You can compete in Iowa and NH by driving around in a minivan and stopping at every county fair and diner. When the race moves on to Florida, Ohio, PA, etc, it takes money to cover all that ground, organize large districts, liaise with local media, and run campaign commercials in major metro markets.

  • jakeofalltrades

    I can’t tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it, and Santorum doesn’t have it. Everyone else on the stage has it – though I hear Bachmann is abusive.

  • SoFiMil

    (Overtalk) [Bachmann jumping in to defend Mitt]

    George and Dianne, can I just say something? This is such an important issue….

    http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=15134849

  • marktx

    He is a big government spender who was part of the problem when in office.

    Not to mention Santorum’s support of pro-choice Arlen Specter.

    Anyone who wastes a vote on Santorum should have their head examined.

  • acat

    If this were the late’80s, when venture vultures were actually popular, Romney’d be an easy sell.

    If this were just before the dot-com bomb, say 1998, Romney’s background would be just what the doctor ordered.

    The last good opportunity for selling Romney the Wall Street Wiz Kid was, ironically, 2006.

    And he lost.

    To John McCain.

    That Romney, a former Governor with a fiscal background at a time when the coming fiscal crisis was pretty darn obvious, couldn’t defeat an elderly Senator whose best selling feature was stabbing conservatives in the back should tell you quite a lot.

    Mew

  • jakeofalltrades

    though that is the worst of the possibilities I meant.

    Vast, powerful nations take way longer than that to collapse, though. I don’t think we’re anywhere near utter chaos and probably won’t be for generations. But the American people are determined to speed up the process with our demonic lust for spending, so who knows.

  • snowshooze

    He was passed over for McCain before.
    And we saw how THAT worked out.
    Even that muffin.. Sarah could not save him. ( She lives down the street, and around the corner from me…)
    But TV land folks ( Now.. Folks is copyrighted by the Obama Campaighn )
    Can’t accept realities of the business world.
    It is, what it is.

  • gekster

    …..

  • tnguy

    ….it is insane for Republicans (or rather, conservatives) let a state like Iowa have such a huge say in who the nominee is. Hey, let’s have this state, which has a screwy, moronic caucus and doesn’t really represent the backbone of the party choose our presidential conservatives.

    Even the “conservatives” there are loco. If polls are to be believed, a quarter of republicans are supporting the repugnant Ron Paul. That alone should be enough evidence to close the book on the Iowa caucus having any place of prominence in our primary at all.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    And I say that as a young, unattached female ;) But when I said “cute” I was talking more about little Miss Sydney there, as well as the joy and love Perry exudes around his kids. Thanks for the sizing tips!

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    No doubt about that ;) But when I said “cute” I was talking more about little Miss Sydney there, as well as the joy and love Perry exudes around his kids. Thanks for the sizing tips!

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    *stamps foot in frustration* Oh well, everything in both posts is true.

  • acat

    of pumpkin pie spice on a single serving of pudding. Waaaay too much cinnamon!

    Just a pinch…

    Mew

  • acat

    both on TV Land and at dinner theaters nationwide.

    The movie

    The play

    Mew

  • gekster

    ,,,,,,,

  • snowshooze

    Organize Wall Street IS Obama…
    And reality is not an issue.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Although that’s one of my favorite pictures, I must say. There’s this old one that’s pretty cool as well:

    OK, dropping the fangirl mode now…back to battle and business!

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    :D :D :D

  • seanl

    voters often vote based on the name. The Casey family has a special place in the hearts of Penn voters.

    For whatever reason Red Staters like you are trying to rewrite history.

  • Tbone

    is a fool. They prove it every time.

  • Bill S

    I have a problem with their off-the-wall voting patterns. They have a long track record of voting for candidates without a chance in you-know-where of winning. They are simply not indicative of, well, anything…and the attention that is paid to their pointless caucuses is ridiculous. It’s almost as pointless as the Ames Straw Poll. What is it about Iowa that makes them irrelevant?

  • sunshinek67

    nt

  • buddyp

    Excuse me, but your comment comes across to me as possibly — possibly — a veiled effort to gain acceptance of Paul here at RS.

    First, you put Paul in the company of Romney and Gingrich in terms of prospects, saying “One of those men will be the next president of the United States.” Sorry, but Paul will not be the nominee, let alone the next president. It’s laughable that your inclusion of Paul in that statement comes in a paragraph you start with “Let’s face it folks”, as if you have some superior grip on reality. I guess that’s what they call irony.

    Second, no, the 11th commandment doesn’t apply to Paul, and frankly, it doesn’t apply to candidates generally except with regard to really below the belt, misleading attacks. Paul would be the crazy uncle of the Republican Party if a crazy uncle weren’t just crazy but also held views antithetical to one of the main ideological and worldview pillars of the family, and dangerously so. A President Paul would be terribly dangerous for America and the world, and I mean on a scale that dwarfs Obama in terms of the harm it would do to our national security and ultimately our economy and those of the world as well. The 11th commandment and Ron Paul shouldn’t even be in the same sentence. In his case it’s N.A. — “Not Applicable”. And yes, I’m saying I’d rather have four more year of Obama than a President Paul.

  • macphisto96

    What happens if Mitt gets elected without the conservative base? How will that help the movement if you bail on the GOP nominee and he wins the election. I’ve got family and friends who voted Obama. They are independents and Democrats. Every single one of them has said they will vote for Romney if he’s the GOP nominee but not otherwise.

    Newt and Perry would have trouble pulling the middle and you need them to win a general. And if grassroots “conservatives” think that staying away or voting for Gary Johnson will help their cause then they are nuts. If you don’t like Romney then work to get a Senator or House member elected that will pull him right instead of trying to ensure Obama another term.

    I know that Erick and many other Red State staffers are not enamoured of Romney, but I also know that they will back him if he wins and will encourage people to go out and vote for him.

    And the Biz Republicans will unite behind Mitt and give him money. He’ll be able to outraise anyone out there. And if he picks a guy like Rubio (if he’s willing to be picked) for VP then he strengthens his appeal to the base. Didn’t they flock to McCain because of Palin?

    Mitt is the most electable candidate for the general. It doesn’t mean he’s the only one who can win, but right now his name recognition and favorability is better than the other GOPers. And all the candidates except Paul will back Romney if he’s the nominee. Betcha Palin will too. As will Huckabee. The GOP needs to unite, go on the offensive, and correct its image problem.

  • snowshooze

    And that had never entered my mind.
    But, I will lay odds that I can compete with Perry, especially with my two 15 month old offsprings. Girls. Real girls.
    I would be a cinch in the election, were it based on that.
    And I ain’t no slouch meself.
    I will post up when I figure out the way to do it.
    Very proud Papa here.

  • Samsara

    Yes, Santorum was a George W. Bush Republican who ran against big government Democrats as a big government Republicans. This is PA, pork is pork. But I have to say, the way he handled himself during the whole Trent Lottt / Strom Thurmond scandal impressed me.

    Santorum was in line under Lott in the party leadership. Then Lott was videotaped saying that “we wouldn’t have all the problems we have today” If Strom had been elected President. Thurmond ran as a segregationist. It was Strom?s 100th birthday party, and Lott got carried away. The liberal media machine pounced and started pounding him. Bush and the rest of the GOP turned their backs on Lott.

    Not Santorum.

    That snake Bill Frist took advantage and deposed Lott. Frist then led the effort to pass the budget busting Prescription Drug Bill. A great deal for him and his Big Pharma buddies, not so good for our Country. Then he left town.

    Rick Santorum may not be of Presidential timber, but he is a damn site better than some of the jerks Republicans have been following in recent years.

  • lizzie

    more detailed, but consistent with ABC, which awarded Perry the “Standing Room Only Medal” and Bachmann the “drive-by campaigner badge” :)

    so, thank you omemovoter – it is very difficult to find local Iowa reports, which I assume are more relevant to Iowans than what the WaPo has to say (I am still recovering from having to restrain my self earlier today in two separate comment s on Jen Rubin. One does wonder how much money Romney has spread around to get such mythology)

    Quite bizarre that Bachmann’s Iowa guy endorsed to Ron Paul today. I am still recovering from delving into that conspiracy-addled fake Republican.

    Yes, another incursion from the disillusioned fiscal conservative dem who still WANTS to vote for Rick Perry. I hope the previous comments about how the pre-Pelosi/Obama/Reid Democratic Party still had real fiscal conservatives just like the GOP used to have social moderates. You just can not go by labels – both parties fracture and regroup over time. I have Ronald Reafan’s Youtube from 1948 where he praises Harry S Truman, and also Hubert Humphrey as true liberals.

    About Santorum. In the unlikely event he were to get the GOP nomination, the Pelosi-Obama Democrats will be in ecstacy because then they can go with what worked in New York statewide in 2010: make protecting women’s reproductive rights the main campaign theme in order to drive up female voter turn-out, which is their only chance anyway. I do not care what other positions Santorum has – he has focussed his run in Iowa on that issue to the point where it overshadows everything.

    Maybe he is having a small surge in Iowa because there IS a cohort for whom THAT is their #1 issue. I had an online dialog at Deace’s website where commenters were calling Rick Perry “EVIL”, and that was because he was considered a moderate on abortion, and had endorsed Giuliani in 2008.

    This whole Iowa fluidity is so odd.

    The one thing I would like to know is how Perry is doing with veterans, andhunters. He did special mailers to them. It was veterans who propelled Kerry in 2004. I do not understand why Ron Paul appeals to so many veterans, not usually the cohort who buys into deranged conspiracy theories.

    FWIW, I will not even protest vote for Romney, or Paul. I will, grudgingly, protest vote for Santorum, but it will not count.

