« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

How Santorum Can Make this a Two Man Race in 3 Days …… (Please Post New Comments at End)

By: quill67 (Diary)  |  March 7th, 2012 at 08:52 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Note to Posters: The number of comments is making following new discussions difficult. Please post new comments at the end

Santorum has the power to make this a two man race in 6 5 4 3 days. Here’s How:

Win Kansas on Saturday.   Update (Stage 1 Complete): Santorum Wins Kansas! Over 50% of Vote!
Beat Gingrich on Tuesday in Alabama and Mississippi.

He does that and Newt is out of the race.

Then to gain momentum, he needs to win Missouri on the 17th and Illinois on the 20th so he can win Wisconsin on April 3rd. April 24th is the North East and Romney wins everywhere but Pennsylvania (maybe Delaware)

But the month of May would then belong to Santorum (if Newt is gone):

Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Nebraska, Oregon (Romney’s best chance), Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas.

But if Gingrich wins Alabama and Mississippi, Gingrich stays in and he then has a chance to show he can win outside the South.

Santorum gave a good hard hitting speech and his attack on Romney was fantastic!

SANTORUM: I’ve never passed a statewide government-run health care system when I was governor, because, well, I wasn’t governor, but Governor Romney did. And now we find out this week not only did he pass it in Massachusetts, he advocated for it to be passed in Washington, D.C., in the middle of the debate on health care.

(BOOING)

It’s one thing to defend a mandated top-down government-run health care program that you imposed on the people of your state. It’s another thing to recommend and encourage the president of the United States to impose the same thing on the American people. And it’s another thing yet to go out and tell the American public that you didn’t do it.

(BOOING)

We need a person running against President Obama who is right on the issues and truthful with the American public.

And love this quote:

“We are in this thing not because I so badly want to be the most powerful man in this country. It’s because I want so badly to return the power to you in this country.”

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    t

    • redmymind

      What a superb piece of analysis!

    • Scope

      because today, only 4 days later you are on the Gingrich bandwagon. I suspect that by the Tues. vote, you will be back to Santorum camp yet again. All one has to do is read your posts from day to dy, they change that rapidly, based on one comment that you don’t like or agree with. You really are a hoot GC. You remind me of a dinner menu, where there are so many choices one can’t narrow down to one choice. Uh, should I have the burger special, should I have the roast beef and mashed potatoes, should I have my beloved Rueben, or should I have the Chef’s salad? Oh, wow is me, I have too many choices, what will I pick.

  • drycnty

    http://www.justin.fm/2012/03/rick-santorum-unfit-for-office.html

  • mikeymike143

    and i dont believe for a minute that romney has it wrapped up.

  • WillWong

    “But if Gingrich wins Alabama and Mississippi, Gingrich stays in and he then has a chance to show he can win outside the South.”

    What happens after this? Santorum drops out to make it a two man race between Newt and Romney?

    • quill67

      I did an analysis of what happens if Gingrich wins–from both Gingrich and Santorum’s view. It gets messy.

      Santorum stays in because he still has PA, Illinois and Wisconsin where he hopes to do well. Gingrich would want Santorum to stay in because he does not have the resources to fight in those states and Romeny might win.

      Wisconsin is the only winner take all state early on that would be problematic where a split vote might give Romney the win. But Gingrich would simply hope those delegates would not matter.

      Then the fight moves South in May, and if Gingrich has already won AL and MS then he still might win those states even with Santorum in the race. May belongs to the conservative(s) in the race.

      Brokered Convention. Dick Morris believes Romney will have to win 64% of remaining delegates to win nomination without a floor fight. He believes that it is very unlikely that Romney does this so it leads to a brokered convention.

      BROKERED CONVENTION (The LEADUP)

      Texas and California become critical at this point. If Gingrich wins Texas, and Romney California and Romney still does not have enough delegates then Gingrich has a chance to be selected at convention.

      If Gingrich wins Texas and California, he has strong chance to be selected at convention.

      If Santorum wins Texas and California, then he is the favorite to be selected at convention.

