« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Principle as Political Liability

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 21st, 2012 at 04:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

What a weird campaign season we are having. Let me present you a truth that some of you may bristle under, but is true nonetheless.

No matter how right the cause or principle, it may still be a political liability.

I’ll start with the one you’ll agree with it. Barack Obama and many on the left may believe that abortion . . . er . . . um . . . “women’s health except for mammograms, pap smears, and the like — contraception only —” is a fundamental right necessitating the Catholic Church foregoing its own tenets and forced to give out free birth control pills and abortifacient drugs, but those who agree are deluding themselves that it will not also be a political liability.

Let’s try another one. Barack Obama and the Democrats may believe that socializing healthcare in this country is the right and proper thing to do, but it has also been proven to be a political liability.

How about this one: God bless Mitt Romney for being a capitalist’s capitalist making millions on Wall Street, but it will be a huge political liability in November.

Oh, one more. Come on! Rick Santorum may be absolutely right on the principles of morality and social decay in this country, but it will be a political liability with independent voters.

The funny thing is that many of you on the left who read the first two were shaking your heads in absolute disagreement and then agreeing with the latter two. Those of you on the right had the opposite reaction.

Partisans typically do. It is for level headed strategists, consultants, and pundits to try their best to overcome their partisan world views and accept reality. Some things you and I may love about a candidate may actually be real political liabilities for that candidate in a general election.

In prior years it seems a candidate would try his best to minimize the political liabilities of his principles or offset those liabilities with some real political assets. For some crazy reason this year, it seems the President and his Republican rivals are hell bent on attaching spotlights and banners to their political liabilities and running with them in a “rally the base” campaign that’s doing nothing but burning bridges on all sides.

If Republicans are to win in November, it is incumbent on both the base and the die hard supporters of each of the candidates to recognize that some principles are worth fighting for, but some of them cannot be fought for if they become political liabilities denying that candidate the White House. In that regard, if Rick Santorum really believes we’re going to hell in a hand basket, perhaps he should campaign on fixing the place instead of pontificating on theological matters and mangling Edmund Burke.

Likewise, perhaps MItt Romney has gone overboard in the opposite direction. If principles can be political liabilities, he seems to have calculated that he should run his campaign on having no principles to minimize the liabilities.

Unfortunately, just as there really is no such thing as an atheist, there is no such thing as a man without principles. The lack thereof is a principle in itself, just as the rejection of God becomes a replacement for the Almighty.

We really are a party on the verge of suicide against an imminently beatable President. The beltway Republicans are finally starting to realize it, but I fear it may be too late. And far be it for me to point it out, but I see no reason the base of the Republican Party should trust the judgment or candidate alternatives of any person who has peddled Mitt Romney for half a decade.

The ship, my friends, is sinking. It can be saved. But not if we don’t first realize the reality we are in, instead of the one we want.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    Santorum and Romney are running in opposite directions, and both are running away from victory in November.

    I agree largely with Santorum on social issues, but this is NOT going to be an election won on social issues. True social conservatives understand that Santorum is a true warrior in the culture wars, and that should largely be enough. Yes, Santorum should continue to speak out about issues, but that should not be his primary sale to the American voter.

    Romney…well, is Romney. He is miquetoast. He refuses to take bold stands on anything. I don’t know how to help Romney, short of rebooting his entire campaign. A truly revolutionary economic plan would be step #1. I just don’t see it happening though.

    The GOP, establishment and non-establishment alike, better wake up, sooner than later, otherwise President Barry Obama will be winning a second term.

  • danandsis

    Lack of principal, a principle in itself? What a load of intellectual claptrap!

  • davesinsanantonio

    That means we follow correct principles, but don’t let the bad guys win.

    Both parts of that equation are equally important. Following principles blindly, thus causing the bad guys an advantage is not wise in any fashion.

    What this campaign needs is focus. FOCUS! FOCUS! FOCUS!

    Win the election. First, and foremost, WIN THE ELECTION!

    Being right, but losing this election, is neither wise nor harmless.

  • greenpoint

    The only answer from where things are now is an open convention. None of the current crop can win and by now everybody knows it.

  • APA Guy

    Given the problems facing the nation, I find it impossible to believe that voters would vote against him simply because of his personal life. He has solved the very problems that plague the nation…budgets, gas prices…and he has welfare reform under his belt at a time when we need massive entitlement reform.

    Right man….right time…let’s choose him before it’s too late.

  • 6t9boss

    What is happening is the Karl Rove RINO’s that stabbed Conservatives in the back in 2010 are not just accepting a limp wristed moderate with a
    ” R ” by their name, those days are over.
    If any ship is sinking it is the thought the Establishment GOP had they could split conservatives and shove a moderate down our thorats…..WRONG!!!
    Acceptance (which Karl Rove is against) of the voice coming from the base and LISTENING to us will serve the GOP better than trying to fight us.
    Serviing up a warmed over version of McCain with all the liberal creditals and liabilies are a winner for a Democrate victory.
    Jeb Bush, Daniels and whoever else the Establishment GOP try to shove down our throat will only further divide the party and doom the election to Obama.
    Only a Strong, CONTRASTING, conservative message to combat the LIBERAL message of Obama will win the day.
    What you are seeing is a group of people tired of voting for Democrates with an “R” and watching things continue down the slope. They are to the point that if they can’t get a candidate who WANTS real change then let the Democrates take full credit for the destruction. And there is not much love lost when your OWN party stabbs you in the back!
    You say Principles can be a liabilty…..well my grandmother had a saying “If your Name is no good , then You are no good” and principles make up who we are…I cannot set that asside for the letter ” R ” anymore not after the way we have been treated.

  • trutexan

    otherwise you’re seen as a flip-flopper. With today’s PC climate, you just can’t win. How can you be a social conservative and not alienate the GLBT community? Not possible. How can you be a capitalist and win over those who feel down-trodden? Not possible. The media-mantra just won’t allow someone to openly consider anything without being made to feel like a hypocrite from some former statement or action that happened in the past. In the media, it’s black and white or nothing. They are divisive as this president.

    Oh and on the Politico story about a Santorum camper saying, “Obama’s radical Islamic policies” vs. “Obama’s radical environmental policies”. What I found interesting is that Andrea Mitchell didn’t even bat an eye on the mis-speak. Is she off her game in her old age or did she secretly accept the Freudian slip?

  • http://www.firstchevalier.com Mark Malcolm

    on principle (pun intended). Principles (and standing by them) are what separate us from the Liberals and Establishment Republicans. We tried it their way in 2010 and that got us BHO. Now lets try it our way.

    Frankly, I’m surprise this line is coming from you given how establishment it sounds. I have not made up my mind on whom I’m voting for yet other than NOT the one BHO, the Media, and Establishment Republicans want: Romney. Nor can I agree to destroy this country’s security through Ron Paul. My candidate of choice decided not to run (Palin) so I am left to choose between Gingrich and Santorum. Right now I’m in Santorum’s camp but I’m listening ahead of the GA primary two weeks away.

  • paco12348

    I fully agree APA Guy. Newt, with all his warts is best for the job. He scares the diddly waddle out of both Parties because he will mess up their playhouse. I’ve been angry with the GOP for treating us like stupid idiots, to dumb to know who to vote for, so they pushed Romney and absolutely killed Newt. So who is the dumbest? I say the GOP. They don’t trust the people. Newt speaks to all the issues and isn’t get caught up in the Social controversy the say Santorum is and as much as I admire Santorum for standing on principle I know it will knock him down. That shows how much cool ade the American people have drunk. Let’s hope 3/4th of the Americans have not swallowed the bite of apple Obama handed them from the tree.

  • baracksolyndraobama

    So the Dem-dominated Obama-bump network’s Dem-dominated panel will convene again tonight with E “invested-in-defeat” E as one of its heartily welcomed panelists.

    Such buds, strange bedfellows, that at what point do RedState readers begin to question Erickson’s motivations?

    His career has improved with each defeatist stance.

    Don’t forget the fist bump secret handshake tonight, Erick.

  • michaelbowler

    This same false argument was made about Reagan, you know it, I know it, the press knows it. It got him shut out by the GOP leadership in 1976…it got him elected in 1980.

    Never run from your principles, NEVER RUN from what you know is right.

    It just makes you a traitor to yourself and those who rely on you.

    Good people gravitate to persons that act in a principled manner, scary as that may seem to the political class.

  • radicalrighty

    Newt had his day in the sun with the Contract in ’94. Since then he has chased the almighty dollar – no worse – he has chased the taxpayers’ dollar, and done a great job securing it.

    Many will forgive Newt’s womanizing – though most women won’t – but when the Dems put out Newts laundry list of how he got rich, and what goodies he got his clients, there will be hell to pay.

  • renl57

    You left out that one point.

    Reagan didn’t announce that as President he was going to lecture American women about the dangers of birth control or amniocentesis as Santorum has promised to do.

    Reagan promised again and again that Social Security and Medicare would be preserved and reformed (a promise he kept as President).

    Reagan didn’t go out of his way to pick fights with reporters and journalists. He didn’t come off as angry and combative the way Gingrich does.

    By today’s standards of the GOP base, Reagan would be a “milquetoast” for his steadfast refusal to get mad or moralizing.

  • papabear

    I read Erick’s point as: when you will do anything to be elected, your only principle is might makes right (winning at all costs, etc.).

    If your a empty mittens carrier, ignore this post – there is no point in communication with someone that does not recognize Romney’s fundamental problem.

  • APA Guy

    …and hold Newt’s personal life as a more important virtue when they vote. After all, Newt’s marriages cost them far more money than Obama’s deficits and refusal to drill and approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

    What color is the sky in your world…code pink?

  • APA Guy

    …and even in Dem hands, congress was far easier to work with back then. This congress is impotent. It may take Newt’s fire and brimestone to get results given the general state of malaise that exists within the current batch of policy makers.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    The anti-religious bigots are showing up in force these days, manufacturing scary stories to frighten us away from those awful, evil Catholics!

    The people who are moralizing are the press clowns who keep asking questions like this of Santorum — and you. You’re part of it. Knock it the hell off.

    Whoever the candidate is, the Democrats are going to do their best to destroy his or her reputation. It’s what Democrats do. The nice thing about Rick Santorum is that the Democrats are going to have to demonize him by pointing out what an upright man he is. That’s better than, say, Gingrich, where they would be pointing out what an unreliable man he is, or Romney, where they would be pointing out what a good Democrat he is. Or Ron Paul, where they would correctly be pointing out what a loon he is.

    Whichever it is, we win by making the conversation about Obama’s job-killing, debt-ballooning incompetence.

    If Santorum gets the nomination, you need to swallow your anti-religious hatred and keep your mouth shut. Any Republican can win this, if you just refrain from helping the enemy.

  • mikefromny

    Reagan also raised the debt ceiling 18 times, implemented the largest peacetime tax raise, negotiated with Gorbachev, and offered amnesty for illegals in 1986.

    Compare this to Obama who has extended the Bush tax cuts, refused to negotiate with Iran, and has proposed cuts to Medicare (although no where as large as the Ryan plan, for sure).

    And that’s why us on the left call Obama center-right.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    Despite his infamous “social truce” comment, he is a solid three leg conservative.

    Very, very solid on social issues and one of the first to take the fight to Planned Parenthood.