    My vote for Perry, or Gingrich WILL count. They are viable to win New York, although I do think Perry is the strongest, most electable once he finally destroys the “dumber than a rock” stereotype that has stuck to him.

    Huntsman’s job is to damage Romney in NH – and I believe he will.

    the question is how to expose Ron Paul before he irreparably damages the GOP.

    Romney v Obama will be the lowest turnout in history, and I do not even think Romney would appoint better people to the cabinet.

    Obama is now making Nixon look good, and the GOP thinks Romney can win? NO WAY!

    I just got the Perry email asking me for $50 to keep his Outsider ad running in Iowa. That was a bad sign – I would have preferred some honesty – to have the money to keep the campaign going. 4Q deadline is here.

    See ya.

  • acat

    Simple rules.

    1) Must be a closed primary.
    2) Must have fewer than 7 electoral votes.
    3) Must have a competent, functional State party.

    (that last one is more of a guideline)

    I nominate Utah to go first next time, followed by Oklahoma in 2020.

    Mew

  • septembergurl

    had no one conservative anti-Romney candidate, the best plan would be to support various candidates in the early states who could plausibly win against Romney.

    I proposed Rick Santorum in Iowa, Jon Huntsman in New Hampshire and Rick Perry in South carolina. My thinking was that if Romney could be held off in the first three contests, he would lose much of his “frontrunner” “inevitable” status and we would have a real contest. The struggle for the nomination would then take place in the later contests. My suggestion met with disdain, hostility and bafflement.

    Well well, hey hey, my my.

    What would be so terrible if Rick Santorum (who I had fingered as a likely socon patsy in Iowa) beat out Romney? Santorum isn’t going anywhere. Good grief. The point is to beat Romney. Say Santorum and Paul battle out for first, Romney comes third — that’s major. He goes into NH wounded where Hunts is poised to deliver the coup de grace. then they all limp into SC, where Fred thompson, er, Rick Perry suddenly comes on strong.

    So the 2008 parallels are: Santorum = Huckabee, Perry= Thompson, Romney=Romney, etc. But is Huntsman McCain or Giuliani? Time will tell.

  • Bill S

    There is absolutely no reason that one state should get the corner on the “first in the primaries” slot. Iowa has sufficiently proven that they have no business being in that slot. They are the anti-bellwether.

  • snowshooze

    If this ain’t down home, nothing is.
    Rick… totally cool.

  • macphisto96

    How about the jobs saved by Romney. You sound like someone who has no idea how a business works.

    A publicly traded company is accountable to three groups:

    -investors
    -customers
    -employees

    The employees will always get bounced first because the job market tends to flex (4 million jobs are created and destroyed PER MONTH in a healthy economy) and once the investors and customers are screwed the game is over.

    Let’s say a company that makes widgets is having a rough go. Their sales are down, they are inefficient, there stock is tanking, and they are on the long road to liquidation.

    Well, if they hit liquidation then the employees are all gone, the customers lose their warranty (and replacement parts down the line), and the investors get pennies on the dollar.

    Conservatives cry foul about government inefficiencies but if Mitt Romney finds inefficiencies in a business and some people lose their jobs then its a bad thing? What? Great efficiency means competitive pricing and, often, better sales with a better margin. Often down the line it means more hiring after this is established.

    Jobs are not charities. Companies get bloated and bureaucratic just like the government and they need to be trimmed. If you want to demonize this kind if stuff then you need to read BlueState instead of RedState because you’re a lot more left than right. Newt’s criticism of what Romney did with Bain was an anticapitalist rant. These companies would often have liquidated. Sometimes you break the company into parts because it is what you can do. Sometimes you revitalize it. But there’s no sense trying to bring back a company that has no market or not real shot of actually making a comeback – that’s a waste.

  • David123

    If he goes the distance and wins great.

    If Perry goes the distance and wins that’s fine too. Having Santorum do well in Iowa doesn’t prevent Perry from doing well in later elections. However, if Perry implodes, it will be really good to have Santorum in the race as an alternative to Paul Romney and Gingrich.

  • gekster

    Obama endorsing online gambling,
    to shoozes placing bets,
    to not supporting Perry is a fool.

    I don’t see how you connect those dots.

  • marktx

    Both Perry and Huntsman have pretty good records as governors of their respective states. And both have money to get them through the January primary season.

    In fact, if it starts to look as though Romney will sweep the January races, the only guy standing other than Ron Paul and Romney could very well be Jon Hunstman. That’s because Huntsman is independently wealthy and can finance much of his own campaign, while Perry cannot.

    The point is, if Romney wins Iowa, NH, and SC, and most of the candidates drop out, that might leave Huntsman one last opening to be the anti-Romney. In a one on one race, is spite of Huntsman’s peculiarities, he is far more acceptable than Romney.,

  • Samsara

    I found the following comment posted after the new WSJ article praising Santorum very accurate:

    “Yep, if the GOP primary ballot had a “default” button, his face would be on it.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203899504577126911577435898.html

  • acat

    Measuring something changes it.

    Iowa (and New Hampshire) maintained “first in the nation” status, in part because the measurements provided were seen as having a greater value than the ongoing pandering. See also “It won’t play in Peoria.”

    Iowa hasn’t been a reliable predictor for some time, so the value has declined, and the cost of pandering both to the religious right and ADM* is getting quite out of hand.

    Hell, let’s hold the first vote in 2016 in Oregon, just to see what happens.

    Mew

    * Archer Daniels Midland et al i.e. “big corn” – not just ethanol, but also corn syrup and hog and cattle feed…

  • acat

    Tbone appears to have been replying to snowy, who was replying to seanl’s .. nugget.

    Mew

  • heraklios

    I just dug this up http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70906.html

    I can guarantee you that once Mittens gets the nomination, the mainstream media will pump a steady diet of this type of piece promoting Johnson’s Libertarian campaign because Obama’s henchmen will know Romney’s vulnerable among Tea Partiers and libertarian leaning Republicans.

    I can’t believe our party is about to make this mistake and concede the election to Obama, but I am about resigned to it

  • snowshooze

    Hahahaahee hee hee.
    But really.
    This time, I mean it.
    So….
    I think… Xox is ok. This time.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So again, he’s a big fat fraud.

  • heraklios

    I think you could just about pencil Ron Paul in for a win if Oregon had the first caucus

  • acat

    You’ll notice that Romney isn’t running as a Wall Street Wiz Kid.

    You seem to think Romney isn’t stupid.

    Think about it.

    #OWS

    Mew

  • sunshinek67

    Santorum seems to bend with the political winds, at the detriment of the conservative right on fiscal issues. I think he is a stalwart social values warrior though. But this next election is more jobs-economic centric than it is about the latter, however, of concern to me is the SCOTUS and appointments. I could probably trust him to pick, but not trust him to bend with the Dems. That’s a problem. Do I really trust this guy to carry the conservative torch? Dont know~

  • pj2012

    ah …hahaha

  • acat

    The rest of the State is relatively more sane.

    Mew

  • windwaker24

    and married. We should be ashamed (at least that’s what my mother tells me…)HA HA! We sound like a bunch of high schoolers!

  • marktx

    Santorum will not be the nominee. The only reason he is getting any play now is due to the belief among the party establishment that he might split the conservative vote, helping Romney in the process.

    The minute it looks as though Santorum might become a legitimate threat to Romney, the party and FOX News will go negative on him.

  • gekster

    It’s kinda hard to blog and play golf.
    I should pay attention to one or the other.
    Seams I’m getting beaten at both.

  • acat

    And “The most Conservative candidate who can win in the primary, Republican in the general” remains my mantra.

    Even if it’s Romney.

    Mew

    (if it’s Luap Nor, I’m using my get out of jail free card.. he’s a faux-republican)

  • marktx

    I’m no supporter of Huckabee and his tax increases, but I seriously doubt he would have supported socialized medicine similar to Obama/Romney Care.

    While it might not seem like it right now, the 2012 election really is a “single issue” election. And that single issue is the repeal of Obamacare. Once firmly entrenched into the economy, socialized medicine will never be removed. 2012 provides republicans a small window of opportunity to stop the socialist takeover of healthcare. If republicans ignore this opportunity, the country will go the way of western europe.

  • heraklios

    because many conservatives have had it with the GOP Establishment. I don’t think some will “take it” this time and thus my prediction that a minimally viable third party candidate gets traction this year.

  • snowshooze

    It ain’t Man love… it is just love.
    Of course, he has to be much older..
    As my girls here are ALL spring chickens.
    A woman’s heart, never ages beyond 18.
    This is a gift from God.
    For which I am forever grateful.

  • heraklios

    I was a big Huckabee supporter last time and was crushed when SC deserted him. While Huckabee is far from a perfect conservative, he would have had the charisma, likeability and policies to put Obama on the run. With Huckabee the whole Republican coalition would have been united, locked down and we would be talking about winning a few swing voters in OH, FL and maybe PA to win the whole ballgame. Oh, how we can dream……

  • marktx

    In a year that the repeal of ObamaCare is at the front of republican agenda, nominating Romney to lead the charge for repeal isn’t a great idea. That’s why there probably will be another anti-Romney candidate who surfaces at some point….

  • seanl

    He ran against Casey nonetheless.

    Anyhow, don’t feel like reading through the thread: who exactly are you supporting?

  • reggie182

    in a general election.

    First off…let me get this out of the way. The fact that Perry changed his mind about the rape and incest issue mere days before the Iowa caucus is more than a little suspect. Roe vs. Wade occurred during the Nixon administration If you’ll remember. Seems he’s had a long time to think about it.