      So basically, it becomes a real interesting mess if Gingrich wins AL and MS. But if he doesn’t, I believe he will realize that May might not be a good month for him anyway and so he might as well pull out.

      • clowngirl

        it’s starting to look like a brokered convention is more likely than not.

        As you mentioned — and by Gingrich’s own admission — Mississippi and Alabama look to be decisive for Newt (and for him to be saying that he must have reason to believe he will win)

        Assuming Newt can win in both, then he and Santorum should start thinking about how they can best compete in a manner that both maximizes their gains individually and serves to block Romney from gaining a majority of delegates.

        A cursory glance at the rest of the schedule suggests that having both candidates stay in the race — putting their focus (when possible) on states where they have the obvious advantage would bring a much better likelihood of stopping Romney than either candidate alone.

        • Agelaius

          Newt will neither win Alabama nor Mississippi. It’s not enough that he’s from Georgia. I think Santorum is more likely to win even though he is a northerner both because he is perceived to be the stronger candidate on moral and social issues, and because Newt is perhaps unfavorably associated with the Clinton years, while Santorum has more cred in terms of standing up to Pelosi and Reid during the times they have misused power in Congress. Newt wasn’t in a position to actually confront them, except rhetorically.

          Also there are the concerns of voters who prioritize moral issues. I believe in redemption, both in the spiritual and colloquial senses of the term, but I suspect many white Christian evangelicals in MS and AL may not have really internalized that message, or may believe that Newt’s conversion is not as deep as they might like. Just saying…not necessarily agreeing. I take Newt at his word on family values and though I support Santorum, I would be happy to see Newt win rather than Romney.

          Beyond that Newt is a thinker and a theoretician, and an ideas man. No denying that. I don’t want to insinuate that MS and AL conservatives don’t value ideas, or facts, or rigorous logical thought. Democrats insult white southern conservative Christians at their peril, constantly forgetting that they punch well above their weight. I do wonder though whether this is a strong enough draw to the average values voter in southern states, who recoil at Romney’s lack of charisma, and rather appreciate Santorum’s everyman demeanor. Newt is having a hard time selling himself on those intangible leadership qualities, and on convincing people he is genuine. I agree that Newt, intelligence-wise, is well into MENSA territory and may well be a genius in the clinical sense. But like Romney, he seems to have some trouble selling the intangibles.

          If there is a brokered convention, Newt could be the compromise that would bring together the strong conservatives and the intellectual heavyweights. I don’t see a path to winning other than a brokered convention, and I do think a solid showing by Santorum could actually stop Romney.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            but the fear of Romney winning is pushing voters toward Santorum because of his momentum. I’m a Newt supporter, and I plan to vote for him on Tuesday. However, I’d be lying if I didn’t say I wasn’t considering Santorum, mostly because I despise Romney. I haven’t heard a single solitary person mention the Clinton years when discussing Newt.

          • andystone

            Newt is doing quite well in the latest AL poll

            http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/polls-show-slight-gingrich-1378931.html

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            Gingrich and Santorum are participating in an AL-GOP forum Monday night here in Birmingham. As of last night, Romney and Paul hadn’t responded to the invitation.

          • clowngirl

            but Santorum was a distant third — suggesting that even for voters who want the able-to-beat-Romney-and-the-state voters Newt’s their man!

    • greenpoint

      Could Newt have set the bar any lower? Win his home state and he stays in and brags about his victory. He couldn’t manage a second place showing anywhere else on Super Tuesday!!

      • rankandfileconservative

        Oh, that’s right, Rick is best at wrapping himself in the mantle of religion, so that means he’s a “true conservative.” I think it makes good sense to look at these men through the lens of their actual performance in government, and when you do that the truth becomes a bit clearer. Rick has some big problems, as illustrated here:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELbCuLEe7Sw

        • honoraryintern

          …between Newt and Rick’s positions. You really believe Mark Levin would endorse a NE liberal? Newt has lost his chance. Be real the only thing he accomplishes by staying in the race now in give the 35% NE liberal the nomination.

          • WillWong

            and Santorum’s. Newt was the first Repub Speaker in 40 years, first Repub Speaker to be reelected in 68 years, balanced budgets 4 years in a row, and came within 1 senate vote of getting the balanced budget amendment out of Congress!