    Rubio would be best, but I would take Daniels or Bush over any of these nuts.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    I am left figuring that since none of these guys seem like a winner, I will do two things:

    1) Pray .. a lot.

    2) Vote in Georgia for whoever I think will extend their campaign (probably Gingrich or Romney) and help us get to a divided convention.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    I think this is the ticket that wins if we can talk the Paul-bots who really do pull in a lot of former Obama voters who are disappointed at the fiscal state of things.

  • deuke

    ….takes courage and conviction. This election is about the line, and who will cross it, and who won’t. The candidate that stands firm and says, ‘Here and no further…’ will be the candidate that resonates most with voters.

    Citizens are quite tired of the game; the game where compromise is the focus rather than the liability. Haven’t we seen enough lack of principle? I don’t know how many times I have heard, ‘This is how you play the game…’ or ‘It’s just the way it’s done…’ or ‘Win the election at all costs…’ or ‘Principle is for partisans.’

    I’m sorry Erick, but you’re wrong. This election will not be won by those that are expert at subterfuge or compromise. This election will be won by the choice citizens make about which candidate embraces morality, principles, and righteousness, versus the candidate willing to compromise principle.

  • jude44

    The republicans have a messaging problem.

    The majority of Americans are unware that coming next year we are paying for all women and girls birth control, abortifacients, and sterilizations per the horrible hellcare bill shoved down our throats. This has been confirmed with Senator Gillibrat’s office.

    Democraps are pushing the poll number that 98% of Catholic women use birth control (which is irrelevant to the argument about relgious freedom).

    Well, if 98% are already using it then why stick a finger in the eye of the Catholic church for another 2% who probably are beyond childbearing years?

    This is an issue of government telling us what to think, believe, and pay for.

    If Republicans every day put on the air a fact such as this (free birth control for a PERSONAL CHOICE) with a cost next to it, then, just maybe those still in a trance might have a wake up call.

    I truly do not think people realize what they are paying for and have been duped by CATHOLIC democrap women legislators to think it is about the Catholic church telling women you can’t have birth control.

    It’s a messaging problem.

  • stumpy

    arbitrator of the primary process than Fox or the other socialist networks. I hadn’t watched CNN more than just in passing in several years. However, I quickly grew sick of the Romney love fest/tear down any surging non-Romney attitude at Fox. I have been watching CNN for most of the primary coverage while still tuning in to Fox News Sunday and Huckabee.

    I am under no allusions however, that CNN will be a fair arbitrator of the general election. All you have to do as look at their cast of Democrat commentators to see this coming. They are only mostly unbiased in the primary, because the bulk of their personnel have no vested interest in a certain outcome. This will change come November. I will however say that CNN has been and should continue to be much less partisan than any of the other news networks, save Fox. Fox leans establishment Republican. To deny such is to deny reality. I understand this and will watch in the fall anyway. It is good however to suppliment this feed with CNN who leans slight left.

    As to EE, CNN needs someone from the right. If everyone refused to work for them, how left would they slant? Imagine Fox without Juan Williams. Obviously EE is partial to his employer. This is no knock on EE, merely a statement of fact. Most of us are partial to our personal relationships also. We have to understand that everything has bias. Even the best nonpartisan has personal and political bias. We must understand this and keep it in mind, whether our source is Fox, CNN, Redstate or whatever other source.

  • johninflorida

    … the only way to get elected is to believe in nothing and lie about everything. Ok, I got it now …

    Hmmmm … No, I think not!

    We all stumble and make mistakes but some admit their mistakes and try to do better “next time”. Some actually have core beliefs that they won’t put aside but will fight for.

    The “concept” of the United States and the principles it was founded upon are some of the things we must fight for. The nature of man is fallible and the principles outlined in the Declaration and Constitution are often overlooked, put aside or bastardized by the individual weakness of man, but the principles remain. There are a few politicians who stray but realize their error and return to the principles and try again to get it right. These few are the ones we must shore up and support because warts and all they are the ones who, as they pick themselves up and dust themselves off, turn back to the concepts written down by the founders.

    baggage? yup!
    problems? yup!
    mistakes? yup!
    core beliefs that we can agree with? a “yup” for that too … and so we have to wade thru all the crap that’s thrown out there to confuse us. We have to grab on to the one who can differentiate him/herself from the disaster who currently holds the office and fight for the principles that make the USA different from all the rest.

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

    The ship is NOT sinking. Its February. I think most indies have no problem with Mitt having made millions and agree with Santorum that the country has a moral problem. They certainly agree that government should not be taking over health care and running the private health care industry out of business with mandates for coverages and understand that no coverage is “free”.

    We won’t know what worked and what didn’t until after the election and probably not even then given how the “level-headed” pundits always seem to blame some media generated debate or other moment excuse for why the liberals lose. Its never the conventional wisdom that liberalism loses even though that is why Carter, Mondale, Dukakis et al lost.

    more later

  • radicalrighty

    I will enthusiastically support whomever wins the nomination – including Newt – but I get amused by the blinders some wear, regarding him.

    Newt, was hardly the second coming of Reagan. In fact, Newt said this about the Gipper:

    “Ronald Reagan?s ?weakness,? Gingrich told the National Academy of Public Administration in Atlanta, was that ?he didn?t think government mattered. .?.?. The Reagan failure was to grossly undervalue the centrality of government as the organizing mechanism for reinforcing societal behavior.?

    Sound like your “right man?”

    I am a true CONSERVATIVE, not a convenient one, and you can shove your “code pink” remark.

  • WY_Cowboy

    and not one solution offered. Typical of EE. Just typical.

    I have a hard time seeing either Santorum or Romney win in November, but those are the two guys we’ve got. I don’t think Newt is even in the game anymore. So, we are faced with a choice that is similar to the choice you face when your friend gets in a bar fight. You can sit it out, whine, arm chair quaterback, and undermine your own party. Or, you can pick up a chair.

    As for me, where’s that chair?!

  • Kyle-MI

    Our government is suppose to be representative. It is suppose to be responsive to the people it governs. Sometimes that means that an elected person’s personal principles will be in conflict with the majority principles of the people. To ignore the principles of the majority is to ignore the principle of representative government. In other words, there are definitely times when personal principles have to take a back seat to the wishes of the majority. You cannot just ram through your wishes. You have to win over people.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

    When making a determination about the hill on which you’ll make your stand, principle determines the topography of the landscape. Santorum is right to cast aspersions on Obutthead and friends, if and only if, he’s willing to make that stand. Backing down, or failing to put up a defense, is the death knell of a principled stand.

  • jon11

    one needn’t abandon priniples to simply Recognize the reality that Tenessee (where i live) and georgia are not the whole of america. Its called being a grown up.

    Someone who gets 60% of the vote here is going to be really, really lucky to get 35% up north or out west.

    Erick wrote something that really concerns me.

    “How about this one: God bless Mitt Romney for being a capitalist?s capitalist making millions on Wall Street, but it will be a huge political liability in November.”

    No question the left will bash him for being successful. Thats what they do. What concerns me more and more is that people on the right are now doing the same.

    If class warfare and the culture of resentment has made its way over to the right as well the country could be beyond saving.

    Romney wasn’t a “captalists capitalist.” He wasn’t some guy who made his money off sub-prime mortgages or derivitives. Erick is using the lingo of the left…a case in point.

    He invested in companies…risked capital…made a lot of money and created a lot of middle class jobs in the process. Certainly more than anyone else who has ever run for president on the republican ticket. unless you count politicians claiming govt. programs they sponsored as ‘creating jobs”…lol

    Another truly remarkable thing is that he despite his wealth and the army of people looking for dirt on his taxes…there isn’t any.

    Between taxes and charity he gave away 40% of his income last year. Obama’s charitable contributions were around 2%.

    Romney’s the best we’ve got on the economy…there isn’t even a close second in the field…and the economy is by far the most important issue in the campaign. And he does have principles. He hasn’t backed off his claim that GM should have gone through a managed bankruptcy even though he’s campaigning in michigan and GM just made record profits this quarter.

    He’s also got a much tougher stand on immgration than newt, who thought he could win a few more votes by running on a quasi-amnesty program.

    America is a center right country and Romney is a center right candidate.

    If he can get the nomination he’ll give obama all he can handle.

    A successful business man vs a man who’s never worked a day of his life in the private sector…thats a greater contrast than fellow college professor and career politician (newt) and career politician of the worst kind, a guys who has never done anything but live of the fat of washington (rick santorum)

  • esquip17

    Erickson is part of the problem. He has promoted this idea of a brokered convention and has substituted his shrill anti-Romneism as conservatism.. Romney is actually a very principled candidate who will benefit from being painted as a moderate in the general election.

  • jeffreywturner

    “Likewise, perhaps MItt Romney has gone overboard in the opposite direction. If principles can be political liabilities, he seems to have calculated that he should run his campaign on having no principles to minimize the liabilities.”

    Nice one! Gave a a hardy belly laugh this morning.

    Let me offer a contrast however – you claim that Obama and Santorum are trumpeting the things they believe in at the expense of pragmatism – perhaps Santorum is, but Obama is not. Obama does not say what he truly believes. Only Santorum does. For instance, both Obama and Santorum are officially opposed to same-sex marriage. Um, which one do you think is really telling the truth, and which is hiding his true feelings in order to appear more moderate? If you answer honestly you will see what I mean.

  • jamesm

    First have to build the foundation (base) Then the rest of the structure. Romney wants the penthouse forgetting about the foundation. Obama wants to tear down all of it. Newt wants to build the whole thing to higher levels. Rick still finishing the foundation but needs to go to the next level.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    i have always looked thru the prism of November not March ad what truly matters. it’s irrelevant who wins the primary if they can’t win in Nov. that means who van win independent and mostly non-ideological voters. sometimes peoplr from both parties get stuck in a political bubble or echo chamber and they think what their politically active friends are saying is what non-primary voters think. projecting primary results on the general election electorate is foolish because they aren’t the same people-if they were they probably would have voted in their state’s primary or caucus. I’m not enamored with my choices, but I’m not looking for this mythical political messiah to right the wrongs and save me from fiscal armageddon. the irony is many people on here that repeatedly pine for a Reagan would probably call him a RINO if he was running and using a different name. At this point, I’m reluctantly with Romney by default, and not because I’m for him but i can’t support the others. gingrich is damaged goods and his temperament will always bite him. i love his intelligence, but his personality will kill him in the fall. i like Paul’s fiscal policy and the continuity to his arguments but i can’t support his foreign policy, especially when he uses phrases like empire or military industrial complex. santorum-well where do I start? i do believe in a small limited government that stays out of our lives-particularly on the federal level. i believe in the tenth amendment so that voters can vote with their feet-which he clearly doesn’t. i have no issue with women pursuing a career or serving on the front lines, and i honestly don’t care what someone’s sexual orientation is if they are willing to serve our country. i don’t think Santorum has a clue how to get the generation X or Y voter and that might spell longterm problems if he is the nominee. we don’t need someone ‘hip’ but someone who gets the differences in attitudes between my generation and my parents.