    And forcing a raped woman to have the child is crazy as far as I’m concerned. First off, when a woman engages in consensual behavior that leads to a pregnancy, she did have a CHOICE. But in the case of a sexual assault, she most certainly did not. To support policy that legally forces her to carry the product of a rape to term is waaay outside the mainstream and renders the person who advocates such a position ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY UNELECTABLE. Forget it. When you take that stance it is GAME OVER. If Perry by some longshot did win the nomination, his position on this would doom him come November 2012, and you know it.

  • snowshooze

    That cussed Holder ruins all my fun.
    I will only give credit… he is not Janet Reno, murderer of Babies.

  • pj2012

    MILFORD, N.H. – “Businessman Steve Forbes, stumping for Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry today, attacked former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for his policies on taxes and health care.”

    “Perry is polling in the single digits nationally. But Forbes predicted that if Perry does well in Iowa, that will influence the rest of the race. ?Outside of Iowa, the poll results mean very little precisely because half the voters haven?t made up their minds yet,? he said.

    Forbes said his advice to Perry is to remain consistent. ?He gets up each morning and knows what he stands for, who he is, in contrast to some other candidates who have to read a poll to find out what they believe that day,? Forbes said. Asked if he was referring to Romney, Forbes said Romney has not been able to demonstrate that he has core convictions.” http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/12/steve-forbes-campaigning-for-rick-perry-attacks-romney-capital-gains-tax-policy/kDPyheseM9q3PRE7EG9L7M/index.html

  • clowngirl

    Perry and Gingrich have both already said they’ll continue even if they finish fourth. It’s hard to imagine either dropping out even if they came in fifth.

    It’s also hard to imagine the majority of Republicans embracing either Romney or Ron Paul.

    So in all likelihood there will still be 4 candidates competing in South Carolina. My fervent hope is that it will be ONLY 4, so Romney won’t be able to win with only a quarter of the vote.

  • texasref

    OK, got that. Thanks for your perspective.

  • shadowtax

    I made up my mind about a month ago. I decided to stop listening to the experts. My gut told me that he has as much a shot as anyone because the field was in such flux. I am still hoping that he is around when I get to vote in the Florida primary.

    I met Rick Santorum when he was stumping for Nikki Haley in SC back in 2010. I hear him say what I am thinking at debates. I’ve heard Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck speak well of him.

    I am tired of experts such as Erick telling me who will or will not be the nominee. He sure was wrong about Tim Pawlenty being a strong contender, so his opinion is not dispositive.

    I’m a St. Louis Cardinal fan and a Florida Gator alumnus who recently has witnessed a ridiculously improbable World Series Championship and Tim Tebow leading the Broncos to the verge of the playoffs with a similar defiance of probability.

    But since the David Freese – Tim Tebow ticket is not an option, I will be voting for the improbable candidate whom I believe to be the best, Rick Santorum.

  • acat

    Running against Casey Jr., Santorum came in *significantly* below his 2000 level of support. Further, his support dropped *statewide*, in every county.

    If it were *just* about how Casey’s a NAME, that shouldn’t be true.

    If it were just about Chimpy McBushHaliburton, that shouldn’t be true.

    Seems to me, it’s gotta be about Santorum himself.

    You wanted to defend him, go ahead. I’m listening.

    Mew

  • acat

    being a congressguy from NY…

    Yep, he never really “caught fire”, but he did finish in the top tier in New Hampshire both times he ran.

    Not enough to win the White House himself, but a good member of a potential Perry team.

    Mew

  • macphisto96

    Please. Gary Johnson had no traction with Republicans and Paul’s base is actually NOT Republican. Betcha the “let’s legalize pot” rhetoric will score better with young Obama voters and actually draw people away from him. I think Gary Johnson can top out at 2% and most of those will be potheads that would have voted Obama.

    Romney will win the election and has the ability to swing crucial states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Virginia. He’ll get Florida as well and bring Indiana back. He might even win Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. Romney plays well in the states we need.

  • buddyp

    I’m guessing your view is Paul > anyone else.

    If not, which candidate do you think would make a better president than Paul and why?

    Do you think Paul would make a good president, a bad/very bad president, or a mediocre president?

  • seanl

    As you pointed out he lost in 2006, which was a wave year for Democrats. So given the fact he was running against Bob Casey + running in a pale blue state against a pro-life Democrat + he was on the wrong side of a wave election, it is certainly understandable he lost.

    Secondly, knowing who you are supporting is certainly relevant. Especially given the fact that you take such delight in flinging invectives at me for supporting my candidate. And if you were comfortable with your candidate you would have no problem sharing his/her name, which can only lead me to believe you are ashamed of your candidate.

  • justonevoice

    I would be comfortable with all of the front-runners as the nominee including Paul and so the 11th commandment holds for them. What I would not be comfortable with is any of them choosing a pro-choice VP nominee. The 11th commandment is out the window if that happens!

  • macphisto96

    Romney isn’t running as a Wiz Kid, but turnarounds don’t have to be associated with Wall Street. Salt Lake City and Mass are not Wall Street. Figuring out that Home Depot and Staples were good ideas won’t sell to the average American? Home Depot is packed by average joes all day, giving them easy access to things they need at low prices.

    The guy who got the money for Staples to open doesn’t help create jobs? He’s a Wall Street guy that got capital for a chain with over 2000 stores now that employs 90,000 people.

    Yeah, that’s a hard sell. That’s not Wall Street, that’s showing a penchant for seeing what works and eliminating what doesn’t.

    Turnaround artist. Sees trends. Knows what works, gets rid of what doesn’t. Makes things more efficient. Delivers lower costs TO YOU. Not a career politician and all offices he’s served in are outside the beltway. Real world experience.

    And the guy can show he’s competent.

  • justonevoice

    I think overall Huntsman’s policies may be the most consistently conservative. On many issues he runs to the right of most of the candidates except Paul. And even on foreign policy, Huntsman has a (rightfully in my opinion) healthly skepticism of foreign misadventures. I think it’s unfortunate that he got painted by the media as a moderate (and he may have encouraged that) when he really is quite conservative — and has been consistent in approach.

  • justonevoice

    I am not a Romney supporter (yet) though I am getting more comfortable with him as the candidate. I think a Paul win in Iowa definitely helps Romney because the media will focus on Paul. That may boost Paul a bit in NH, but not enough to win, meanwhile it takes the wind out of Gingrich’s sails. The beneficiary of that is Romney. Perry has a shot at SC but that’s about it. FL will go Romney after media attention of Gingrich dries up after IA, NH and SC. The only way I see this dragging on long is if the winnder of Iowa is someone other than Paul or Romney.

  • justonevoice

    Though I would like to see the efforts focus on replacing the current Congressional leadership along with increasing GOP members. Clean slate!

  • texasref

    nt

  • cheetah2

    just curious. I know he is a Catholic. I am a former Catholic and that is not the same as being a born again Christian. In the Family Forum at Thanksgiving Bachmann and Perry testified to a Christian salvation experience but not the others. I believe that Perry and Bachmann are the only two candidates who are born again Christians.

    In the general election our nominee’s religious beliefs when running against Obama will not be a factor to me, but it is in the primaries.

  • texasref

    Answer to your first question: they’d all make good presidents, except Romney. The others all have strengths and weaknesses, just in different areas.

    Answer to your second question: see above.

  • texasref

    good analysis

  • tomatin

    Romney is neither conservative, moderate or liberal. He’s the minus man who has no convictions. Your family will just see a disingenuous candidate who really stands for nothing.

  • racetraitor

    Santorum would probably describe himself as a Catholic Christian who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I say this because that is how I describe myself. Most of the devout Catholics that I know are not comfortable describing themselves as “born again Christians” because the term, to them, sounds rather Protestant (and also rather redundant because Catholics consider themselves to be “born again” through the sacrament of baptism–”by water and the Spirit” as Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:3, 5). However, the devout Catholics that I know do consider themselves to have a personal relationship with the Lord. And, like our Protestant brethen, we are attempting to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).

    That said, I (like you) am a Perry supporter rather than a Santorum supporter. The way I look at it, a Christian of whatever stripe needs to “put up or shut up”; and Perry has “put up” big-time. He lives his faith and lets it influence all of his actions, even when that causes him to take positions which might be politically unpopular.

    Santorum, on the other hand, hasn’t “put up,” and he refuses to “shut up.” He’s always talking about how great he was in the House, and how great he was in the Senate, and how conservative he is. He speaks about being Catholic (that is, a member of the Catholic Church which, irrespective of the rebellion of some of her members, is the most pro-life institution on Earth), and about being pro-life. But did he “put up” for the innocent, defenseless unborn in 2004? No; he made a politically expedient decision to sell them out by endorsing Snarlin’ Arlen Specter against the pro-life challenger, Pat Toomey. To my knowledge, he has never apologized and said, “I was wrong.” I stopped trusting Santorum over that issue, and I don’t trust him now.

    When Santorum sold out the unborn, he sold out Jesus Christ (for, are not the unborn the “least of [His] brethren”?)–and he sold out for a lot less than thirty pieces of silver (he couldn’t even hold his Senate seat in ’06). What would prevent him from selling out the country if the stakes were high enough?

  • buddyp

    You really think Paul would be a good president?

    What do you think of Paul’s non-interventionism? Do you think Paul’s non-interventionism would be a good approach for a president ? Or do you agree with me that it would be very harmful?

  • davesinsanantonio

    there is enough bad press against us, and THEN he gives them everything they asked for.

    He has all the political skills of a box of rocks.

  • davesinsanantonio

    he is so negative himself.

    I think he must have been weaned on a pickle.