            Rick’s record was being #3 on the old boys club and taking a few for the team!

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

            voted for all those balanced budgets, voted right on judges and the war and has been a regular presence on TV defending conservatism for 15+ years. He’s fine.

          • WillWong

            You don’t send a boy to do a man’s job!

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

            a matter of taste and I hear that Rick doesn’t hold Newt’s old age against him…

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

            [ref.: 1984 RR-Mondale Debate]

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

            good one doc

          • lineholder

            some things that have come into play regarding the IRS. Newt’s plan to change tax structures may be a long-shot, but now that the left has started moving in the direction of using the IRS to limit our religious freedoms…changing the tax structure is starting to look better every day.

          • honoraryintern

            Believable. 2 states and less than 10% support in those all important purple states.. all 3 other men have to quit for Newt to win. Play the cards on the table not the Newtonimum straight flush you wish for.

            Newt staying in hands Mitt Romney the nomination. Check out his list of advisors, moderate central. Rho’bama care will be ‘left largely untouched”. Is that the outcome you’re looking for?

          • WillWong

            will cross over to Romney! Most of those so-cons supporting Santorum crossed over from Newt’s column after Santorum’s win in Iowa and the subsequent endorsement of Santorum by tne group of 150 Evangelistic leaders!

            The path to nomination will probably be a brokered convention!

          • jamesm

            camp. Maybe 1 in 4 would got to Romney. Same if it were the other way around.

          • WillWong

            Those non-romneys have mostly moved on to Santorum being swayed by that stupid electability issue and the Evangelicals endorsement! Most are for Newt because of Newt!

          • jamesm

            Newt would vote for Santorum over Romney. Santorum will vote for Newt over Romney.

          • jamesm

            Right now he has 53% of the vote

          • Scope

            that more than half of Gingrich’s supporters would go to Romney? or is that just your own “opinion”? At least Nate Silver went through the work of going back to the contests that have taken place so far, and did an analysis based on that information. Only about 25% of Newt supporters went to Romney, whereas at least 60% of Gingrich supporters went over to Santorum. Talking out of your other mouth again Will.

          • WillWong

            I responded to you on this earlier. Past performanes do not guarantee future results!

          • Vegas_Rick

            Which is a shame. For all the vitriol thrown around, Speaker Gingrich showed substantially more leadership and managed to reduce government under a Dem President. Compare him to Speaker Boehner and you see there is no comparison.

            Too bad really as we could use a big set of cojones right about now.

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

            notexts

          • rankandfileconservative

            Strongly disagree here. Newt managed a House takeover which culminated in an essentially balanced Federal budget. Rick Santorum had a bright start (under Newt’s tutelage) and then became a big government, GWB Republican over the 2000-2006 period, to the point that he was decimated in his re-election campaign. There’s more daylight there than a nickel. ;)

            It just amazes me how short sighted many conservatives have been in this race. While I don’t like Newt’s personal transgressions from 20 yrs ago+ (which he is fully repentant for, by the way), I hardly see how this disqualifies him from being President, and I certainly think that this is only an issue for him in the primary, not the general.

            The bigger question is: who do you think Obama will have a harder time with, someone whose experience is composed of cutting waste, balancing budgets, and economic success when in power, or someone who Obama can very credibly claim was part of the spending problem while he was in the leadership? I can see Obama making the “don’t forget, these are the people who started this economic mess” argument against Rick, to great effect with Independents, but there is no similar argument to be made against Newt.

            PS. My very educated guess is that Levin supports Rick because they are good friends, and have been for years. Levin has defended Newt quite a bit, and I wonder who he would support if there weren’t a personal relationship involved.

  • littlehouse18

    pretty much encapsulates why I want Santorum as president.

    • quill67

      Both those quotes are great. If he gets some momentum behind him, he could really pull some big surprises.

    • honoraryintern

      … Makes me smile and lifts my heart. Knew he was the rght guy when he went home for Bella…

      • Vegas_Rick

        That.s a good way to pick a President.