  • sevanclaig

    …And so are Romney’s Mormon issues.
    The leftists tried the race card over and over at every turn in the past 4 or 5 years of Obama campaigning, so I’m used to ignoring it. But what if your boy Romney wins- have you heard/seen his answer in 2008 to the question regarding no blacks in his church as recently as 2008? He started talking about his Dad’s record. He avoided it. They won’t let him in 2012 and what is he going to say when Hannity and the rest on the Right hammered away on how Obama could not have sat in eh Church for 20 years and not picked up on the hatred.
    We haven’t heard about the Mormon card because they’re saving it.

  • bs61

    Forgive me if he posted this elsewhere.

  • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com punditpawn

    My thoughts exactly.

  • JSobieski

    Political Liability: The majority of people don’t want government to touch entitlements

  • joeydavis

    For those of us who claim to be Christians we sure are worried a lot about how standing up for Christian values is going to kill Rick Santorum’s campaign.

    God told Noah to build an ark. He did. Storms came washed everyone else away Noah survived.

    Rick Santorum went to Iowa, he built an ark. He loaded voters two by two while first Bachman, then Cain, the Perry, then Gingrich all rose and fell under the tide. Then Romney tried to sweep in and steal the whole thing. Meanwhile when the storm clouds cleared in Iowa, there stood Rick Santorum and his ark.

    The masses thought the walls of Jericho were too high and could not be overcome. With the soldiers sitting on the hill, God told them to send the musicians around the city.

    Santorum went to Colorado. Outspent 40:1 he marched around the state playing his music. Election day came and the walls fell down.

    Now he’s looking a giant in the eye in Michigan and on Super Tuesday. Rick’s got a sling and a rock. let him have at it. His faith hasn’t waivered and it hasn’t failed him yet.

    Jesus Christ wasn’t the only man who walked on the water. Peter did it too, right up until he realized he was walking on water and had a lapse of faith.

    So let us all quit worrying. Let Rick be Rick. The man’s won an election or two in a swing state with swing voters. Let’s trust that he knows how.

    After all, let’s face it our real problem with Mitt Romney is Mitt doesn’t know how to be Mitt. So our solution to a fake Mitt Romney should not be a fake Rick Santorum.

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

    t

  • JSobieski

    and Reagan was also willing to cut smart deals.

    If Obama was smart, he would have cut a deal to lower rates, eliminate loopholes, and raise some level of revenues while encouraging growth and getting the economy moving.

    Instead Obama simply denies the good faith of his opposition, something Reagan NEVER did.

  • porkandcheese

    He is obviously connecting with voters on many issues besides the social ones. Had Huckabee run this year, he likely would be the nominee. But he has his own issues, and no one can say since he sat this out.

    Social conservatives don’t like Santorum for backing Specter over Toomey. But he went to Iowa and began reassuring them that he would fight for them. They certainly don’t trust libertarian Ron Paul, flip flopper Mitt Romney or adulterer Newt Gingrich. So, they’re happy with Santorum now.

    But as much as we hear establishment candidates like Mitch Daniels calling for a truce and pundits saying it doesn’t matter, then we see gay marriage become the new litmus test for Democrats and see contraception become a major issue when Obamacare is being implemented. The truth is that social issues are very personal and give you an idea of a candidate’s convictions, where they draw the line, what they stand for. With every single Democrat during the Obamacare debate, you saw that human life and particularly those of the unborn mean nothing to them after all. If Republicans are different, they shouldn’t be shy about saying so or consider it a waste of their time.

  • Juggernaut

    by a non partisan group, lousy jobs plan and he isn’t running on his record at Bain nor as a 2 year governor who left office to run for potus. His rhetoric is comparable to Obama’s, though a different message the man has a shallow message, if you see more its because you’ve been hoodwinked as have idiot media buffoons who lie for someone they can’t explain either.

    No joke, even the media are perplexed at Mitts slow but steady meltdown, dwindling votes each state and now he’s seeing contributors slowly saying no more money. Even some 2008 donors never gave a dime. Lack of principle is why people are skeptical of his ability to lead, let alone earn the nomination and then beat Obama.

  • porkandcheese

    My sentiments exactly. “Let Rick be Rick.”

    +5

  • burke

    Really? I thought strategists, consultants, and ESPECIALLY pundits are exactly the people who are encouraging average people to think in partisan rather than principled ways. It makes them easier to lead.

    Most Americans live by some set of principles in their everyday lives. There’s a reason why many people put on partisan blinders as political animals. Erick, I think you’re absolving the very people who are the most responsible for this mess with that sentence. I had thought it was the left that liked to insult the intelligence and sense of the average voter and took the position that elites must handle business for them.

  • Dave_A

    And encourages Rand to keep his dad’s schtick up, WRT running for President as the ‘America is the Great Satan’ candidate…

    Taking one of the most hated men in the GOP, and the son of one of the most hated men in the GOP, and putting them on the same ticket, is NOT a winning combination.

    What it seems to me, is that the ‘fiscal conservative only’ group is upset with the social-conservative element, and is looking to replace that ‘leg’ of the stool with Paul’s neo-confederate quasi-libertarians…

    The problem? Most of Paul’s supporters don’t vote, and most eventually wake up & realize that his plans are national suicide, at which point they become normal republicans.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    As someone who would classify himself as an Evangelical voter, i have substantial disagreements with some of his policies from both a spiritual and policy angle. I reject the notion that a state should be able to ban the uses of birth control because it promotes -sexual immorality’. My wife has used it because we are not ready to have kids. There is a huge difference between being guided by your faith and enforcing it. My wife works, and wants to work. It would offend her to be told it will be better for my future kids if she stayed home. depending on where you live might make that impossible. i do believe in a smaller government with smaller benefits. i don’t believe the government should have any meaningful part of my day to day life. the local community, the local churches, charities should fill in the gaps not a federal government trying to right every wrong. my pastor has always challenged me to fill a need i see not to call my elected leader to fix it for me.

  • Dave_A

    But we have a good number of single-issue voters who are populists, not capitalists – especially down south & in the Midwest…

    We have a good group of Jacksonian-populists, responsible for such absurdities as opposition to NAFTA, bank-bashing, and complaints about ‘the elites’, who are with us over social issues & guns – but never on our side with economics….

    Essentially, if the Democrats had not doubled-down on 1960s moral-relativism & gun control, these folks would vote Dem every time – but thanks to the Dems ‘let’s re-invent America as Post-Christian Europe’ platform, they vote GOP instead….

  • Finrod

    The nice thing about Rick Santorum is that the Democrats are going to have to demonize him by pointing out what an upright man he is.

    No, they’ll demonize him by quoting his own words where he not only opposes contraception, but also opposes pre-natal care, since he thinks it leads to more abortions.

    What kind of candidate can win while opposing pre-natal care for pregnant women?

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Center-right?

    Please.

    Obama extended the tax cuts but quietly refused to adjust the AMT, which has the effect of raising taxes dramatically on the upper middle class. Obama’s has not refused to negotiate with Iran, he’s simply done nothing — which is the same as granting them what they want, but without sacrificing political capital. In effect, he’s voted “Not present” on Iran. The cuts he has proposed to Medicare are to remove duplication with the new, nationalized health care law.

    So to call Obama “center-right” is simply and completely nonsense; he’s implementing the whole agenda of the hardest of the hard left, only he’s doing it without having to show his hand. That’s his way — call himself “middle of the road” while quietly serving the far left.

    Those of you who actually think he’s center-right are just the cows that the Democratic party is so good at moving.

    By the way, raising the debt limit in Reagan’s day was not as drastically wrong as it is today, and the gross overspending of those years was actually Tip O’Neill’s rather than Reagan’s (Congress controls the purse strings, remember? 7th grade civics…) Reagan actually shut down the government twice trying to tame the House Democrats’ overspending. The tax increase was negotiated as a compromise with dramatic spending cuts — cuts that never materialized, as it happens. That’s why Reagan shut down the government later; he learned that the House Democrats were liars.

    And negotiating with Gorbachev? “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” and refusing to take SDI off the table at Reykjavik was not billed as “negotiating with Gorbachev” back when he did them; it’s only that today when a Democrat needs to lie about Reagan.

    Like I said, you’re insane to make this comparison. But that’s assuming that you don’t actually know how badly you’re mangling the facts. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.

  • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

    Our principles are “where we live.” They’re the stuff and substance of who we are.

    Once we cut loose from our principles, especially to merely “win,” we become part of what I see as the biggest problem this nation has; we’ve become a nation of people who abandon principle to “win.” It’s everywhere: politics, sports, business, relationships.

    I think people are sick of it. I do not think this election is about jobs. I think it’s about morality. I think people will support any candidate who–like Ronald Reagan–can communicate in common-sense language the value of principles that we all know are right and moral.

    Cowards abandon principle to win, and they seek affirmation, so they condemn principles and those who stand by them.

    As well, an abandonment of principles is “good for business.”

    But a skilled communicator, who can show people that principles aren’t based on abstract idealism but on common sense they can apply to their everyday lives, cannot be beaten.

    Take, for example, greed. Greed isn’t good. It’s evil, and a sin. But just about all religions don’t define it that way just to prevent people from getting wealthy. They define it that way because greed is a very destructive force on both individual and national bases. It will destroy a person, and it will destroy a nation, because it’s like a permanent vacuum that consumes all, and the more it’s fed, the more it wants. It doesn’t only consume wealth and materials. It consumes security, prosperity, stability and peace, and one of the biggest problems we’re having with our free-market (I.e. capitalist) economy is that people at all points on the political spectrum equate it with greed: unprincipled people consuming more than they need and thus denying it to others . . . which amounts to a terrific waste and misuse of the nation’s economic output, and which ushers in slick-talkers like Obama who, even though he’s nothing but a greedy pig himself, can still very successfullly exploit people’s disgust with greedy pigs.

    If Santorum runs on a “moral-decay” platform, and if he can effectively bring the attendant failure of princple from the widely-held abstract view to a common-sense perspective that people can apply to their everyday worlds, he’ll likely not merely win; he’ll steamroller Obama, because Obama’s character has been revealed. In 2008 nobody really knew who he was or what he was all about. But it’d be easy to demonstrate now that Obama’s no different than those he criticizes, and those from whom he’s promised to “save” us.

    The Obama’s have got very, very wealthy from their political careers, and so have their friends. Santorum needs to bring that out. Obama is one of “the rich” he condemns.

    The problem is that the media are themselves highly unprincipled, as they’ve become tools of the unprincipled, so Santorum might have a communication problem.

    None-the-less, I say stand by principles. Don’t lower yourself to the level of the unprincipled just to “win.”

    In the final analysis, if “winning” requires an abandonment of principle, then I see it as losing, not “winning,” and I want no part of it. I’m a Christian man. That’s my identity, and I won’t surrender it just to “win,” because Vince Lomardi was wrong; winning is neither everything nor the only thing.

    Only losers argue that “winning” is the only worthy goal.

    If this nation’s morality is so far gone that its citizens will abandon principle just to “win,” then so be it. I won’t help that situation by joining in and abandoning my principles, too.

  • Finrod

    .

  • Jack_Savage

    No one ever said that states SHOULD ban contraceptives. Santorum was only saying that, as a theoretical question on the rights of states, that they COULD ban contraceptives.