  • hitthedeck

    There are no stones unturned if you are a Republican running for president. If there is the least piece of dirt under the pinkie fingernail it?s going to be found. The media searches everything not only from birth but will go into a republican?s ancestry to find a rotten apple in the basket. The Democrats are blessed with the mostly liberal American media. We witnessed Obama?s rise from mystery man and remaining mystery man after taking the highest office in the land. The media has gone after anyone who questioned or criticized his past and associations.
    The only way a democrat can get a bad report is to expose his Weiner in public or father a child to a mistress.
    I must admit that republican conservatives want a squeaky clean politician to lead our nation and the liberals know that. With that fact in place it means the media and both parties? are putting the nominees under a microscope. It?s just the opposite with a democrat! The media give you a set of low power binoculars to view a democrats past that is out of range.
    Michelle Bachman is the only true conservative running and it?s really sad to see how confident she is. She is just to dam good looking to be president and that must be what the public thinks because I can?t think of any other reason why she isn?t on top of the polls. The horse race is almost over and it looks like Mitt Romney will cross the finish line by a nose. I think that most of the old time conservatives like me for instance, would like a long shot come in from nowhere and leave the pack in a cloud of dust. We are looking for that Man O War that has the strength to be a winner and take the Triple Crown to save our great nation. We have to have the Triple Crown to do it (a Republican President, a Republican Senate and a Republican house.) Pray-Vote-and Pray again!

  • mine

    calling on Bachmann and Santorum to resign. Why didn’t they call on Perry to stand down. These clowns just reek of bigotry and stupidity. Why are they calling on a Catholic and former Lutheren to resign so a failing evangelical has a better chance of beating a mormon. Are they imbeciles or just crazy evil. No wonder the rest of the country despise these ilk. Someone should suggest these fools should just shut up. Most of us conservatives don’t want to associated with them. Why don’t they just go away……

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    Why is the religion of Bachmann and Santorum a question? Also, there are good reasons for Bachmann and Santorum to quit: neither are serious candidates, neither have a great deal of support (outlier CNN poll notwithstanding), and neither have the legs or organization to keep going after IA and (maybe) NH. Perry has all three going for him, and so he’s not in that Buddy Roemer tier of candidate.

  • hitthedeck

    You my friend are doing exactly what the opposition expects! We have to stand down and forget our favorites in the end and support the least of two evils. Who knows the winner might satisfy your position. It?s the only system we have and we have to stand up to it or remain in the shadows.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    ….but I agree that our disintegration is on “steroids.” Although, truth be told, the disintegration has been going on for at least a couple of generations already (especially since the 1960′s), so it looks from that point of view that we’re right on schedule.

  • hitthedeck

    For those of you out there who want to remain sheep, I would suggest that you vote for a shepherd that will lead you to greener pastures rather than one that will lead you to slaughter.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    The Santorum-Casey election was in ’06; it was in ’04 that Santorum endorsed Specter over Toomey.

    He lost by 18% to Casey, despite being the incumbent; this cannot be due to adoration of the “Casey” name throughout the state for, as noted by Guzzardi, “the more people got to know him [in EVERY county], the more they chose to vote against him.”

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Regardless of the pseudo “heroism” you ascribe to Santorum, he voted in FAVOR of the Prescription Drug Bill…and don’t forget how he PRAISED earmarks when interviewed on FNC.

  • hitthedeck

    WHERE ARE MY SHEEP
    By Gary Chambers (Thinking about America)

    He runs in the green pastures with his eyes to the sky
    chasing the small white clouds that glide by.
    He can not seem to gather the flock
    The wind keeps moving them apart.

    After the long circling run he lies down to rest,
    panting to catch up to his breath.
    He will never know what had happened that day.
    His master had sold the sheep away.

    Remembering that he had protected the lambs
    Remembering he kept them together and never apart.
    Remembering He had taught them never to stray.
    Remembering he had chased the wolf away.

    He sees his master on a hill alone to the east
    signaling the end of the day.
    He knows its time to go home.
    But his relentless search will go on and on.

    He will never know what happened that day.
    His master had sold the flock away.
    Never again will he save the Lamb.
    Never again will he run with the wind.
    Never again

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …voting for the best candidate, absent personal strategic [mis]calculations?

  • bzip

    I do truly believe that the latest CNN poll with Santorum “surging” is completely bogus as is being used to aid Santorum.

    The problem I see is even though I feel the Santorum surge is bogus, it may turn into a real surge as Bachmann is in a melt down mode – where do her supporters go….my guess Santorum.

    Couple that to the bogus media play up for Santorum and Santorum could very well end up surging for real.

    I would really like to see another Insider Advantage poll before the caucus and I would think there would be,

    In the end I just don’t see Santorum being competitive after Iowa. He won’t do anything in NH, his little momnetum will be slowed down and he won’t have the resources to compete in SC where Perry will have the resources to compete. It is a dead end road for Santorum after Iowa no matter what happens.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …you’re barking up the wrong tree.

  • romansdaughter

    I just read in the DesMoines Register that one of Bachmann’s Super Pacs just ditched her for Romney and another campaign guy went to Ron Paul. I mean that seems really strange for them to be with Bachmann who is pretty conservative and then go to non conservative Willard and nutjob Paul. So something is smelling in Denmark.

  • elayman

    So hopefully if moderate and liberal Republicans and Democratic crossovers in New Hampshire defect from Paul, the beneficiary will be Jon Huntsman, whose foreign policy message sounds similar to Paul’s when it comes to U. S. involvement in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

  • buddyp

    Excuse me, but it’s absurd for you to say that Huntsman’s “foreign policy message sounds similar to Paul?s when it comes to U. S. involvement in Afghanistan and elsewhere.”

    If you think Hunstman is the pure non-interventionist that Paul is, or even anything anywhere close to it, make your case. Otherwise, don’t say such absurd things.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    In one of the debates in November, I believe it was, the foreign policy debate if I remember correctly, Huntsman claimed that China had an internet generation that would rise up and make China democratic without our doing anything, and so he did not believe in our taking any action against China. This would be an example of a naive isolationist foreign policy, and a similarity to Paul.

  • buddyp

    Even if one accepts your premise entirely, obviously that’s a long way from making the case that Huntsman is anything like the pure non-interventionist that Paul is.

    By the way, what “action against China” was being discussed or asked about?

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    As commented here:

    http://daveporter.typepad.com/global_strategies/2011/11/huntsman-in-debate-on-the-internet-generation-in-china.html

  • buddyp

    Military action against China under what circumstances?? I mean, was he asked about a scenario in which they attack Taiwan?? Otherwise, what the heck are you saying was being discussed? Attacking China militarily for some other reason?

    As for economic policies that could lead to a trade war (mainly slapping tariffs on Chinese imports), that’s outside the scope of what we’re discussing, which is the assertion by elayman that Huntsman?s ?foreign policy message sounds similar to Paul?s when it comes to U. S. involvement in Afghanistan and elsewhere.? Try to keep things straight.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …whereas Huntsman’s view, if you actually bothered to listen to the video embedded in the link I sent you, was that we should passively rely on the supposedly democratic Internet Generation that is going to take down China’s corrupt government from the inside. This sort of naive and passive isolationism is a lot like Paul’s own views, which you would know if you bothered to get facts before taking elayman to task for making the correct connection.

  • buddyp

    You seem to be saying my disagreement with elayman was invalid — that you agree with elayman that Huntsman and Paul are the same on non-interventionism.

    Yet all you offer up is one example, and a very, very weak one at that (as if taking China to the WTO and potentially slapping on tariffs were a good example of interventionism Paul opposes), as a supposed argument that Huntsman overall is equivalent to Paul in non-interventionism.

    That’s called a non sequitur.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …which you claim to gather before making rational analysis and coming to conclusions. Instead, you’re not bothering to look up the facts, you’re engaging in irrational or nonexistent analysis, and characteristically jumping to mistaken conclusions, followed by misguided advocacy, which is your m.o. I’m just trying to help you do a better job since you appear unable or unwilling to gather facts for yourself.

  • buddyp

    Nope, you implied that my disagreement and criticism with elayman was invalid, meaning his point was valid. Your basis was that one weak example. One weak example obviously does not lead a sensible person to reach the conclusion that elayman’s sweeping assertion was valid. Hence, your non sequitur. Get it? Probably not.

  • buddyp

    Nathan, maybe you should read something like this:
    http://www.amazon.com/Introductory-Logic-Douglas-J-Wilson/dp/1885767366

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    Was to challenge him to provide any evidence that Huntsman was close to the pure isolationist that Paul is. I provided evidence that his view towards China was precisely the same sort of isolationism (by refusing to accept that we were in a trade war with China already, showing the same “I’m not listening” attitude about China that Ron Paul shows about our war with radical Islam in Afghanistan and elsewhere), which is, incidentally, the same sort of attitude you show with anything that contradicts your misguided conclusions. Then, having found that challenge met you decided to shift the goalposts to demand much more information about Huntsman’s foreign policy to prove closer congruence, which is your job, as I’m not particularly interested in supporting Huntsman nor do I think he will last past NH, which means it’s not worth my time to research him fuller.

  • christine777

    Rather than hop from one candidate to another based on useless polls, we should vote for the candidate that we feel in our heart is right for the job. I support Rick Perry because I know he is the best man for the job. As a lifelong Texan, I see the results of his common sense leadership. Our good economy and jobs are bringing people to Texas in droves. He can turn this country around, reduce the deficit and put our country back to work,

  • jkines

    before I invoke the 11th commandmant on myself. Santorum;’s protectionist tendencies, (supporting steel tariffs and opposing NAFTA) trouble as much if not more than Paul’s noninterventionist foreign policy. We cannot afford the destructive trade policies of one philosophically and fundamentally opposed to, or at least ignorant of, the tenets of the free market economy.