        • honoraryintern

          Nt

          • Vegas_Rick

            Huh?

          • honoraryintern

            ..beer is good…

          • Vegas_Rick

            Who’d a thunk it? But it has no bearing on my choice of a Presidential candidate.

            If you think that a candidate leaving the campaign trail to tend to their sick child is somehow extraordinary, I hope you don’t have children.

  • Dave_A

    Take away the quasi-confederatist ‘states rights’ angle that Perry pushed, and the two Ricks are starting to sound very, very similar with the ‘Freedom’ message & focus on O-care…

    • acat

      I hear someone who’s trying to speak ‘Fiscal Conservative’ with a mouth full of union marbles…

      Mew

      • fightnright

        I think folks tend to forget that union muscle/overreach is one of the most potent levers the left uses to shape the direction of the country and inhibit its economy, thus should remain in the spotlight as a key issue for voters in making their choice.

        • David123

          We will be fortunate to get back to the Bush years; more fortunate to get back to Reagan. But getting back to before Eisenhower is not a good goal, and certainly an overambitious one.

          We win if we can show that the Democratic Party is not big enough to contain both radical environmentalists and unions. Rick Santorum is the candidate that can show that most clearly, and he is our strongest candidate.

          • fightnright

            and a couple of straw man logical fallacies into your response to my statement.

            Never stated nor implied going back to Eisenhower, repealing Taft-Hartley or Davis-Bacon.

            There are solutions other than all or nothing regarding union abuses. While Obamacare is a primary issue in this campaign, most voters can handle at once several vital factors impacting the country at this time.

          • David123

            Santorum has been criticized on this site for voting against Davis-Bacon and voting for individual states to determine whether or not to allow union-shops. I don’t see those as big issues.

            I do see Obama throwing workers under the bus to stop the Keystone Pipeline as an election issue, and one that Rick Santorum will raise effectively.

          • lineholder

            the site of the DNC convention. Just for background info, having the DNC here is causing a bit of ruckus in our state because the Dems only want to use unionized labor and they’ve been subtly putting pressure on local employers where unionization is concerned.

            For my state, which is currently RTW, votes that have been cast pertaining to RTW legislation do matter. The level of awareness is heightened in these parts right now. And it could be a difficult issue for a candidate to overcome.

            That’s just NC, but other states have been making efforts to move more in the direction of implementing RTW legislation, so they could have a heightened awareness of this issue as well.

            This doesn’t necessarily mean that people will hold any votes against Santorum. personally…only that they will be more inclined to question things than they normally would.

      • EyeofMitt

        N/T

    • WillWong

      Would you trust a Santorum who started sounding like Perry in the last two weeks! I am not agreeing with you that he is!

  • joeydavis

    Santorum is what Santorum has always been. You and many others have simply opened your ears and started listening.

    That is why he won Iowa

    • WillWong

      Rick would have finished below Bachmann and Newt would have won! Things did not happen in a vacuum. You forgot to mention the millions of $$$$ of negative ads, and the $1M buying of the Evangelistic endorsement!

  • benko

    Sorry. And I live in PA and am far from sure he’d win here.

  • vallisitsa

    My dear pro-lifers and cultural warriors,I have news for you. Imagine we are all a family sitting at a common dinner table and our house is on fire. No matter how important, now is not the best time to discuss who sleeps with whom and whether you think that cousin is secretly gay. It’s time to save our house.
    With our economy, debts and rampant corruption I can bet that for every abortion done for a reason “this foetus makes me look fat” there is one because” I lost my job and can’t afford the baby”.
    It will take a long cultural war to change former category , but you can save a lot of unborn babies of latter if we fix the economy NOW.
    That’s why I think Rick Santorum is not the best candidate of the day. We can create a special Tzar or ministry position for him , Ministry of Cultural Wars perhaps, he can be a Commander-in-Chief there. But, please , don’t let him come CLOSE to earmarks and lobbyists . Santorum and earmarks – is just one bad mix. Do him a favor and save his soul from this evil temptation.
    WE need someone with a real life plan to save the economy- Newt is his name.