    Chalk another one up to misinformation and lies from the left.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Either Romney or Santorum could win the election, if they can stay on message and not follow the bait they’ll be thrown by the press. Romney will have to face Obama running to his right (I’m not kidding) and will have a hard time differentiating himself from Obama, so he’s less likely to win. Santorum, nobody will confuse with Obama; he’ll just be cast as a dangerous radical religionist. He’s likely to win that battle because America is still a very religious nation — so long as he continues to hammer on Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility and assaults on individual liberty. He seems to be pretty good at that.

    The problem is not a problem. We can win this if we don’t run away from our candidate.

  • Common_Cents

    CNN is full of partisan hacks, they are usually just a little less obvious, until now.

    Roland Martin high fiving Obrien for skewering Romney over the poor comment.

    David Gergen praising Obrien for “driving the conversation” in nailing romney. Obrien responds by saying, naw its not me, its my interviews. They all laugh.

    Then Morgan and Obrien doing “obama bumps”.

    Anyone who lays down w/ this network needs to check themselves for fleas.

    CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC. They are all the same, some are more blatant than others is the only difference.

  • znjs

    I don’t care if Santorum’s view is that state should (and I’m pretty sure it is) or just that they could ban contraception. Either way it’s giving power to the government that they shouldn’t have. The state should have no say.

  • acat

    The argument cuts both ways.

    Mew

  • colonelflagg

    No one.

    Newt can talk a great game but his negatives are sky high and always will be. His supporters can talk about going ‘around the press’ but the only candidate who could do that with any degree of effectiveness in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan. And Newt is no Ronald Reagan, especially since leaving elected office.

    Santorum says what he believes, unlike Romney. He believes and acts, in his personal life, how a majority of Americans act, unlike Gingrich. He’s sane, unlike Ron Paul.

    And he’s electable for it, unlike any of them. Gingrich and Romney have no chance — at ALL — of rebuilding the Reagan coalition. Santorum can.

  • elayman

    And a seeming complete lack of the concern with differing perspectives. I do think it is possible for politicians be more interested in finding sensible solutions than being absolutely unyielding and uncompromising in the interest of winning arguments few Americans have even a passing interest. Unprincipled doesn’t mean you cave and give the other side what he wants without getting anything in return. It also doesn’t mean you shift your starting position to appease your political detractors, and it doesn’t mean you ignore every proposal that you don’t consider to be “realistic.”

    If the issue isn’t the problems of contraception in this country but that people are forced to pay for others’ contraception than focus on the fiscal aspects of health care, etc.

    I don’t even get why this is funny, but I’m laughing.

    Can we please have the brokered convention?

    Never thought i would hope for that.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    Santorum still fundamentally believes in a government role in our lives that’s bigger than the rest. he still has to answer why he doesn’t trust individuals to do the right thing. I’m staying just on socual issues because his tax policies and fiscal arguments for earmarks is infuriating to me. I want to win in the fall. i also want to see our party get people in their 20s and 30s with professional careers who didn’t support us four yrs ago. i can say he is the one candidate that doesn’t have support. i know the local and national younger professional supporters for Romney, Gingrich, and Paul. i can also say they universally recoil at the thought of Santorum.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    It’s going to be a 5-times-a-day occurrence through the election cycle if Santorum is our candidate. That’s what Democrats do.

    Of course, there will be different versions of the same crap whoever our candidate is. It’s what Democrats do.

  • joeydavis

    The millenials and Gen y’s are probably the most tolerant generation. The one thing you learn by being around them is tolerance goes both ways. They don’t take sides.

    They’ll happily vote for Rick Santorum if they think he’s the best person for the job. Many of them feel as though Obama lied to them and they don’t trust him and they’re looking for someone else. The majority of them I talk to, and I talk to a lot of them, actually like Rick Santorum. Generally they have judged Mitt Romney to be fake and Newt Gingrich to be a cheat.

    My 20something girlfriend and her college friends were for Rick Santorum long before I was. When she and I first discussed the election back in November I liked Rick Santorum a lot, but I really didn’t see a path for him. I was willing to overlook his personal flaws and support Newt Gingrich.

    By the time Iowa was done, I arrived where she and her friends already were. They LIKE Rick Santorum. They TRUST Rich Santorum and they believe he is genuine.

    The one thing I’ve found about this generation is they don’t like fakes. If you’ll be what you are, they will support you. If you try to dupe them, your credibility is shot.

  • acat

    What’s behind door # 3 – the brokered convention – could be worse than what you have now … it’ll be the complete ticket, and neither you nor I have a real choice in it.

    Does “Mitch Daniels / Rudy Giuliani” sound good? How about “Jeb Bush / Rand Paul” ?

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    It’s been more handicapping the GOP horse race than advancing conservatism.

  • mattyp

    “…necessitating the Catholic Church foregoing its own tenets and forced to give out free birth control pills and abortifacient drugs”

    The Catholic Church (and churches in general) has to do no such thing. Religious-affiliated schools, hospitals, and the like do have to. Many of these employers, especially hospitals, are monopsonies in their field, leaving workers unable to shop around for employers with healthcare plans that fit their needs.

    “Unfortunately, just as there really is no such thing as an atheist…”

    That is completely untrue. You seem to have atheism confused with nihilism.

    “A successful business man vs a man who?s never worked a day of his life in the private sector…”

    Assuming you mean Barack Obama, he has worked in the private sector. The University of Chicago is a private institution. You may have trouble with academia, but to say that it’s not part of the private sector is inaccurate.

    Other than that, the idea that principles can be political liabilities is a bit of a trivial one.

    Here is a question (it would be awesome if you could write a post about it), how does “business experience” or experience on Wallstreet in any way prepare someone to be President?

    The governments job isn’t to maximize revenue, it’s to provide the services it is required to provide (through legislation) at as close to “at cost” as possible, so the most people can partake for the lowest cost (to the user) per user. There are some professions that lend itself to this (economists,engineers, mathematicians, accountants, financial analysts, etc.), but these professions are present in all sectors of the economy (public, private, and nonprofit). So how does Romney’s Bain Capital qualify him for president? From what I’ve seen, they didn’t have the greatest success rate when it came to reforming companies (hell, what Bain did is exactly what you guys think the government shouldn’t be doing).

  • jakeofalltrades

    And I say that as a gen-y-er.

  • joeydavis

    Santorum is right, the widespread availability of birth control has had a dramatic impact on the social mores of our country, mostly to our detriment.

    If you are truly Christian and spend any time in your Bible, you know he’s also absolutely right on homsexuality. the paraphrased “marriage is between a man and a woman and for that reason a man shall leave his family and cling to his wife” appears about 15 times from creation in Genesis all the way through the writings of Paul and even uttered by Jesus Christ himself when speaking to the Pharisees.

    His position on women was not an attack on working women. It was a defense of women who choose to stay home. He said the pro-feminist agenda has marginalized those women who chose to stay at home and raise families. It’s a prowoman, profamily position. And once again, he’s absolutely right.

    We can not continue to let the media make us believe our candidates said things they did not say. It’s time we started standing up for the truth.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    I won’t call this anything but what it is.

    The attack has begun. Lies flow out of the Democratic party like water from a fire hose.

    Nobody opposed contraception, nobody opposed prenatal care. Democrats lied, and you’re repeating it. You’re doing it because Obama’s record is so ridiculously poor that he cannot be re-elected unless he’s running against something truly frightening.

    So go ahead and defend the enemy of American prosperity, the destroyer of personal liberty, and the embarrassment of the Western world. Tell your lies. Do your worst. We know what’s really going on.

  • deuke

    ….determines the topography of the landscape.” I like that.

    In other words, if we say with one voice to the Obama administration and the supporters of his liberal-leaning policies that we not only disagree with him and his agenda, we despise his agenda, we are making a stand; a stand we can defend, if we have faith.

    Rick Santorum may have hit the nail on the head by pushing more for an agenda of morality, spiritual precepts, and an awakening of the once quiet and principled voter. The line has been drawn in the sand; time to pick a side!

  • clintonformccain

    I believe that Mitt Romney’s general election strategy is to appeal to swing voters who “like” Obama by making the argument that Barry is a swell guy, but an ineffective chief executive officer. Make the election about competence rather than demonization, with an eye towards peeling off independent and, especially women voters who might be scared off by a more hard line social conservative or military hawk or even austerity platform.

    This, of course, is not a strategy that throws a lot of red meat to the conservative base.

    ———

    As for those who would attribute “principle” to any candidate in any party, I would remind them that we are talking about politicians. The concept of principle is not high on the list of atttributes for this occupation. They just want you to think they stand on principle.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    but the politically active ones-who are running for office, running for party officers, or with young republican organizations who have been around political campaigns would beg to differ-strongly. Santorum is the antithesis of the Republican they’d support. we don’t like phonies-which hurts Mitt, but we also have a larger distrust of the government and it’s role in our lives. Santorum doesn’t share that. We want to eliminate government influences on ones behavior. what we mean is to lower tax rates and eliminate all deductions like mortgage interest, having kids, buying green appliances, etc.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    I understand that you’re probably here from the Romney campaign, attempting to spread “FUD” about Santorum so Romney can win the nomination.

    You are the reason why I will never, under any circumstances, in this life or the next, cast a ballot for that evil pile of humans sh*t, Mitt Romney. The level of filth that has come out of that vile creature during this election season has been comparable to the worst that has come from the Democrats. I refuse to become them.

  • renl57

    This election will be won by whoever convinces the voters that he can make their lives better.

    Most Americans don’t expect morality and righteousness from politicians. Just effectiveness.

  • elayman

    Although I still say he was the last chance our government had. I’m hoping for you in 2016. Daniels is my gov and although there are concerns (like my job), this possibility will likely never happen for marital reasons.

  • renl57

    Everything Santorum has said on that subject–including Schieffer’s interview of him–is on YouTube now.

    We discussed this right here on RS yesterday, remember?

    Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, in a spirited interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, said that amniocentesis, a type of prenatal test, should not be mandated by the government because its purpose is to abort the disabled.

    http://tinyurl.com/8xvl22s

  • unsk

    Santorum may be correct as to church doctrine, but never once in a sermon have I ever heard a priest make such an issue over contraception and sodomy laws like Santorum has. And I have been attending Mass for over sixty years. Santorum in his moral sermonizing has chosen to emphasize these almost irrelevant, but inflammatory issues over those moral issues that are most germane in the discussion of moral decay.

    We are in a religious war in this country. The Atheist Left is trying to effectively ban Christianity. In a war, one needs to know where to pick your battles and where to make a stand. In the Constitution we have a great, revered founding document that grants us unalienable rights including the freedom of religion granted to us under God.

    There are no good arguments in the Constitution that justify Santorum’s desires to limit contraception and sodomy laws. We should be using the Constitution as our defense for religious freedom, not attacking it. We cannot defend Santorum’s positions either Constitutionally or politically. They are simply not credible. Santorum with his intolerant positions is effectively crippling our defense of religious freedom, when we need it most.

    One of the great principles in the First Amendment is tolerance of other’s religious and moral positions. It’s fine for Rick to have his own moral convictions, but as President he would have to chose his Constitutional duties over his moral convictions. He simply just doesn’t seem to be able to do that. The man time and again simply cannot seem see the purpose of our Constitutional principles whether it’s the First Amendment or our rights to Life , Liberty and Property.