    This is precisely the same reason Romney is a non-starter for me. His notion of attacking China for currency manipulation would lead only to a destructive trade war that is fundamentally at odds with the exigencies of a market economy and would be destructive in ways we can ill afford at this juncture.

    Has their ever been a worse GOP presidential field in the modern era?

    On that note invoking the 11th on myself from this point forward, but I fear it’s going to be a long year for the party. We must hold the House and take the Senate to prevent an unmitigated disaster in 2012.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …and I am a student of logic, able to recognize your own paralogic quite easily.

  • bzip

    I am going to try an tie this to the thread :-) . So how is Santorum going to be competitive against Perry’s and his backers, the super pac’s and all the resources Perry has – it won’t work in the end.

    Perry hones new skills on national stage
    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/29/perry-hones-new-skills-on-national-stage/

    Rick Perry?s new Iowa TV ad: Fox guarding the hen house
    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/29/rick-perrys-new-iowa-tv-ad-fox-guarding-the-hen-house/

    Fox
    http://youtu.be/NEaVhH-Rai4

  • buddyp

    Nathan,

    For a guy repeatedly claiming to be a superior fact-getter, you’re quite sloppy. You said “It was Romney who said we were in an undeclared war with China at that debate” and you provide link to a video that doesn’t show Romney saying that. You didn’t bother to take the one minute I took to get the transcript. Romney didn’t use that term or any similar term.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505103_162-57323734/cbs-news-nj-debate-transcript-part-1/?pageNum=10&tag=contentMain;contentBody
    [continuing onto]
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505103_162-57323734/cbs-news-nj-debate-transcript-part-1/?pageNum=11&tag=contentMain;contentBody

    Moreover, it’s laughably silly for you to imply that that discussion was a good example of the “intervention” vs. “non-interventionism” that I was responding to re: elayman’s assertion, simply because you thought the word “war” was used by Romney.

  • jkines

    as protectionism is an economically illiterate and destructive policy that I simply cannot abide. However, I honestly feel like we need to invoke the 11th at this point, if only to save our chances of taking the senate. A GOP House and Senate is the only hope for a bulwark to stand against Obama’s second term., the likelihood of which looks ever more certain.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    I provided an embedded link to the foreign policy debate, including Huntsman’s comments (which were the topic of the thread), and it was the moderator who commented on that embedded video that Romney had stated (as he did) that we are in an undeclared war with China right now. If you got your facts and didn’t jump prematurely to conclusions you might be able to make sense. As it is, you just troll.

  • sunshinek67

    I would think that they will be giving Perry another thought, he has the jobs-economy record that Santorum doesn’t.

  • buddyp

    If you’re a student of logic, I sure hope my tax dollars didn’t go to some institution that has been ostensibly teaching it to you. Definitely file that under “government waste.”

    Here ya’ go:

    Nathan’s Premise*: Huntsman exhibited similar non-interventionism to Paul’s in one instance.

    Nathan’s Conclusion: Huntsman is the same overall as Paul in terms of Paul’s pure, across-the-board non-interventionism.

    My Conclusion: Most likely, either Nathan is not, as he claims, “a student of logic”, or his is a very poor student and/or has a very poor teacher.

    * Invalid premise, but accepting it arguendo for this purpose.

  • buddyp

    No, again (and if it would help you, I’d type more slowly), you claimed “?It was Romney who said we were in an undeclared war with China at that debate?.

    Turns out (as can be seen in the links I provided to the transcript) it was a moderator putting words in Romney’s mouth. Romney hadn’t used that term or anything like it. I show this to you, yet you can’t even admit your mistake, and you feel compelled to double down and pretend you weren’t wrong, plus persist in calling me a troll for some reason, because you are just very insecure. You really should grow up. Find the strength to overcome all that insecurity.

  • bzip

    I could be wrong but it is a well known given that the three main social conservatives (as far as Iowa is concerned): Bachmann, Santorum and Perry. It is also well known Bachmann has been hitting Perry very hard ever since he got in the race.

    There is a real dislike by Bachmann towards Perry she continues to hit Perry and spread lies about Perry – but Bachmann hasn’t been hitting Santorun at all. So to me that suggest many people, not all, will be looking at Santorum as opposed to Perry and Perry will pick up those that Santorum doesn’t get.

    The when Santorun drops out shortly after SC or before, Perry then picks up the all the anti-Romney votes and wins the nomination hands down :-) .

  • buddyp

    I don’t know if you really this consistently confuse things, or if you just pretend to continue confusing things because you feel compelled to put forth some pretense that you had a valid point from the start.

    You write:
    Your initial challenge to elayman was to challenge him to provide any evidence that Huntsman was close to the pure isolationist that Paul is.

    Complete mischaracterization of what I said. I said “make your case”. (“If you think Hunstman is the pure non-interventionist that Paul is, or even anything anywhere close to it, make your case.”)

    And you jump in with one example, and even that was a terrible example.

    I guess you can’t understand the difference between “making a case” that Huntsman is the PURE non-interventionsist that Paul is vs. providing even one legitimate example of the same type of non-interventionism by Huntsman.

    And if you can’t get that distinction, even after I’ve explained it to you know repeatedly, there’s probably not much you can get.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Speaking for myself, I think the reason I as a young woman look up to Perry is because he’s an example of Christian manhood. He loves the Lord, his wife, and his kids. He’s a manly-man, not afraid to dig in his heels and stand up for what’s right. I think women naturally admire that, though for some reason the culture hands us people like *gag* Edward Cullen and says, “Now HERE is a man.” Hogwash. I will take Rick Perry, who is ALMOST old enough to be my grandfather (though not quite) over these pale sickly-looking “men” who wouldn’t dream of killing a rabid coyote. Just sayin’.

  • tailfins1959

    Why don’t you mention that they had to be approved by the Governor’s Council, all elected Democrats. There’s lots to criticize Romney about without resorting to half-truths.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …did Mittens leave Massachusetts more conservative than he found it? No. The fact that he did not even choose mostly Massachusetts Republicans (who, like Scott Brown, would be fairly moderate anyway), but rather chose a strong majority of Massachusetts Democrats or left-leaning Massachusetts Independents, as acat has helpfully proven on more than one occasion previously. Did he leave the Republican party in better shape than he found it? No. Ergo, he was not a successful Republican governor of Massachusetts, which, mind you, is the only political race he has one in the last 20 years. Failed career politician = no one I want to vote for.

  • sunshinek67

    The media frenzy today is all about Romney and now Santorum. MSM is pushing (again) a false narrative that Rick Santorum is somehow a viable candidate that has organization outside of Iowa to do something with should he actually win or place well. President Huckabee? Santorum doesn’t have the enthusiasm on his own merit, and the msm is trying to create one. To help Mitt Romney. Byron York in the last 24 hours is all over Twitter with his predictions of Santorum surge extrapolating. JRub same predictions. And they are BOTH really supporting Mitt Romney, using Santorum as some sort of dark horse theory to thwart a Rick Perry comeback. Laughable.

    Perry’s Iowa results will be indicative of nothing. He is right to push on with his marathon mentality. Survival of the fittest. There will be more debates, more opportunities for Perry to get up under Mitt Romney’s skin; Romney, the gift that keeps on giving, his recent Obamacare has “conservative” elements and just yesterday telling Wolf Blitzer that he will vote for Ron Paul should he get the nomination [paraph. "He can be moved more to the right"], there is plenty pickins in phony “say anything” serial political loser Mitt Romney.

    Those candidates that lack organization outside of Iowa and have been polling 5% or less since time began should rethink their strategies. Splitting the social conservative vote is damning. And what Romney is banking his billions on.

  • romansdaughter

    I love that picture. Its obvious he adores his kids.

  • circlegranch

    so if you’re going, leave early.

    Pollsters can spin; but head counts don’t lie. Perry is absolutely packing the house wherever he goes.

    The Left media is gushing over Santorum and in the next breath, they ooze with excitement by saying a Santorum surge helps Romney. That’s what this is all about……making sure they get their hand-picked, most easy to defeat candidate to go against Barack Hussein Obama: Willard Mitt Romney.

    If you aren’t already, follow what’s going on in IA at the Des Moines Register and some other papers. At the caucus link you can click on your favorite candidate and get the day’s travel agenda, videos and snipets of comments—lots of info hard to find elsewhere. Vets are showing up in big numbers for Perry, basically ignoring Santorum and Bachmann. (Bachmann is hurt badly today by her staffer leaving to go w/ Paul) She and Huntsman should go out for pizza on caucus night.

    I posted it here earlier, but Obama draws 68% of Hispanic vote vs. Romney’s 23%. That’s a very disturbing poll (reported today on CNN and just now on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown). Perry is the one candidate that can relate and can garner the necessary percentage of that vote in order to win. A commenter here wrote today that non-Mitt supporters are crazy and stupid. What’s truly crazy and stupid is ignoring a huge voting block that the Republican candidate MUST work to get. Romney takes his lead from the Ann Coulter’s that think by spewing comments such as ‘loading them up’ and shipping them across the borders like cattle are somehow going to appeal to their sacred and coveted Independent voters that they are pandering so hard to win. Worked great for McCain, right?

  • tomshup

    Maybe not…..but yesterday he tried to convince everyone that the “indiviual mandate” for Romneycare was really a consrvative virtue.It may not be a lie to some, but it’s definitely not true. When the Federal Government says you must buy healthcare insurance, it ain’t a conservative virtue and is most l;ikely unconstitutional…..to be decided by the Supremes next Spring!

  • sunshinek67

    and jobs killer. So long as you keep coming in these RS rooms with the same mindless drool, your guy is coreless and unelectable, I’ll keep with my usual talking points.