    • honoraryintern

      … Left the house on fire when he was ejected from the Speaker position. He is about to leave another house on fire by handing this nomination to the 35% hostile takeover king. Your analogy fails.

      • WillWong

        The house was fine when he left!

        • honoraryintern

          …when they should have gained seats. Left Denny Hastert without a practical majority… House on fire…’i'm leaving now’…what decade did you live through?

          • Vegas_Rick

            After a very unpopular impeachment proceding? Newt doesn’t get credit for creating the first House majority in decades but he sure gets credit for losing it.

          • WillWong

            Hastert pretty much was able to pass nearly everything he wanted to pass. GWBush misplaced his veto pen as well!

          • sulmak

            There were still conservative southern dems in 1998 and Hastert had an outright majority for 4 years during the Bush years.

            Gingrich, with a democrat President who only moved towards the center because Gingrich dragged him too, was able to roll back new deal programs such as paying farmers not to grow and was able to balance the budget.

            He had far better conditions than Gingrich and managed to unbalance the budget. “Oh but Hastert balanced the budget more years”. So what. Gingrich had already done the dirty work. Gingrich was the who risked his own political career during the government shutdown standoff with Clinton. That Gingrich was willing to do that was the only reason Clinton ever moved away from his socialized healthcare pushing government expanding self and was willing to allow the house republicans to balance the budget.

            Spending is first and foremost the responsibility of the the house, and by extension the speaker. It is their responsibility to choose which programs to shave, which to save, and which to defund.

            Do you honestly think Hastert had more resistance from “I won’t balance the budget on the backs of the poor” Bush than Gingrich from Clinton? Ridiculous. Hastert had it made in the shade compared to Gingrich

            Hastert paved the way for Pelosi to use republican deficit spending as an excuse to expand deficit growth beyond the rate of the economy. It was a lot harder for Bush to exercise his veto when he ran a deficit for all those years.

          • demsaresatanic

            I doubt we would have passed welfare reform, let alone the other accomplishments.

      • Vegas_Rick

        that supports you contention that he was “ejected” from the House. If not, STFU. You sound like a progressive spouting lies.

        • Vegas_Rick

          nt

        • honoraryintern

          … His own words describe the process as a ‘rebellion’ and ‘coup’. He brought the impeachment proceedings while co-habitating. Check my other posts not comments.. They will really wind you up.

          • Vegas_Rick

            You’ve yet to make a cogent argument in the comments. I can’t imagine your diaries are any better.

          • Vegas_Rick

            charges had no impact on the cowards in the House who were worried about maintaining their perks. They had to run him out, he didn’t play by their rules.

          • Scope

            linked here has Santorum in the lead. The poll is a month old, but unlike the other candidates, Santorum did a sweep through south Missouri today.

          • redmymind

            Really nice, polite folks.

          • Bill S

            ;-)

          • JSobieski

            So whatever forces led to the rebellion, they weren’t all that conservative now, where they?

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

            and even Newt has admitted that he was rolled by Clinton on matters that he could have gotten more spending cuts on in which he didn’t keep his word to house members.

          • honoraryintern

            Flash in the darkness and save the day….

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

            fight

          • WillWong

            So the Speaker admitted to being rolled by Clinton! How is that different when you sold your stocks and profitted 100% and later admitted that if you had held on another week you would have made 200% instead!

            Hind sight is 20/20! How can you guys take Newt’s transparency against him? Just pure BS! Here you have a guy who is honest enough to admit he could have done more and use that against the man!

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

            Filling in the details on the rebellion

          • WillWong

            Educating the sheeple and clearing ignorance should be our motto!

            So many of these former house members who served under Speaker Gingrich during their most exhilirating era of their entire political lives will not hesitate to bash the Speaker and yet when asked to name one period of their political lives that was the most exciting and where they had achieved the most for conservative governance will 9 times out of 10 name either the Presidency of Ronald Reagan or the Republican Revolution of 1994!

            No one can claim sole ownership of the Republican Revolution of 1994 but if asked, 10 times out of 10, people will give credit to Speaker Gingrich! So, either we stop saying that the Republican Revolution of 1994 where we won the House for the first time in 40 years is such a great deal or we give credit where credit is due.that Newt Gingrich was the Commander-in-Chief of that Revolution!