    As such, to nominate Rick Santorum for the Presidency will be a disastrous mistake. Rick’s intolerance will be the subject of wall to wall coverage endlessly to the election and beyond. Republicans will be cast in the media as the Party of Religious Bigotry instead as the Party of Religious Freedom, and the meme will stick. Many sensible voters including many, many Republicans , will run as far away as possible from all Republican candidates. The Pubs will not only lose the Presidency, but the House and the Senate by wide margins and we will hand near complete control to those who want to destroy this country and destroy our religious freedoms.

  • westcoastpatriette

    depending on what aspect of political reality you are looking at. And from my perspective, all is not lost — it’s just that fighting on principle is risky business when it looks like the odds may be against you.

    There is one victory I see taking place, though, that Erick does not give us credit for — precisely because a win in this area leaves us vulnerable in another. And this will upset the Romney supporters but, hey, at this point in time, it is looking like the base just might win the fight to derail Romney — and that is a huge win for many of us who care about being shoved around and dissed by the establishment inside our own party.

    The problem with that win, though, is that what we have left to choose from takes some of the joy out of the win.

    That leaves us with accepting either Santorum or Gingrich or going all out to try to set up a brokered convention.

    Erick really leans toward cynicism and skepticism — sometimes to the point of prophesying doom. But, to me, all is not lost — yet.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    while i don’t doubt there are good intentions to what he said, the fact that he will have to spend time defending them will ruin any chance he has to discuss the issurs that will decide if he can win. A wise candidate would recognize you don’t have to say something controversial if it won’t help the cause. he might be right about radical feminists but having a book that mentions women in the house is better will be a non-starter for many women. i don’t believe in gay marriage so i don’t see what that has to do with things, but if he has to spend time explaining his Man-Dog analogy he will have problems. i strongly disagree with many aspects of his fiscal policy. i oppose earmarks because they reflect an attitude more than the % of the budget. i oppose a special tax exception for manufacturing because the government shouldn’t pick winners and we would have a whole new industry of loopholes instead of simplifying the tax code. i believe in either a flat tax or a consumption tax not a progressive tax schedule. also think people under 45 should be allowed to opt out of entitlements too

  • renl57

    …who don’t want to be lectured about their alleged moral failings by their President or any other politicians. They tossed Jimmy Carter out for doing that, remember?

    The problem with Santorum is that he’s not only religious, but he has promised to use the White House as a bully pulpit to advocate for his particular religious view of human sexuality and procreation. A view that is NOT even shared by the vast majority of Americans who believe in God.

    It’s one thing to denounce ObamaCare for forcing people of faith to fund things they find objectionable. That is certainly a bad thing and needs to be stopped.

    It’s quite another for Santorum to promise that as President, he will speak out about birth control as objectionable because according to him, it leads to sexual practices that “are not how things are supposed to be,” as he put it.

  • redmymind

    Better head down to NPB!

  • renl57

    …will likely make 2 appointments to the Supreme Court, plus numerous other Federal judges.

    Depending on the kind of judges a President Santorum would nominate, “COULD” might turn into “SHOULD” with just a few Supreme Court cases and rulings.

    Santorum could go a long way to easing fears on that score if he pledged once and for all to not let his personal views on sexuality and procreation and contraception influence his choice of judges to Federal courts.

    But of course he won’t pledge that.

  • testing

    We are not dealing with mathematical or scientific concepts; we are dealing with people. Not many people have deep convictions on any topic unless they have personal experience or have thought deeply about a subject. My core principles are god over government, earned not entitled, individualism over statism. I am pretty sure most liberals have the opposite view i.e. one persons principles are viewed as liabilities by others. Most independent voters have not thought deeply about principles which are important to conservatives. They are not likely to do so between now and November. Our candidate should be able to engage the independent voter on topics which matter to them; this will help get them elected in November. We should choose a candidate who will, if elected, move the country in the direction of conservatism even if they must take a winding path. I think any of our candidates will inevitably move us down the conservative path because ultimately they will have to move toward defict reduction which is really our core conservative principle of the decade. Hopefully our candidate will use this as a base to further other conservative principles which will of course be viewed as a liability to a liberal.

  • renl57

    If Santorum only stuck to opposing gay marriage and partial-birth abortion, that wouldn’t upset most American voters–they have similar concerns.

    But the contraceptive Pill has been around for 50 years now. It’s not going away and women (many of whom don’t get married till their thirties) aren’t going to allow their careers in the business world and finance to be interrupted by unexpected pregnancy. That ship has sailed.

    And when Santorum suggests that amniocentesis is bad because a pregnant woman who finds out her fetus has Down’s Syndrome might choose to abort, what he’s really implying is that it’s better if the woman doesn’t know the truth in advance until it’s too late for her to do anything about it.

    Try defending THAT proposition to today’s women.

  • bankalyst

    Academia is not the private sector, get real.

    The gov’t needs to restructure because it cannot provide services anywhere close to cost, and this will happen either voluntarily (soon) or involuntarily (a little later).

    Apparently you have little understanding of private equity. These are the guys at the top who risk the capital, manage the processes of collecting and synthesizing the output from your beloved economists, accountants, analysts, etc. and then make the tough decisions for a given enterprise. Romney’s argument is that these experiences are analogous to restructuring the gov’t that needs to be done.

    Re “success rate” Bain Capital had/has easily one of the best private equity track record’s around, so you are just flat out wrong there and it’s not even debatable.

  • westcoastpatriette

    yeah, how about that weather in sunny Cali?

    That is the only thing left that the leftists can’t steal from us, huh?

  • acat

    but I agree it is possible someone could re-enter.

    Huntsman would have a hard time selling himself to conservatives, who – to date – he’s not been interested in outreach.

    If we get to a brokered convention, everyone who actively ran is likely off the table. Unfortunately.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    Not this **** again.

    GENERAL STATEMENT TO ALL PEOPLE OF FAITH: Stop getting your panties in a knot over things that people do not actually say or imply. Nowhere does renl talk about Catholicism. Stop playing the victim and using your faith to batter other people for their choice of candidate: it’s pathetic and repugnant to those of us who care about our faith beyond its use as a cheap political statement.

  • Scope

    Shortly after the 08 elections, Ron Paul took his money bomb money, and started the Campaign 4 Liberty organization. Many of the 08 Paulbots felt that the only reason that Paul didn’t win the nomination in 08 was because his campaign was disorganized. They vowed to never allow that to happen again.

    Back then, when they were getting organized, I happened onto a website- Campaign for Liberty Leadership Summit. They claimed-

    “Like it or not, this is America and it’s a two party system. One of the parties is closer to our beliefs, and one party is easier to take over. It so happens that both are the GOP. Let’s bring the GOP back to it’s roots.”

    “The C4L mission is to promote and defend individual liberty. This will include:

    Sound Money
    Free Markets
    Non-Interventionist Foreign policy

    They advised, “take over every local GOP organization. It isn’t hard because the Republicans don’t want to get their hands dirty.”

    The statements should be offensive to everyone, especially when they say, with seeming disdain, “like it or not, this is America, and it’s a two party system.” In other words blame America again, because any third party that wants to run is disadvantaged, and that is not freedom. Just what I want, the acknowledgement and ease for the Van Jones Communist party to rise up and take over the country, or perhaps the Ralph Nader Green Party, or the Workers Party headed up by Cynthia McKiney. Hey, it’s a free country right? just not according to the Paulbots.

    It’s unfortunate that not many took Ron Paul seriously enough, for the past 4 years in particular, and have slept while he built up an organization of youngins’, hippies, drug addicts, Stormfront, and the skinheads to name a few shady organizations and losers. There can be no question that he has made gains since his 08 run, and his supporters are growing in number, including pulling a good portion of the anti-war, anti-semite one time liberals. With Paul’s imminent retirement from Washington, he has set up the infrastructure, and has groomed his successor to take over, Rand Paul.

    I laugh when people like Palin, and others, have warned to not discredit Ron Paul, because God forbid he might just run on a third party ticket, and then we are so screwed. He is almost 90 years old fergodsakes. Gary Johnson has already claimed the Libertarian party. Virgil Goode has claimed the Constitution party banner. What third party would Ron Paul run in?

    If you look at the internals of polling, when they are provided, Paul takes a lot of support from Democrats. I’ve read that a larger majority of Independents are leftist or left leaning. If Paul didn’t have the support from those groups, he would still be polling around 5%, and wouldn’t be gaining delegates mostly in states that hold caucuses.

    Conventional thought is that third parties that have leftist platforms take votes away from the Democrats. It is said that Ralph Nader caused Al Gore’s loss in 2000. George W Bush was not a strong enough candidate, and did not take the popular vote. Third parties that lean right with their policies and positions take from the Republicans. Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton, again daddy Bush was not a strong enough candidate to prevent the Clinton debacle.

    Ron Paul does not have the social conservatives, the Reagan Republicans/Democrats, he does not have the national security conservatives, and he does not have any majority support from many with traditional conservative values. He certainly doesn’t have the moderates that lean right. He doesn’t have support from the most reliable voting block, the elderly. The majority of Ron Paul’s support comes from those groups that I have named above, that traditionally vote for liberals. It is my guess that Ron Paul would take more votes away from Obama than he would the Republican. It seems to be increasingly likely that Mitt Romney will not be the nominee. The nominee will be either Santorum or Gingrich, despite what Karl the Rove or Fox claims.

    Going back to the beginning of my post, many should be resentful of the movement to take over the Republican party by the libertarians. I’ve heard the comment many times that the conservatives and the libertarians need to find “common ground.” How do you find common ground with a group that believes that you can be personally pro-life, but you shouldn’t try to tell everyone that it’s bad to be pro-choice. How do you find common ground with those that want to tell the traditional family values voters that they are so yesterday, and behind the times for opposing gay marriage, it’s all about freedom of choice? The majority of states that have put gay marriage bans on the ballot have voted against gay marriage. The majority of states that allow gay marriage have been told by the state judiciary that that is the way it’s going to be, like it or not, such as in CA.

    Rather than having the goal of taking over the Republican party, and changing it into the image a few desire, I question why the libertarians don’t take over the Libertarian party, and change that party into the image desired. Their positions are much much closer to the desires and goals of those claiming allegiance to libertarian positions. They are supposedly the third largest party in the US, and it should be terribly hard to fight for prominence. If they believe that the Republicans don’t want to get their hands dirty, and are willing to make major changes with hard work, then do it in the party they are more closely aligned with.

  • elayman

    Seriously. I don’t know what more meaningless titles people are waiting for. Show me a “true conservative” and then we can take the measure of Santorum or Romney.

  • APA Guy

    fought and won tough legislative battles against a Dem president? Yeah, he sounds like the right man for this job.

    And you can shove your “shove it” request yourself there, hero. Kindly re-read your OWN post…”though most women won’t”. That blind assertion puts his personal life as a higher voting priority than the ability of those women to feed their families and fill up their gas tanks…not likely in this lifetime.

  • bobbie227

    On Friday, Feb. 17, 2012, the Right Scoop posted about Rick Santorum being on Michigan’s “Off The Record”. It showed two videos. In these videos, one doesn’t just see a social conservative in Rick Santorum. Santorum may not have the personality of Sarah Palin, but he is completely REAL like she is. Link is here:
    http://www.therightscoop.com/rick-santorum-on-michigans-off-the-record/

    If establishment Republicans are able to “convene” a brokered convention, then Obama will most likely be re-elected! I can’t imagine anyone wanting this to happen!! NOT even with the Independents.