  • expanding_man

    What is important about NH and Iowa isn’t the number of delegates awarded. If a candidate doesn’t win in either state, they lose momentum and are very quickly forgotten. A better way of looking at SC and Nevada is that the winner in those states is either the winner of NH or Iowa and almost never anyone else. Hence, if you don’t win either Iowa or NH you are done. I understand that there are many who are emotionally saying, “this time it’ll be different” because they want it to be so. In the words of Bill Clinton,”I feel their Pain.”

    I believe Perry must win Iowa if he wants to have any real shot at the nomination.

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    Apparently stands on principle are reserved for pointless procedural missteps that wipe out our polling advantage built up over months that many of us do not care about. Social conservatives are expected to get dragged along for candidates who do not reflect our beliefs.

    Can Santorum win? Probably not. But at least he’s never given a full throated defense of abortion rights, explained federal judges should be dragged before Congress by marshals or looked like he’d forgotten his name in a debate.

  • expanding_man

    Measuring the results in Iowa and NH, i.e. the winner, changes the outcome of the who will be the GOP’s nominee. Because of the attention paid to Iowa and NH and the “measuring” that goes on there, the primary results in those 2 states predict the national nominee. I’m not arguing that it’s a good system. In point of fact, I don’t think it is.

  • nepanyrush

    Santorum is a staunch conservative. He maintained his conservative credentials all through his 12 years in statewide office. He was elected in a solid blue state (1 million more democrats than republicans).

    Erik keeps wanting to emphasize that he could not win re-election. He won one re-election. The one he lost recently was against a popular son of a popular pro-life governor and the son also presented himself (falsely, it turns out) as pro-life. Santorum lost because he took on the third rail of social security, wanting to reform it in a state which has the second most seniors after Florida. He was demagoged unendingly about “ending social security” with a proposal (raise qualifying age by two years) that seems mild nowadays.

    Is Redstate so in the pocket of Perry that they are willing to try to destroy the credibility of the best conservative in the race. Did Redstate get upset because Santorum took on their sacred cow of Perry in the debates.

    Perry is a horrible, horrible candidate. He talks in fractured English with such poor grammar that he will never sell outside of his region. He cannot think on his feet and was an embarrassment in the debates. Santorum is much, much more intelligent and prepared than Perry and accomplished more than Perry.

    Why support an embarrassment like Perry, who doesn’t even have conservative creds in such issues as special benefits for illegal immigrants and guarasil, and who acts and talks like he is ignorant and throw under the bus the one person who could stand toe to toe with Obama and defeat him while representing true conservative credentials.

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    Not trying to give snark, I have great appreciation for the comments and posts you’ve put on this site over the years, but I would defend single issue voters.

    I myself endeavor to look at all the issues, but if someone wants to take a stand for say the unborn, or for others to say its really all about electability, or others fiscal responsibility, then there is some value in that. We have to have those single issue voters to maintain certain platforms as a litmus of conservatism.

    Bottom line, Santorum supporters are probably aware of his national prospects, and his history, but like him because he’s the one who reflects their beliefs and he’s done a much better job of retail politics than the others in Iowa.

    In the end, I fail to see how those who support Santorum now, who probably are the same folks who supported Huckabee last time, are doing anything wrong. The McCain candidate will not work any better this time than it did last time.

  • romansdaughter

    Very niiiiccceee indeed!

  • nepanyrush

    He is not a serious candidate. He is also well below Santorum in Iowa. As soon as the public got a look at him, he dropped like a stone. All Perry did with his poor debates and inability to speak and sometimes meanspiritedness is make Romney look presidential and Perry’s money and organization are only helping to split the conservative vote. The only true conservative who won statewide election (twice) in a deep blue state (PA has 1 million more dems than conservatives) and has the intellectual abilities to defeat Obama is Rick Santorum. Perry needs to get out of the race and conservatives coalesce around Santorum if we dont’ want the choice to be Romney or Obama.

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    I’m one who supported the Newt surge, right up until he started advocating for federal marshals to drag judges into custody and before the Congress, but he was dead wrong on Dede S. For goodness sake, look at the broader context of what the “moderate” strategy has wrought in the northeast. We lost basically every seat out there. All of them. Those few we have left are the first ones to undercut national support by giving a bipartisan glean to Obama & Pelosi’s ultraliberal legislation. The conservatives might even have won if Dede had not endorsed the Democrat. Look at Dede’s positions – she was already indistinguishable from a Democrat, and had she won, she would be a Democrat today.

    More importantly though, NY-23 sent a message to the NY GOP about what type of candidates they pick and how they pick them. NY went from a 28-2 Dem majority in 2008 to about 20-10 in 2010. I’m not sure that would’ve happened, even with the 2010 wave, without NY putting up some honest to goodness conservatives.

  • eldstenorge

    If we would all quit believing what those who are supposedly the conservative leaders tell us and vote for who we believe is with us, Rick Santorum would win hands down. He is a conservative’s conservative. Get his book and read it: “It Takes a Family,” where he takes on the left, Hillary Clinton and all they stand for in the destruction of our families. Erick Erickson and the other purportedly conservative leaders complain and yell about the liberal media and about the “Establishment” Republicans who are trying to pick our nominees for us, while Erickson and the other are doing the same thing to us. They think only they speak for us. Forget it. Quit attacking our own. Get on board with a true conservative and stand up against the kingmakers who believe all we should do is listen to them. Go Rick!

  • sunshinek67

    -nt-

  • superpatriot

    If Perry is such a horrible candidate, then why has’nt he ever lost an election???

  • acat

    Let’s assume, for a moment, that Santorum’s loss was a fluke.

    Let’s assume it was a combination of a Dem wave year, running against a NAME, and Bush Fatigue.

    None of that changes that Santorum lacks any discernible executive experience.

    None of that changes that Santorum lacks any discernible understanding of defense. Defending Bush is not nearly sufficient, the Commander in Chief must understand the purpose of the DoD, what motivates the men and women of the Armed Services and the Border Patrol, and ideally, should have worn the uniform.

    None of that changes that Santorum has no discernible fiscal conservative achievements. Has he lowered taxes? Voting for a bill doesn’t count – has he *sponsored* or *written* a bill? The Santorum-X Tax Reduction Act of … ?

    None of that changes that Santorum doesn’t appear to have any real grounding in foreign policy. Hell, at least Huntsman has been to Beijing.

    None of that changes that Santorum moved a sick child halfway across the country, away from friends, peers, and in violation of continuity of medical care, to use her as a prop.

    There’s something very wrong with Santorum.

    As for invective, you’ve never worked a blue collar job, have you? Grow a pair.

    Mew

  • sunshinek67

    Until you provide your own resume and iq score, realize that you sound like a blubbering idiot quantifying another man’s intelligence level.

  • acat

    Tell me what executive experience he has.

    Tell me when he’s worn the uniform of our country, or when he’s had a job that leads him to understand our soldiers and sailors and airmen.

    (hint: George W. Bush served dinner in Iraq – Barak Obama was served dinner in Iraq .. note the difference)

    Tell me where Santorum has any experience regarding border enforcement.

    Show me where Santorum has a bill that he *wrote* or *sponsored* that cut taxes. The Santorum Tax Relief Act of …

    If we compare Santorum to Reagan’s three legged stool, we get a golf tee.

    We can do better.

    Mew

  • jrfromdallas

    Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman, didn’t even bother trying to get on the VA ballot for Super Tuesday. This should show the Iowa voters that these candidates are not serious about winning the nomination. The fact that 10% of the delegates awarded on ST are going to go to their competitition should make every Iowa voter vote for either Perry, Romney, Paul, Gingrich since they at least have the ground game to compete in other states. I hope Perry wins his lawsuit against VA because the fact that the only two people that made it onto the ballot shows you that they probably used the signatures they got when they both ran in 2008. I think this is ridiculous and I hope Perry could pull one out here. Everyone pointed to Perry as the guy they wanted to run and now NO ONE is endorsing him because of a couple of debate gaffes and that pisses me off. Support the guy because of his record and because you would trust him to do the right thing.

  • acat

    Home Depot and Staples jobs are WalMart jobs under a different flag.

    Big box, low skill, low wage.

    They do not replace manufacturing jobs lost by shutting down manufacturing companies. Further, it doesn’t matter where Romney was sitting, Wall Street isn’t just a place, it’s a state of mind. Even the folks in Peoria know that.

    He’s the wrong candidate for this time. He should have made his case in 2006 and 2007 .. when he lost to McCain.

    Mew

  • ihateliberals

    Every candidate tht has run for the Presidency since Reagan left office has been at best a RINO and in most case’s like McCain, Dole, Bush and now all of the remaining potentials for the Republican nominee. There are no true conservatives left that are viable. Michele Bachman has officially had a dagger placed n her heart by the coward that jumped to a big loser, Ron Paul. The only worse choice for President would be Obama. It seems to me that the Liberals take over of the schools back in the 60′s is finally paying off for them. everyone of these youngsters coming out of college even if they claim to be conservative don’t really get it. They have never been taught about America and it’s greatness only that America is a bad place. They are taught the it is the governments place to take care of us and that they should receive healthcare and college tuition and wherever else they should need. They tend to learn whether intentional or not that to work for something and earn it is unfair since they need these things. Right now with the front runners of the GOP the winner of the next 2012 election isn’t going to make much difference. People say “Oh anyone is better thn Obama”. If they really believe that then they really don’t have a clue.

  • snowshooze

    Michelle isn’t happy.

  • snowshooze

    So I am uncertain he would have an interest.

  • snowshooze

    I think they are incorrect in thinking he is not viable.
    I do think he is a very good choice though.