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

            he was also an arrogant ass that made many mistakes as Speaker that alienated him from his fellow conservatives.

            Guess what, neither Santorum, nor Romney is Jesus Christ either and to pretend that any of these three are head and shoulders better than another is what adds to ignorance, not my accurate recitation of history. I would say that I think Newt and Rick are much more reliable that Romney on conservative issues, despite Newt’s continues defense of Medicare Part D and recent support for an individual mandate and global warming fiction as the basis for policy.

          • WillWong

            First Newt is on your Mt.Rushmore of Conservatism History. Then you said Romney, Santorum, and Newt are just as good as each other! So Santorum and Romney must be on your Mt. Rushmore too! It is getting awfully crowded up there!

            It is arguable that Newt is a better candidate now than ever! 13 years in the wilderness to hone his skills and develop solutions plus a mellowing that comes with age and grandfatherhood. If Newt is on your Mt. Rushmore based on the past, he should be moved to the front based on what he is doing now and in the future!

          • lapert

            I’m beginning to think you aren’t serious with this stuff. He hasn’t spent 13 years in the wilderness – he has spent 13 years in DC as part of the chattering class. The ideas he has developed and pushed over those years are the ones he now refers to as mistakes (cap & trade, individual mandate) or avoids mentioning (Medicare Part D, energy subsidies). He would be the second oldest President ever inaugurated – he is a few years past mellowing that comes with age.

            He is a has been politician who wasted his best chance to run for President in the late 90′s – now he is taking one last lap in the political limelight for his ego’s sake. It certainly went far better than I’m sure even he believed it could (largely owing to how poor this field has been) but it is clearly over for him.

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

            I think he should have gotten the message from TN, but…

          • demsaresatanic

            as if Reagan was too old to get anything done.

          • lapert

            I didn’t say he was too old to get anything done now did I? But while we are at it, do you think Reagan would have gotten more or less done had he succeeded in 1976? Or even better 1968?

          • EyeofMitt

            Lapert, I believe that would be a “Ms. Satanic”

          • lapert

            nt

          • demsaresatanic

            She who has an advanced degree has a habit of making pointless comments,

          • lapert

            Do you have an advanced degree? If so, I guess it is you.

          • demsaresatanic

            A very poor use of your advanced degree in my opinion.

          • lapert

            At least you gave up trying to argue in favor of Newt to play a childish game.

            Good for you Ms/Mr Satanic.

            Now, as for that 69 year old has-been politician who spent the last 13 years surrounding himself in DC without even the pretense of responsibility that comes with elected office. Yeah, his age is past mellowed and is a definite liability (at least Reagan spent those years between 68-80 actually governing something and actively taking on the established party leaders).

          • demsaresatanic

            but at least you are entertaining. Keep it up, don’t let me down.

          • lapert

            With your debating skills maybe you should challenge Newt to Lincoln/Douglas debates – he isn’t going to have anything else to do this summer and fall.

          • EyeofMitt

            en tea

          • demsaresatanic

            get your hopes up too high.

          • lineholder

            It’s turned into a tit-for-tat argument that provides nothing of substance and accomplishes nothing positive.

            Are you really sure that is what you want to do?

          • EyeofMitt

            — and all you can think of is: Full Stop. Some writer you are.

          • lineholder

            What possibilities are you referring to? What potential do you see that exists in the current conversation?

            I’m not the one who may be putting myself in a position to be ridiculed by allowing the conversation to sink to the level it has, eyeofmitt.

            If you want to continue, that’s your choice.

          • WillWong

            Then it really shows how bad your candidate, whomever you are supporting, really is that Newt is fighting him to a standstill and had allowed a 69 year old grandfather to so dominate the debates that three of them conspired to boycott all debates. My oh My, Obama must be shaking in his boots at the thought of debating your candidate! LoL!

          • lapert

            Newt isn’t fighting anyone to a standstill. He isn’t competitive – he is just taking up space at this point. The only thing keeping him from being the biggest joke left in the nomination fight is the even older loon in the race.