    My personal opinion is strictly my opinion and I am going to very bluntly state it here. I have worried for some time now that the Tea Party (s) needed to have a “headquarters” for lack of better terminology. They needed somewhere to come together “as one” in speaking up and out for the conservatives. Unfortunately, that did not happen and I think we will be paying for it in the 2012 election. I understand that all conservatives are not going to agree all the time, however, I do remember the poll that came out earlier that clearly stated that for the 2012 Election, the people would vote for “Anybody but Obama”! Why would that have changed? Had the Tea Parties united in some way and polled all the folks that claim to be Tea Partiers, then there could have been a “mini” primary election and the winner of that poll would be voted for in their State primaries. This approach would have told the establishment Republicans that “they don’t get their way anymore”, because enough electoral votes were in for one person.

    Instead, I see some “supposed” Tea Partiers calling for Newt or Paul or Santorum. I purposely leave Romney out because I believe if a Tea Partier would vote for a Moderate Republican at best, then they are not really true conservative Tea Party people! I come close to thinking the same thing about Paul because of his foreign policy ideas. Newt says the right things, however, he appears to be running because of anger at the establishment for not re-accepting him into the fold, again! I could be wrong on this one. Santorum is the only candidate I’ve seen that has held on to his principles, apologized for his mistakes as a Senator, and carries a message of more than just social conservatism. If you watch the above videos and read the very short article, I think you will see what I saw.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Frankly, there seems to be substantial, premature seeding of excuses as to why this election will be lost by Republicans. Countless words have been devoted to it over the past week or so. I find it all rather discomforting and suspect.

    We have spent a good part of this primary season ebbing and flowing with the “not Romney”, “most” conservative flavor of the day becuase he was toxic to conservatism and somehow said to be of weak character. I didn’t imagine that was happening. At least I don’t think I did.

    The essence, as I see it, is that alleged principle or the lack thereof is somehow being twisted into electoral prognostication. Yet in reality what is being stated is simply someone’s whimsical guess, without consideration of all the factors needed to win in a General Election. Ultimately, I would liken it more illogically to roulette.

    What we have forgotten about is how to compromise, build winning coalitions which build on those compacts and build comprehensive enthusiasm. Gradually if necessary. We also ultimately fail to consider how candidates will play to a contemporary electorate in a General Election where Independents become very important. I suppose this is more pronounced due to the perceived weakness of Mr. Obama and the critical juncture we find our country at. But the fact is, to me, this has all along been more of a reason we should reinvigorate the aforementioned qualities and tactics.

    Instead we have unspeakable, illogical tomes being built under the guise of screening. These have been nothing more than self-flagellation which continues to occur as the opposition, our real opponent, escapes unscathed.

    Consider our current circumstances. Then for a moment consider those tactics. In my humble opinion if it continues we will not only lose the battle, but also the war.

    At that point, one only needs to look in the mirror to place blame. No 500 word expedient will change that.

    Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.

  • acat

    that said, Huntsman spent enough of the early part of the campaign – as I’ve said to you before, elayman – deliberately trying to do outreach to a very small subset at the expense of conservatives …

    He has some bridges to repair.

    Mew

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    In November of 1979, Reagan’s campaign went through a shake up because he and his pollsters concluded he was being viewed as too extreme. They pushed out some of the die hards and moderated their tone and issues set.

    He did not abandon his principles and I am not advocating any candidate do so. But he did moderate his tone on the issues understanding he could do nothing to advance his principles if he lost the election.

  • aesthete

    and the Constitutionality/property rights concerns raised by Goldwater when the bill was passed in the 60s. Still didn’t make it a good idea for him to open his maw and start talking about it, when it had nothing to do with what he was going to do in office. Unlike Santorum, Rand seemed to realize this and backed away as far as he could from the issue.

    How good of a “trap” can this be if it only benefits leftists?

  • aesthete

    and how sinful the Elvis swivel is? Say, I heard that when you play certain secular songs backwards, they’re actually hymns to Lucifer! Is that true? And what about the Beatles, huh? Should we be glorifying degenerates who use drugs by listening to that kind of music? Can we talk about that stuff, too? I can’t imagine what else could be going on in our country that’s more important, or that voters would care more about.

  • lizzie

    making us the not-partisan majority disgusted with BOTH party’s absurd Moneyball + factions + identity politics way of nominating candidates, and putting winning the election ahead of any principles?

    Only Bachmann has made the point that the contraception ‘debate’ is NOT about religious freedom, but about the singular over-reach of Obamacare in authorizing the President to be the decider of what insurers must cover.
    She said that on Sunday, yet got zero media echo, and zero echo so far from the four active GOP nominees.

    yes, the three strongest full spectrum conservative candidates for the general election all had to suspend their campaigns by January 19, 2011. maybe 4 if you count Pawlenty.

    all because Romney’s personal ambition made this nomination contest about beating Romney instead of selecting the best candidate.

    “Consent of the Governed” is what is under attack.

    Actually, I no longer believe anyone really wants to be the next president, but at least Gingrich sees the full panorama of decline, and is willing to fight to change the trajectory.

    maybe 2012 will see the end of litmus tests strangling the life out of the grand experiment that is America: a nation built by all the persecuted dissidents, both religious and political dissidents, the economically displaced, and those brought to America in bondage from white Europe, black Africa, and China, before 1923.

    It is ridiculous to expect only two political parties to represent this melting pot-turned-fruit-salad that is now America.

  • deano64

    I think if Santorum can stay on message and continue to communicate Conservitism and attack Obama on the economy, Keystone, Gas prices,Ocare and generally trampling on the Constitution he can beat him if he gets the nomination. If he continues to get off track with the social issues it will hurt him.

    Romney needs to do the same, but few believe in his heart that he really is Conservitive or even really knows what Conservitism really is.

    Newt would have a tough time in the general. I love his ideas. When it comes down to it he’s just not very likable. And as far as looking Presidential. He ain’t got that either. It’s unfortunate these things matter that much, but we all know they do.

    Obama should be easily beatable. I hope we don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s so important we get rid of him. Lord help us.

  • cwfoster

    Former Kennedy campaign workers have said they had a massive collection of material to use against Romney, and only needed a fraction of it to defeat him when he ran for the Senate. They are already campaigning against him, and are using reverse psychology whenever Democrat pundits say they are happy at the prospects of anyone besides Romney getting nominated. they said the same thing about McCain in 2008. “McCain is the only one we may have to worry about, he’s the moderate who’s reached across the aisle…” blah blah blah, ad nauseum.

    PLEASE allow me to offer my own observations, and consider them befor killing the messenger. The same electorate that gave us Ronald Wilson reagan in two landslides, ALSO gave us Barrack Hussein Obama in one. Could ANYBODY confuse the two? Hardly! What DID they have in common? One was a genuine conservative, and one is a genuine liberal. Perhaps what we are fearing, is exactly what we need! An unapologetic conservative who doesn’t act like his primary concern is ‘playing the game’. Political games have been ultimately what’s destroying this country, allowing people who care more about election/reelection get in and stay in than fixing the problems to take and retain power. Everybody cringed at some of the things Reagan said, not the least of all the establishment GOP, but the voters loved it! They saw a man who wasn’t afraid to say “The systems broke, and I’m going to fix it”. We need to grow a set and realize that some of those “political liabilities” may be liabilities, but they are also bona fides to demonstrate genuineness. They are mostly liabilities when the person holding those principles holds them out at arms length, as if he isn’t terribly attached to them. That marks the candidate as a game player, or a potential game player. Ronald Reagan NEVER apologized for what he believed in! He never ‘walked back’ saying we were “one nation under God”. He never apologized for believing in American exceptionalism. How about we simply accept our own candidates beliefs and cease the circular firing squad that tells us that candidate X can’t win because Y”. Yes, they all have baggage that can be used against them in the general. Anyone who might get nominated in a brokered convention will have baggage that can be used against them in the general. If Jesus Christ Himself were to run, they would still crucify Him. Get over it! Run someone who’s not afraid to call it like he sees it!

  • elayman

    I mean, really, apologized and backpedaled on several occasions for seriously stupid remarks or actions, but in nearly every instance, it was after the governor had offended conservatives and Perry felt the need to make them happy again. Almost as bad as Newt. At least Huntsman’s “transgressions,” questionable as they were, were either accidental or strategic messaging mistakes and related to nothing more than finding his voice in a crowded field.

  • rpopp23

    why are so many people continuing to push for Gingrich, when his poll numbers continue to FALL. Does anyone see a path to the nomination for him that is actually possible? I don’t. I keep reading how Newt is going to win over the independents with his great debating skills. How is he going to do this if he can’t win the Republican vote to get to the general election? We can all wish and dream that he was going to win – but is anyone seeing that on the ground – even in one state, let alone all of them? I still want Rick Perry – but I am not pretending that is going to happen either.

  • cwfoster

    “When making a determination about the hill on which you?ll make your stand, principle determines the topography of the landscape.”

    When you decide to pick that hill, apologizing for it, makes the surrounding landscape rise up, and you find yourself in a valley named ‘it was the best deal we could get”.

  • rpopp23

    so, yes amnios can be bad. However, what Santorum said was that amnios should not be MANDATED. Not that they can’t happen – but that they shouldn’t be mandated. He knows that if they are mandated, many people will be pressured into abortion who otherwise would not have had them. He knows from personal experience that there are worse things than having a special needs child. However, when doctors find something wrong, they push for an abortion. This happens ALL THE TIME. He isn’t saying a woman can’t find out – he is just saying she shouldn’t be FORCED to find out if she wants it either way.

    And more and more women are coming to see the horrors that abortion does to their mind and their bodies anyway. The group Silent No More is all about this – and it is hitting home with more and more women. I don’t think this is a tough sell to women who would ever consider voting for Santorum – a few perhaps, but not most.

  • cbartlett

    are low because he doesn’t have the money to spend like Romney and the media is ignoring him just like they did to Perry (i.e. no FREE advertising). I am a woman and while I don’t like the 3 wives deal, his ability to deal with this economy is WAY more important to me. He articulates real solutions to problems (as opposed to general rhetoric like Romney) and a conservative message. If he can get that message out to people I think his poll numbers would go up. I think the Dems want to run against Romney – hence the reason the liberal media is talking him up and very generously putting him out there. For right now. If he manages to get the nomination, they will rip him up with class-envy and we’ll get another 4 years of unfettered Obama. The Dems (and the media) are scared of running against Newt – that’s why he is being marginalized and/or simply ignored. They want him to go away. It worked with Perry and they are trying it again. We, the people, need to speak up.

  • onemovoter

    Drive by statements that claim things not in fact are not allowed here. There was only one time that Perry apologized and that was for the “heartless” remark.

    The problem that Perry had with that policy with illegals, was that so many clueless Republicans didn’t know why Texas had such a law. I had to finally explain the whole deal to my sister, who finally had a light bulb go on about it, and removed a negative that she had with Perry.