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

    idiot.

    Give your mommy her laptop back.

  • texasref

    His non-interventionism is good if it doesn’t have anything to do with our national security. However, if there is a direct link between foreign aggression and the security of our country, then I would expect Paul would see that as his duty to intervene.

    If Paul were to fail in that expectation, with the security of our country directly at stake, I have confidence the Congress would declare war successfully over Paul’s veto, and that Paul would faithfully execute the war in that event on pain of impeachment and conviction.

    According to the Constitution, Congress leads the way in matters of war, not the President. In matters of foreign policy, the Senate has treaty power. Your word “non-interventionism” has as its root word “intervene,” which is a broad word encompassing both peaceful foreign policies and war.

    There is much to dislike about Paul’s absolutism in some of these respects, just as there is much to dislike about all of our candidates. However, anyone who prefers the re-election of Obama over the election of one of our Republican candidates is a RiNO. I can’t stand Romney, yet you don’t see me claiming Obama > Romney, because one comparison of their ideologies demonstrates the absurdity of such a claim. The same is true of Paul, Gingrich, or any of the other also-rans.

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

    are fools. They, and the structure of the caucuses are foisting an unelectable jerk to the top of the heap, he’ll have his 15 minutes of fame, they’ll “feel good” and they’ll ignore a candidate with a real record of conservative accomplishment and a pro-life record every bit as solid as Santorum’s without the baggage that sunk Santorum in PA (check out the $$ he took from the state for his kids schooling).

    And this time around Romney is the McCain candidate.

  • adair

    that he appeals to Democrats because of his legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage and so on. He would then take votes from The One … votes of those with buyer’s remorse who can’t vote R, but who might vote L.

    Of course, that presupposes that another Libertarian doesn’t march into their convention, as Barr did last time, and took it away from all those running who had support, but not enough professional election smarts to hold on and win the nomination.

    Someone on TV posited that there might be a 3rd party candidate this time who would take enough votes from the other two to put us in another 2000 dilemma: The ultimate winner of the popular vote would not win the Electoral College 270.

    I can’t imagine Gary Johnson polling 19% as Perot did; but it does conjure up an interesting possibility.

  • adair

    that running as a Libertarian, his wanting to legalize drugs and same-sex marriage will pull enough Democrat voters away from The One to make a sizable difference.

    Of course, his being the Lib candidate supposes that he can go to their convention, as Bob Barr did last time, and tromp on the real, long-time Libs who probably were more “entitled” to the nomination.
    Barr just out-politicked them.

    Someone on TV posited that a 3rd party candidate could take enough votes from either (or both) of the Reps & Dems to throw the election into another 2000 quandary: Once again the winner of the popular vote would not be the winner of the Electoral College count.

    I can’t imagine Johnson, without the name recognition and following of Perot, could pull 19%. As a Libertarian he would, of course, provide a safe haven for the disaffected Dems with buyer’s remorse. And for the Reps who are vowing not to vote for Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Roemer or Huntsman.

  • adair

    that running as a Libertarian, his wanting to legalize drugs and same-sex marriage will pull enough Democrat voters away from The One to make a sizable difference.

    Of course, his being the Lib candidate supposes that he can go to their convention, as Bob Barr did last time, and tromp on the real, long-time Libs who probably were more “entitled” to the nomination.
    Barr just out-politicked them.

    Someone on TV posited that a 3rd party candidate could take enough votes from either (or both) of the Reps & Dems to throw the election into another 2000 quandary: Once again the winner of the popular vote would not be the winner of the Electoral College count.

    I can’t imagine Johnson, without the name recognition and following of Perot, could pull 19%. As a Libertarian he would, of course, provide a safe haven for the disaffected Dems with buyer’s remorse. And for the Reps who are vowing not to vote for Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Roemer or Huntsman.

  • adair

    say they think I have posted a comment before, when it’s the first time I post it? So I go back and check and it isn’t posted. So I re-write it. Then it gets posted twice. Three times in this case.

    Do you have a time limit for typing these things? I like to check spelling and punctuation and stuff. Sometimes I re-word something. Do you want only off-the-top-of-the-head comments, with a sprinkling of incorrect apostrophes?

  • Tbone

    By definition.

  • snowshooze

    Happens all the time. Plus slow loading and double posting.
    Don’t attempt to edit after you launch. It won’t happen.
    It could probably be fixed if we weren’t so cheap.
    Kinda like this black and green screen though..
    It works.

  • snowshooze

    I am just aghast.
    It was you who taught me to share pages here…right?
    Lol.

  • gekster

    I just hit the ‘back’ button on the top left, and my comment is posted.
    I don’t know if ithat will work for anyone else.

  • texasref

    I don’t question the man’s love and concern for his child.

  • acat

    as a low blow. Remember, Obama got his Senate seat in part by getting a sealed divorce case – involving children – unsealed.

    This will be used against Santorum in the general if he’s the nominee, mark my words.

    Mew

  • texasref

    Power at any cost, meet power at any cost.

  • trickamsterdam

    mostly addressing something specific: That is, the difference between endorsing someone in the primary and the general.

    I believe it was only when he lost the primary, that Hoffman ran in the general (I could have that wrong, but I don’t think so…and frankly I’m not going to look it up, too long ago).

    I was a Newt guy too. I’ve lost faith because I just don’t think he’s organized enough to beat Obama (after the VA primary fiasco).

    I hate the Judicial Branch so much, I don’t care who gets arrested (especially since that plan wouldn’t get passed anyway, and would just be a shot across that Branch’s bow).

    This was one of the more well thought-out and interesting responses, to one of my posts, though. Thank you. So, w/out sarcasm, Happy New Year.

  • Paul Fallavollita

    People who are single-issue voters on the question of foreign aid to Israel and such might have a hard time making a Bachmann to Paul conversion, since Bachmann is known for her commitment to Israel. And maybe some pro-life and pro-marriage voters might have an issue as well if they’re gung-ho about a constitutional amendment to settle those questions rather than leaving it up to the states.

  • Paul Fallavollita

    The parameters of the playing field keep being adjusted leftward. Most of today’s “conservatives” are really just the defenders of an older liberalism (say of the New Deal/Cold War era) against a newer, even crazier version of political correctness that emerged out of the culture wars in the 90s. That’s why you find a lot of “conservative” politicians favorably quoting Martin Luther King Jr. and such today, whereas a few decades ago only the liberals would have done so. The last conservative senator that was a critic of MLK was Jesse Helms from North Carolina in the 1980s. Of course, MLK’s FBI file is sealed until the year 2070 since it’s filled with information about his connections to the KGB (who funded him to promote division in the U.S.).

  • runner12

    is accurate. I am very disappointed in the Iowa voters. Conservatism is a three-legged stool for me, consisting of social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and limited government.

    I critique those who are missing the social conservatism portion as not being a true conservative. If I am an honest and thoughtful person then should not I also critique those who are missing the fiscal conservative portion as well? The answer is a resounding yes. Santorum, while strong on social issues, is woefully weak on fiscal issues and did not take steps to shrink the government while he was in office. This is why he is a non-starter for me in the primaries. Added to that, he cannot win the nomination.

    Wake up Iowans! Vote for someone who has all three legs of the conservative stool!

  • pj2012

    If perry does well coming out of Iowa… I think Steve can really help boost Perry’s numbers in NH.

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    I don’t disagree with you about Romney being the McCain of 2012. But you seem to suggest that Santorum is bleeding Perry. I’m sorry, but there I disagree with you – Santorum is polling well because he has more extensively engaged the people of Iowa, and he has done so more extensively than Perry.

    Maybe he gets a brief national bump in the polls, strings along for a few months, and takes some delegates to the convention, but I don’t see him as much worse than Perry. Santorum’s value is in just doing what a lot of 3rd tier candidates do – make a stand on a litmus issue to keep the frontrunners honest.

    Perry’s basic problem is he comes across as dumber than a box of rocks. I’ll vote for him in a heartbeat over Obama, but I am extremely conservative and would vote for Mickey Mouse before Obama. I don’t think I could bear to watch him in a debate with Obama, on Sunday talks shows, etc. Like Palin, he invents new words, has a basic problem with grammar, and comes out with things like “The American people are untrustworthy of…” I’m sorry, but an American President does not say things like “The American people are not trustworthy” even if he meant to say “The American people are not trusting of…” These blips are so frequent, its like constant turbulence to be on his bandwagon. Over the course of a campaign where every misstep is magnified, he has zero chance of beating Obama.

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

    Nowhere did I, or have I, suggested or implied that Santorum is bleeding Perry. Perry has his own set of problems and I didn’t, and haven’t addressed them.

    With respect to Santorum, and frankly I have very little of that, he’s the consumate lightweight. He’s got a political career that looks a whole like Obama’s. I will give him credit for not voting “Present”, but he certainly followed the party line and has never exhibited one whit of leadership in his life. That’s OK for a Senator or Representative, it absolutely not OK for a President.

    What I was talking about specifically was the construct of the caucuses and the proven fact that they can be gamed, and gamed easily. Along the way you certainly can feel free – and rightly so – to find the implication that Rick Santorum has no business running for President. He doesn’t.

    With respect to the caucuses, very few people show up so if you have a dedicated group of one issue zealots – and the idiot SIVV in Iowa who propelled Mike Huckabee’s candidacy qualify – or a very well organized group of people who are basically anarchists – Ron Paul’s fools – who are decidedly NOT Republicans combined with a system that lets people register on caucus night, you’ve got a recipe for disaster. It’s not legally voter fraud, but it’s certainly a design that encourages outcomes that don’t represent a broader slice of voters.