          • WillWong

            If you are a Romney supporter, your statement is definitely out of line and shows gross ignorance. Romney after spending $50M and having campaigned for the past 5 years and enjoying support from the Republican Party as the Establishment candidate, he has yet to lock down the nomination reveals his weakness!

            On the other hand, if you are a Santorum supporter and still said what you did about Newt, you are simply a foolish and ungrateful person. Your candidate once remarked that he learned all he knew about conservatism by listening to Newt’s Gopac tapes on a daily basis. And say what you like, Santorum was simply the lucky beneficiary of millions of dollars of unanswered negative ads. And he certainly did not blow Newt away. The last time I checked, Newt is actually ahead with bounded delegates.

            I am actually very reluctant to engage you because I find that you like to argue for the sake of arguing. Ciao!

          • lapert

            First, I don’t consider any of the remaining choices ‘my’ candidate. I find them all lacking, but I am able to acknowledge the reality that Romney is nearly certain to win the nomination with Santorum having a small chance. Newt simply does not.

            In 23 states to date, newt has finished 1st or 2nd only 4 times, Romney has not finished first or second only twice including 14 wins and Santorum has done it 14 times including 7 wins – this isn’t even a contest and to the extent it is competitive it is between two people and Newt isn’t one of them..

            You can spin stories about bound delegates as if the caucus delegates are going to radically change course – but that is just finding reasons to avoid facing reality.Santorum may have learnt everything he knows from the elder Newt and Romney may be the weakest major party nominee since Mondale but they are still both lapping Newt in this race.

          • WillWong

            Discussions involving opinions are a terrible waste of time and resources!

            Ciao!

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

            Feels right

          • quill67

            Santorum (or Gingrich) can win by running against ObamaCare. Romney can only win by sellling himself as the businessman who can straighten out the economy. If people perceive (whether true or not) that the economy is recovering, then the economy becomes a smaller issue and health care becomes the big issue.

            Sanotrum has been right on health care for a long time (and Newt figured it out) Only Romney has no clue about how important health care is to people.

            So many Romney supporters have sold there soul over health care because they believe Romney can win. But this is also why even Romney supporters are not very excited about his campaign.

          • jamesm

            Nice to see some clarity. This is why Romney may go down in flames. Romney is a one trick pony.

            Santorum and Gingrich both have foreign policy experience. Mittens has none. If Iran heats up they could tear Obama a new rear.

            Helathcare is a disaster for Romney. Santorum and Gingrich would take it to Obama.

            Romney supporters are trying to drag us over a cliff with this guy.

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

            danger, danger

          • jamesm

            and give the rest of us a cogent argument of why we should not build a moonbase for Rombots. To entice them to populate the colony we can give them half the delegates as Guam currently enjoys, stock in Bain capital, free healthcare for the whole colony, a pair of flip flops from Macys and custom autographed portrait of Willard.

          • WillWong

            Hope we are not getting a good laugh at Newt’s expense though!

          • jamesm

            them statehood after 2/3rds of the population goes through rehab and get them off the koolaid

          • acat

            Welcome to the Gingrich camp.

            Mew

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

            preview
            Except for the initial enthusiasms over Paws, Cain and Perry, my conservative convert, tea partier activist position in this campaign has been more akin to un-picking a jury with strikes. Santorum won me over with his clear deleniation of consistent stands against all aspects of ObamaCare and RomneyCare and Mitt’s vulnerability on the #1 or #2 issue, yet yesterday he essentially bought into the “improving economy” meme, unprompted!

            Unacceptable. How these guys perform and evolve matters. This was poor judgment that was not even related to how he rambles…

            more later in column that will also remind that Newt is a social conservative writ large and bravo for it. Think his won BOOK on God in the public square and that he brought up the Christian Bitches tv premier…

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

            I mostly have been critical of the meme that a socon is a fiscal liberal. It simply is not true. The most socially liberal members of the GOP in the House and Senate are also the most fiscally liberal with their votes. It takes more money for socially liberal government than for social conservatism.