    It is aggravating to many Perry supporters here of how Constitutionally clueless Republicans and Tea Party folks are. Every stance that Perry had I found to be Constitutional. More so than Ron Paul. The problem Perry had was that people were looking for the “perfect, smart” candidate, and Perry’s way of talking made people think he wasn’t smart.

  • dennis1111

    I’m with you. However I haven’t counted Newt out-not at all. He has planned to make his big push in the south. With Perry on his team and SC under his belt I think he has a good chance to sweep the conservative south.

    Of course the Progressives hate and fear him. He makes them cringe. Naturally the Press piles on at every opportunity. Since Mitt can’t run on his accomplishments, it is also natural that he would go negative. No doubt this has hurt Newt. However we on the right are fully aware of the insidious nature of the Press. We know it’s bias and it’s tricks. I think Newt’s positives will out weigh the trashing and bring him through on top. Newt is the conservative’s natural candidate. Accomplished, fired up, talented and a record no one but RR can match.

    This nomination is still in the air. Little has been decided. The Press would like to see the conservatives roll over and accept Mitt as the inevitable. Or, if Rick was nominated Obama would probably see 4 more. We can do better. Our principles have cost us in the past. But, we didn’t really stick to them. We ditched Newt the last time because we had too many weak knees in the party or we would have a balanced budget now. Our Nation’s current dire circumstances may put some starch where it is needed. I hope so. The hour is late. 4 more of Obama would be ruinous. I don’t see Mitt fighting for principle.

    Yes Principle is often expensive but sometimes it is the way through.
    Lets put a very accomplished conservative in the White House.
    Support our principles and our hopes. Support Newt. Best, dlc

  • cbartlett

    short and to the point….

  • elayman

    If you want a tax and tariff increases as fiscal policy to go along with an assault on Planned Parenthood (I suppose). Point for point, Huntsman is just as conservative and much more experienced but only the heavyweights who didn’t run have been romanticized by the GOP.

  • runner12

    but an amnio can also detect problems that can lead to the saving of a baby’s life. This is why this was a wrong move for Santorum.

    A better line of discussion for his belief is the push in searching for genetic markers for disabilities. The AS community is terrified that if a marker is discovered for Asperger’s Syndrome and/or autism, they too will be aborted at the same rate as children with Down Syndrome. This would be a tragedy.

    Why the push for the genetic marker? What are the ramifications of such actions? These are the questions that need to be asked.

  • ffc99

    why you’re spending so much time discussing two men who unfortunately (especially in Daniels case) will not be out next President. With that being said, I’m a bit confused about how you can conclude that Huntsman is “much more experienced” than Mitch Daniels.

  • acat

    It’s amazing to me how many feel it’s necessary to keep kicking a guy who left the race because they think it makes their candidates look better.

    Here’s a hint – it doesn’t work that way.

    Mew

  • westcoastpatriette

    Like you, I am dismayed by the apparent cluelessness of so many that are supposed to be on our team with respect to the relationship between the Constitution and conservatism. Perry was on the money when it came to understanding the Constitution and had the best legally supportable solutions to the country’s woes. That so many seemed unable to see that much less appreciate it, is very disappointing.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • APA Guy

    nt

  • http://www.periodictablet.com superamerican

    Apparently Santorum while senator voted against something because he represented other people which was against his personal principle. That is the kind of person we neen as president, and, of course, the type we used to have.

    Unfortunately the Democrats have only one principle about which all liberals can agree: WIN. At any cost. They are as one around that principle and the path to that goal can be anything goes.

    Republicans don’t have a clue. Democrats frame every issue and the Republicans always play on that field.

    Republicans will lose again.

    But one thought: SUSTAINABLE SPENDING could be a tagline for Reps that would completely reframe the cutting of the size and control of government.

  • elayman

    no one is going to change their mind. Just saying that Huntsman carries no serious baggage, is knowledgeable and balanced on foreign policy with one of the best resumes ever and shouldn’t fly under the radar as he does. IMO.

  • deuke

    None of these candidates can ‘make our lives better.’

    If you’re looking for the magic wand in the hands of a candidate, you may as well vote for Obama – he’s a true magician – he’s mezmerized all of those that believe govt. is the end-all.

    My point renl57, is that this is the mistake we all seem to be making; that the answers to our problems will come from some “true conservative,’ when the truth is, the answers come from what our stand is on that principled hill. Stand with the candidate that is unafraid to make that principled stand!

  • Aaron Gardner

    Remember that next time.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    I think that is the fundamental question we must ask. Too many people are concerned about is this guy conservative enough or more conservative enough instead of being concerned about the general election where voters have different reasons for why or how they vote. All 4 candidates left are light years ahead of Obama, and if you can’t see that, then you need to take a break and get some perspective. We need to avoid these circular firing squads once and for all

  • JSobieski

    Those finding themselves in disagree with Erick should re-read the following Reader’s Digest summary:

    “Keep the principle. I wouldn?t trust any candidate who abandons his principle. But accept it can be a political liability if not handled properly.”

    The operational phrase is “IF NOT HANDLED PROPERLY”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The fact that the diary is stirring up so much controversey is a cause of concern—both with respect to reading comprehensioon and with respect basic tactical sense.

    When the military planned the D-Day attack, they had to do things like factor in the following facts:
    Water is wet
    The enemy is armed
    The enemgy is entrenched

    To acknowledge those facts was not conclude that the beach should not be taken. To the contrary, acknowledgement of the realities on the ground was a necessary prerequisite to having a plan that could work.

  • gsatt

    I’m voting for newt in the Michigan primary. And he will probably go down in flames, and they better be BIG FLAMES. I will do it because of his principals. he might have his liabilities, but what doesn’t. Telling the truth has liabilities.

    But as for Romney’s gorgeous looking pile of cash, good for him.. Obummer’s is bigger. HERE WE GOOOOOO!!!!!!

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

    So you hate money? What is this, Soviet Russia?

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

    Newt’s problem is that he became the Anti-Romney flavor of the week and when the voters looked closely at him all they could find is a windbag full of hot air ideas, some questionable ethics, and a gigantic ego.

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

    Maybe what we DON’T need is a person of inflexible principle. You can say many negative things about G W Bush, but even his opponents admit he was both loyal and principled. In fact, so much so that it could be described as stubborn obstinance.

    And what did it get us? Not a lot that is good.

  • Dave_A

    Between Obama and his backers, and the GOP & It’s…

    The Dems have more internal cash…

    The GOP has more PAC money…

  • lineholder

    I think Rush said it would be tomorrow. The information came via Larry Kudlow, directly from the Romney campaign. It’s supposed to be more “pro-capitalistic” than his current plan.

  • littlehouse18

    Our doctor basically admitted to us that the only thing it would tell us is whether or not to have an abortion. At the time the test is given, there is no medical treatment for the baby. The standard ultrasound, which is typically at 20 weeks, will tell you about problems that could potentially be treated in utero or soon after birth.

    We knew we did not want to kill our babies. So we saw no need for the amnio, and the risks involved.

    As Santorum correctly stated, there is about a 1 % chance that the amnio will cause a miscarriage. Those odds were too high for us anyway. Also, amnio diagnoses can be wrong.

  • Dave_A

    Granted. for those of us who are now voting ‘Not-Gingrich’, Romney has done us a service by sending Newt spiraling down to Ron Paul territory in the polls…

    But the fact is, the entire Romney argument for ‘Why nominate me?’ is based on his supposed knowledge of economics, which then becomes his argument for being ‘electable’.

    The problem is, his economic plan seems to be about as solid as his convictions on anything else – eg, about the consistency of non-finger-type jello… Get criticized for not caring enough about the poor? Propose a nutballl self-increasing minimum wage, for example….

    If Mitt wants to survive the presumable upcoming head-to-head with Santorum (as no amount of clapping, wishing, or what-have you is going to bring Newt back from a 14% RCP average), he needs to actually come up with a solid conservative economic plan, and a general election strategy that people believe can win…

    I don’t think he can do it…

    But we all know he will try, simply because the real ‘point’ beyond why Romney thinks we should let him run, is that he really, really wants to be President.

  • Dave_A

    There’s a new leftie-populist party this year, ‘Americans Elect’.

    They are on the ballots in most states, have a folksy message about ‘breaking out of the 2 party system’, and Ron is the frontrunner for their online-poll-based nominating process (go figure – no one spams a web poll like C4L)….

    I think we just may see if Ron is more ‘Nader Raider’ or ‘Ross Perot’, because AE is going to be offering him a 3rd party nomination he won’t even have to campaign for…

  • Scope

    Are they the ones that run a commercial with some young girl saying that we have to start electing the person and not the party, or something like that?

    I would guess that most people don’t even know who they are, and they don’t have much chance of gaining any major presence or notoriety between now and November. Ron Paul has his band of supporters who will follow him to hel1 if they had to, but, if he can’t win in the Republican primaries, how would he win running in a party that no one has ever heard of. I truly believe that he is just trying to get enough delegates to have a say at the convention, if a brokered situation happens. If Paul thinks he is not too old to become the president for at least 4 years, he may just be looking for a Romney to promise him a spot as the head of the Fed, so he can oversee it’s demise and dismantling. C4L will remain active in order to hold a spot open for Rand in 16 or 20.

  • lineholder

    I don’t normally frequent Salon, but a few days ago there was an article that piqued my interest…so I went to see what the left was spouting on about. THEY are taking Americans Elect seriously…as a potential way to oppose Obama!!!

    Stunned the dickens out of me.

  • acat

    .. Yeah.

    That’s about the level of intelligence I’ve come to expect from Paulistines.

    Mew

  • Scope

    to oppose Obama, let’s all send them some money to get them up and going. Having a very strong leftist third party showing in November can only help the R nominee. If Ron Paul is their nominee, he can Ralph Nader them.

  • Dave_A

    Based on his engagement with Perry over the ‘treasonous’ comment (one of Perry’s worst positions, IMHO – and I supported him)…. Which is a good thing. The GOP needs to defend the Fed and the banks.

    And I’m not saying Ron can win – it would be a terrible day for America if he could…

    The thing is, Nader couldn’t win as a Green candidate either – but he still ran… Perot had little chance in 96, he ran anyway…

    I have a feeling that if Ron is offered the AE ticket, he will gladly accept one more chance to flip the GOP the bird – since he thinks he will draw votes from the GOP more than the Dems….

    As for Rand Paul, we are unfortunately stuck with him…. He needs to be isolated & kept in the closet like Dad was for most of his career…

  • joeydavis

    I’m also a long time trench fighter in campaign politics. As such, I’m a contrarian to conventional campaign thought.

    Elections are not won in the middle. Elections are won on the fringes. The harder, more dedicated your core base is, the more likely they are to show up on election day.

    I’m 100% confident that in a heated discussion Santorum’s man-dog homosexuality case is a winner at the ballotbox. There are more homophobes, than homsexuals. Those in the middle will stay out of the fight.

    I’m 100% confident that there are more “conservative” women who would prefer to have a family, stay home and raise their kids, than there are “liberal” women who are offended by the concept. Those in the middle will stay out of the fight..

    I’m 100% confident that the more the media pushes the envelope, the more these conservatives will dig in.

    At the end of the day when you begin fighting family values and you start trying to run through the basic family structure a lot of people take it personally.