    The group that is driving Santorum, Single Issue Values Voters, are actually dumb enough to think a President is going to be able to do much to stop abortion. They don’t understand the issue and they certainly don’t understand the law. There are a very limited number of things a President can do, the most important of those being appointment of SCOTUS Justices and any of the candidates (Ron Paul not included) would nominate judges who are significantly more conservative than the current resident of the White House. The limits of Presidential power in this area is absolutely ignored by these fools, to the extent that Huckabee was proclaiming that he would push for a “Human Life Amendment”. No one bothered to bring up the fact that there is little a President can do to get an amendment passed (see Jimmy Carter and the ERA) and Huckabee never bothered to define which version of the seven versions of the HLA he supported, most of which do absolutely nothing to stop abortion, they simply refer the matter to the states.

    To summarize, yeah I’ve got a problem with Santorum. But heck, I’ve got problems with all of the candidates. If I was running I’d have problems with me. The candidates aren’t my issue in this discussion, they’re just tools to make a point about the caucuses and what a crappy method they are for choosing a potential Presidential candidate. The caucus makes me yearn for the good old days of smoke filled back rooms.

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

    that are at fault if we tea partier cons don’t get the nominee we want. But

    more later this year or next…

  • acat

    that if the SoCons go for Santorum, it will damage everyone-but-Romney….

    At this point, my hope is that the polling in Iowa is failing to account for excitement…

    Mew

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

    the poor performances of more reliable and viable conservatives is their fault and not voters who don’t want to waste a vote; and c) Iowa’s social conservatives are more uniquely Iowan than they are the more orthodox so-cons in the South that are usually three-legged stool so-cons on defense and fiscal matters.

    Further, isn’t the real problem a structural one based on the fact that these two weird states, Iowa and NH go first and that campaign finance laws and the media anal exam discourages more and better Reaganite cons to run in the first place.

    Moreover, the whole polling idea of pigeon-holing social conservatives is quite vague at best.

    I am on guard against unjustified smears against social cons and all kinds of cons. Too easy and flip.

  • carolynr

    nt….so much for this evangelical stuff…sell your soul to the devil for the almighty buck…which is no good for anything but their wallet at our expense.

  • cheetah2

    That is most likely what he would say about his beliefs. I was born into the Catholic Church and baptized as a baby. As I grew up I did all the works one does to try to earn heaven- plus I was educated in Catholic schools all the way through high school.

    It was not until I reached the age of 31 that I became a born again Christian. I realized 3 things about myself: I am a sinner, there is a price to pay for my sins (the wages of sin is death) and I can never do enough good to pay for my sins. (the Bible says our righteousness is like filthy rags to God) Thankfully the same Bible verse that tells me “the wages of sin is death” also says “but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Jesus shed his blood, took on the sins of the world, died for them, and rose from the dead after 3 days. This action of his was sufficient to pay the price for all our sins. The Bible also tells me that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” I did that- I called on Jesus to save me because I knew I could not save myself, and that salvation is a free gift from God and all I needed do was turn from my sin to Jesus and I could have that gift.

    What I did not ever hear Rick Santorum say is that he had a time in his life when he did what I described above. It doesn’t matter what we call it but to be saved we need to do what the Bible says to do. It is not a process we go through but a one time event in our life, just like being born physically is a one time event.

    My main reason for not supporting Rick Santorum is that he lacks executive experience. No one running is anywhere near as qualified as Rick Perry is in that respect. I am hoping and praying the people of Iowa realize that next week. We desperately need the hand of experience at the helm after what Obama has put us through the last 3 years.

  • 1bunny

    his repulsive backing of using embryos for research. As such a “staunch” pro-lifer he once again compromises his beliefs. Honestly I don’t think their is anything this man won’t do for political/monetary gain.

    (timeline – when he was up against Casey) U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) yesterday called for federal funding of research that would involve creating an altered human embryo [kind of like a baby Frankenstein]- one that could yield precious stem cells but not implant in a uterus.

    read it for yourself:
    http://againstallheresies.blogspot.com/2006/05/rick-santorum-sanitizes-stem-cells.html

    I’m sorry but if you are prolife and all life is precious what is the deal with doing this to embryos?

  • cheetah2

    The only stem cell research that has actually led to real usable treatments is adult stem cell research. It holds great promise, and all the money and effort ought to be going in that direction.

    Embryonic stem cell research is just Brave New World stuff. The idea of purposely creating a defective embryonic human being to experiment with is revolting. It makes me sad that Rick Santorum would get sucked into supporting this.

  • acat

    Plug “acat goodhart law site:redstate.com” into Google (or, if you’re Neil, Bing) and see what I’ve had to say on the subject.

    Somewhat less on D-2; I’m not sure these “better Reaganite cons” exist; having been through this cycle several times, I keep hearing about them, but .. they’re rather like the alleged Yeti or D.B. Cooper… always a step or three ahead of the party.

    I am aware that you’ve got a .. tender spot .. where accusations of social conservatives behaving badly come in, but .. if the impact of Iowa is in fact underrated (as you just said and as I agree…) then the impact of social conservatives backing Santorum is, as I suspect, going to decimate the anti-Romney field .. leaving Willard.

    This does not fill me with joy, GC.

    Mew

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

    Isn’t Jimmy Carter the only real example where Iowa made a major difference?

  • thirstyboots

    than Bush, the GOP and most of Red State heros. Especially Hagel, whose voting record on fiscal issues and entitlements is stellar.

    In fact, they are disliked by part of the conservative base – especially the talk-radio crowd – partially because their opposition to the Bush socialist policies and especially to Donald “The Incompetent” Rumsfeld.

  • acat

    (Cheshire grin)

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

    suspect that his behavior would have also turned off any state that was first. Not aware that Iowa was significant in JFK’s 1960 run for the nomination but will look into that.

  • joshdunn

    Right now, it looks like Romney has the excitement of the plurality of Republicans in Iowa, while Ron Paul is hoping to benefit from Democrat (and far left) cross-over voters.

    If Romney wins Iowa decisively, he will probably sweep the first five states. Ron Paul is a bad actor who needs to retire.

  • SoFiMil

    This is a Republican/Democrat Party and state(s) issue. I agree with the rotation proposal, but only if it’s voluntary — and that’s not going to happen.

  • SoFiMil

    .

  • acat

    Government intervention is not needed.

    Iowa going first and New Hampshire second is voluntary .. and will change voluntarily once the cost to the status quo gets high enough to warrant it.

    Mew

  • unitedwestood

    bzip…. I’ve said this before.. and I’ll say it again — THANK YOU ! THANK YOU ! THANK YOU! Some day’s watching this election I think I need oxygen… then you come up with a post and bam! I feel so much better. Just about the time I think that I need to book those LONG vacation tickets to Costa Rica for the next 4 years, you give me hope LOL. I do not recall any other election that has brought out the absolute worst in me, other then this one….. Well, that and my ultra liberal sister-in-law coming to spend the next few day’s with us ( mixed emotions) Here is a big THANK YOU again from me to you!

  • unitedwestood

    bzip…. I’ve said this before.. and I’ll say it again — THANK YOU ! THANK YOU ! THANK YOU! Some day’s watching this election I think I need oxygen… then you come up with a post and bam! I feel so much better. Just about the time I think that I need to book those LONG vacation tickets to Costa Rica for the next 4 years, you give me hope LOL. I do not recall any other election that has brought out the absolute worst in me, other then this one….. Well, that and my ultra liberal sister-in-law coming to spend the next few day’s with us ( mixed emotions) Here is a big THANK YOU again from me to you!

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    I clearly noted that you “seemed to suggest” Santorum was bleeding Perry. Now, you might have meant one or more other candidates, but given your own choice not to specify beyond the criteria of (1) a candidate as strongly Pro-Life as Santorum and (2) a real record of conservative accomplishment. To my mind, there’s no way Romney (once pro-choice) Gingrich (failed to advance Pro-Life initiatives while Speaker), Paul (would allow pro-abortion laws on a state by state basis) or even Huntsman (more moderate than Santorum) meet criteria one, and there’s no way Bachmann (too junior, no major successful legislative initiatives she spearheaded) meets criteria 2. Why should they vote for one of these guys in a primary??

    So to me, as I said before, that “seemed to suggest” Perry. Its perfectly fair to correct my misperception, but you left it open-ended to begin with, and the issue is not my reading comprehension.

    This thread was about Iowa SoCons getting blamed for supporting a life candidate. You said they were idiots for doing so. My point is they have an important function in doing that, and I don’t blame them for it. It makes a statement to the field and to the country about the importance of an issue that too many, on both sides of the aisle, are trying to push onto the backburner.

    We should be damn grateful these voters do place such a premium on life. If they didn’t, a fair swath of them, (who as Erick noted are not fiscally conservative), would be voting Obama.

  • buddyp

    You’ve GOT to be kidding. And I think you are a Paulbot trying to hide it.

    You write:
    His non-interventionism is good if it doesn?t have anything to do with our national security.

    Huh? That dodge is perhaps the most absurd statement uttered by anyone in all of 2011. Sure, just assume away the problem, like saying there’s nothing wrong with jumping out a high window of a building as long as it doesn’t have anything to do with landing on the ground below.

    And then you try to play the RINO label to try to intimidate people into accepting Paul as a legitimate Republican nominee and one we should be willing to support if he were the nominee (which he won’t be, but if you’re a Paulbot you probably don’t realize that).

    Do you have anything negative at all to say about Paul? Do you really see no problem with Paul’s non-interventionism? Do you not consider it dangerous, if, hypothetically, he were president? You probably will continue avoiding giving a clear answer, because you don’t want to admit you like his non-interventionism and you love Paul.