    I understand earmarks. I believe in a progressive income tax and I think protecting our manufacturing base through tax benefits, rather than tariffs is sound economic policy.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    i dont believe in the government picking winners. manufacturers should have the same tax rate as everyone else. i understand wanting to bring back manufacturing jobs but fundamentally the economy has changed. i live in a statr where NAFTA has been a good thing. i believe in free trade and hate when people demogauge it. i believe that we need a flat tax or consumption tax that stops promoting one way over another. eliminate deductions, flatten the rates and remove loopholes. if you need tax deductions to have kids or buy a house then you shouldn’t buy a house or have kids. i am happily married but i didn’t do it because the government promotes it-i did it because it was the right thing to do. if you think moderate or independent voters are going to stay out of this you are wrong. they will disqualify a candidate who focuses on social issues from either party so if we allow our guy to answer these questions we are dead. if we make obama have to defend the contraceptive mandate or government funded abortions we wi. no candidate won in 2010 for social issurs but plenty of candidates defined on them lost from both parties. people support traditional marriage but independent voters won’t compare homosexuality to man-dog relations. most GOP voters don’t agree with that.

  • littlehouse18

    I still think their purpose is to pull the Ross Perot type voters away from the GOP. They could be very dangerous for us.

  • littlehouse18

    It was because he mismanaged the economy terribly and appeased our enemies leaving us with a weakened national defense. Everyone felt he was incompetent. At that time, we thought he still wanted to do right by the country, but after his more recent statements, I’m not as sure. His religiosity was actually seen as one of his few positives – he was seen as a good, sincere, incompetent man.

  • littlehouse18

    nt

  • acat

    He’s got a narrower understanding of conservatism than even President Ford had!

    Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
    – Gerald Ford

    I don’t see where Santorum – while in office – was a notable fiscal or defense conservative. His votes and cheerleading were for expensive, big-government programs; he was all for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there’s nothing about his visiting the troops in either theater, nor of him working to improve the Veterans Administration.

    I don’t object to his religion – I defended Rick Perry’s right to his faith even though I share neither – but Perry at least kept trying to talk about the issues… watching Santorum with Scheiffer, it was painfully clear that Santorum didn’t want to turn to economics or energy … he was happy talking about social issues.

    Mew

  • littlehouse18

    Santorum is correct that it would be better for your kids if one of you finds a way to be mostly home with them. It doesn’t have to be your wife. If they will attend public school, the govt will be a big part of your life.

    I don’t fully agree with Rick about the use of birth control, but I’m not worried that he will force his views on others. And I see where he comes from – BC complicates relationships and discourages self-control and responsibility, and it can have negative health consequences, as the Pill is a hormonal medication. I know several Catholics who have explained the Church’s views to me and who agree with it. It has some merits.

  • littlehouse18

    ..

  • littlehouse18

    I believe the fetus ( including DS children) is a human being, therefore it is better that she not kill her child.

    Santorum can testify better than most about the value of one of these ‘imperfect’ babies. Anyone who looks at baby Bella and says she should have been aborted is heartless.

  • littlehouse18

    but my doctor said the main reason for amnio is to decide whether to abort or not. She said there is really nothing I could otherwise do with the information. Given the risks, we elected no amnio. There is a 1% chance of miscarrying your baby after amnio. The risk of serious genetic disease, at least for those under 40, is less than or comparable to the chance of miscarriage. Also, there is a chance that the amnio would be wrong, and a horrible decision could be made based on wrong information.

  • aesthete

    it’s that a certain type of voter doesn’t know or care to differentiate between a full-spectrum conservative like Perry, Huntsman, or Daniels, and a one-note SoCon like Santorum.

    Knowledge is half the battle!

  • APA Guy

    Certainly that Eastern liberal hairpiece from MA doesn’t have a fat ego that turns bright pink anytime ANYONE questions him.

    Sell crazy someplace else…we’re all stocked up with the Paulbots here.

  • Bill S

    What kind of “solution” is anyone here supposed to offer regarding a sub-par collection of presidential candidates? It’s too late for 2012. We’re not going to magically turn one of these guys into the ideal conservative. The best anyone can do now is to hope and pray that the person who wins the primary doesn’t screw it up so bad that a horribly wounded Obama can’t be defeated.

  • stumpy

    the suggestion that we (EE) shouldn’t associate with them. There ate people, like it or not, who will get their “news” from these groups. We must work to get as many EEs on these networks as possible to present our case. We will always be outnumbered and overshouted, but we have to try and reach these viewers. The important thing is to know the reporters, so you can be aware of their bias.

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

    He gets it for being too biased.

    He gets it for not being biased enough.

    He gets it for being pro-Romney.

    He gets it for being pro-Gingrich.

    He got it for being pro-Perry.

    He got it for being pro-Cain.

    He got it for being pro-Pawlenty.

    People project biases onto Erick, but he’s been an even handed observer, providing solid analysis to allow the activist community to act accordingly.

    Of course they chose poorly, and now here we are.

    But blaming Erick for that is stupid.

  • demsaresatanic

    an unsourced partial quote taken out of context. Unsurprisingly, you call yourself a true conservative, radicals always see themselves as the sole bearer of truth.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    i believe birth control is fine for married couples who aren’t ready for kids. i understand the concerns about the promotion of it, but i fundamentally disagree with banning something because a select group says so. if there is proof of a medical danger for a form of contraceptive then scrutinize it. if you are worried that other people are having sex, then you are overstepping your grounds. it’s not the government’s job to raise our kids, i understand people being concerned but don’t run to the government to do the job parents and the local church should be doing.

  • Bill S

    You’ve had about fifty strikes…one can only be patient for so long. You’ve been posting (hiding) behind a proxy, so my guess is you’re a retread who can’t quit us.

    Don’t come back, jackwagon.

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

    Gingrich takes it to a new level.

  • elayman

    Utah’s lack of government regulation is a good model for other states but the concept of an exchange is still very much a work in progress. Good for some small businesses that couldn’t afford it before but the program hasn’t done much so far to rein in costs or lower the number of uninsured.

    Although Indiana health reform is also not broad based and Medicare enrollment in “Healthy Indiana” had to be capped (with a huge waiting list) in order to ensure that the program’s costs remain predictable. Daniels also talks about rationing which may go over like a lead balloon. Of course both governors and initiatives would be infinitely preferable than the current GOP field or what is coming in Obamacare.

  • Scope

    Newt supporter. Watching Meghan Kelly this afternoon, she played a portion of a Newt townhall where he said that Obama is one of the most dangerous presidents in our history. He said that we may see an American city disappear from an attack by our enemies one day with Obama’s horrendous foreign policy, in other words. Meghan had two guests on to talk about the issue, of course one being a liberal. Don’t forget the importance of fair and balanced with Fox. She led the discussion with saying- did Newt Gingrich go to far with his comments. I was sure that she was going to add that Newt was horribly offensive to our president. During the segment, she more so agreed with the liberal in that he was off the rails with his comments.

    The reason I stopped watching Fox 24/7 is because I expect CNN to attack our candidates with everything they say against Obama. I expect them to put Obama on a pedestal. I don’t want or expect the so-called only right leaning news channel to trash and bash our Republican candidates. If it isn’t Romney, it is not going to be covered positively by Fox.

  • littlehouse18

    But Santorum is in no way planning on banning BC. This whole issue was decided probably long before you were born. I suspect the Dems are pushing this idea because so many young people are not aware of this (not saying this is you, but in general). So they try to create the completely unfounded fear in young people. And make no mistake, while Santorum gets the most flack, this issue was meant to stick to any Republican – Romney was asked about this at a debate.

    Similarly, they exploit young people’s lack of experience with the cold war and what communism really means. No Americans born after the 70s has had any real exposure to the USSR, Mao, Pol Pot, or for that matter, the 1979 Iranian revolution.

  • Common_Cents

    based on all the outside observer type diaries vs. grass roots conservatism activism diaries.

  • lineholder

    At least that’s the one referenced in the Salon article that I read. And he is listed at the Americans Elect website. Not as many “trackers” as Ron Paul, but he’s there all the same.

    That would be interesting, heh…Obama being challenged from the left??? Who would be his base, then?

  • Common_Cents

    Just know CNN would largely come out w/ the long knives on the eventual GOP nominee.

    Yeah FOX has taken a tack to the left and largely promote Romney, I get that.

    Just keep an eye on the big picture is all.

  • Common_Cents

    is the R party has no strategic plan to deal w/ the biased media.

  • Scope

    that they would want to promote Bernie. Isn’t he in Congress tagged as an Independent, but is part of the Socialist party? I’m going to have to go and check the Americans Elect website.

  • curlygirlconservative

    It’s my understanding that one of the “right” things Chris Christie did while campaigning as a Republican in the bluest of blue states (NJ), was he wasn’t extremely specific about his plans and he kept things pretty close to the vest. Then he gets into office…. well we know the rest of the story. THAT’S smart politics and obviously highly effective!!

  • Common_Cents

    agree, it’s a much different time now.

  • 6t9boss

    One big reason…. Daniels did not want to be President so he did not put himself out there as a candidate, raise money, spend money, organize a campiagn,and let the “people” vote on his abilities. Now you want a back door deal to determine who our candidate is going to and thwart the vioce of the voters?
    If so, Then why bother with Primaries…..just have a Convention, let the Karl Rove GOP RINO’s vote for their favorite “My Turn Next” milk toast Moderate!
    I am sure the Conservatives will fall right in line just like did for McCain…..LOL!

  • radicalrighty

    “The speech and meeting transcripts are contained in a largely unexplored cache of documents compiled by a former Gingrich aide and archived at the University of West Georgia, where Gingrich was an assistant professor in the 1970s.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-archives-show-his-public-praise-private-criticism-of-reagan/2012/02/15/gIQAnK6IOR_print.html

    But feel free to continue looking out of your belly-button.

  • Juggernaut

    than before and if workable with today’s congress. His original plan was labeled too moderate and wouldn’t help the economy.

  • gsatt

    Where did I go wrong and represent that I “hate” money?

    Its a race, Romney showed up ready to slay. Good for him,, and I mean that.

  • Finrod

    Congratulations on a spectacular self-beclowning. If you knew ANYTHING about me or had read anything that I have posted, you would know that I loathe Romney as much as I loathe Santorum.

    I’m not here from anyone’s campaign, though I would happily join up on Newt’s campaign given the opportunity. So you’re about as completely wrong as you can be about me, which is only appropriate, since you’re calling me a liar on something that you have no freaking clue about the facts on.

    The language I would like to use to describe you is forbidden by site policy, so I will simply say that it’s difficult to tell which orifice you’re spewing this from, but it smells bad and looks worse.

  • Finrod

    He’s got all the signs: accusing others of lying about something that is provably true, accusing others of shilling for a candidate with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and repeating his crap when he’s called on it.

    After all, the fool called me part of the Romney campaign, when I loathe Romney with a passion. We’re definitely talking room-temperature IQ here.

  • davidfreedomcare

    Erick laid the perfect groundwork for responsibilites as it pretains to our political infracture.

    If this admiistration has taught us anything, government should acknowledge their limitation of power. You cannot save the world, redefine the constitution, and go against the will of the people.

    We have erronously entrusted the government of our own free will . For example, abortion, the pill, socialized health are principles. Protection of these rights are the government. Continuing to ask our government is an impedement on our freedom. .