          • Scope

            and I’m totally convinced that GC is determined to go through the entire list of candidates and endorse every single one of them before the nominee is determined. The only one left for GC to endorse out of the current field is Ron Paul. Since there doesn’t seem to be any ideology or principles or credibility involved, give it a week or two and he will be endorsing Ron Paul. Hey, he doesn’t buy the current economic reports, and he hasn’t accepted any economic reports for 20 years or more. Gold buggery is in I hear.

          • acat

            Or .. did you mean to say GC is working his way through the not-Romneys?

            Mew

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

            and would have gone to Newt then except that he doubled-down on the Bain attacks; so that I did not want that issue to be seen as leading to a victory; hence I recommended a vote for Romney for that reason. Santorum’s argument against Mitt’s inability to win the ObamaCare debate with Obama, his general improvement as a candidate over time and the desire to defend a Christian unfairly under attack over social issues prompted my endorsement of him before Florida.

            more later but suffice to say that I am happy that the last acceptable man standing that is not Mitt, is a very strong and vocal and aggressive social conservative as well, ie Newt.

          • WillWong

            I must say at least you do a decent job explaining your moves. I did read your post a second time to make sure I got you right! So you are voting for Newt on Tuesday if I read you right!

            I was surprised Newt was the only one that complained about ABC’s GCB and asking for Panetta’s resignation over the UN gaffe.

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

            but I urge all in states located off I-85 next Tuesday to vote for The Legend and I will be publishing a column before midnight tomorrow endorsing Newt for President.

            see archives for my other moves….rooster is dizzy, but I’m mainly an issues guy. I am in love with none of those left standing…

            http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/

          • Scope

            of the main roster here at RS have turned into Peacock feathers. All splash with no dash. But I am enjoying your humor though. Rosters always have to display their plumage, don’t they?

          • WillWong

            Is it the I-85 mentioned by Newt when he ate Juan Williams’ liver during the SC debate?

          • Scope

            Go back and read this GC diary where he said this-

            “A vote for Mitt Romney would end the back and forth between Republican friends and allow the campaign against Democrats to begin now. We have had enough vetting of our own dirty laundry.”

            “Let’s return Newt to the full time chattering class status where we can enjoy his home runs in safe mode.”

            “It is Mitt than can win the pennant.”

            Again, GC has been very busy speed dating, and even goes from one, comes back to them, then leaves them again. If the reason to leave Santorum is because of his citing of good economic records is the goal post to change allegiance, then I must wonder why he has gone to Gingrich whose record by GC has been sorely chastised on these very pages, including economic issues.

            Of course GC needs to be welcomed back into the fold of the anti-Santorums, it is who GC is, shallow and needy. But he is so cute and lovable as all chickens are.

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

            brought my female dog back last night.

            We don’t appreciate your selective quotes from our substantive columns that addressed the situations at the time of non-humorous circumstances. Was it funny when Cain bragged on not knowing of “becky, becky-stans? No. Was it funny when he took the military option against Iran off the table? No. Was it funny when Perry and Newt attacked Bain? No. Finally, is it funny for Santorum to take the economy as an issue off the table and accept the MSM meme? No.

            And if Newt does something in-funny tomorrow after I recommend a vote for him AL and MS tomorrow, then if I have time from my legal work to comment, I will. And if I can make it more enjoyable to read with a little humor, then heck, I will too. Hint: Helps get more people to read and hence, gets more income for me from same. I write columns for money. Many comments I write to advertise same. Get it? You should, because the method works on you as evidenced by your cites from same! You naive child. A mean bitchy naive child, but still. I would say that it is good to see that you have been reading my columns, what with the selective cites above. It can do you good to read all I say, because, while you are not stupid, there is just so much you know that isn’t so. Unlike you, I am decidedly not shallow. I don’t have my head up any man’s butt in slavish devotion. And me shallow? This from a gal that writes snarky comments rather than do the hard work of research required for comprehensive columns. Poppycock.

            Scope, given your back and forth between being nice and being a mean ass maybe you need to change your medicine like I did for my female dog. You may be bi-polar.

            Vote Newt….for today. No one gets a pass to be an ass tomorrow.

            PS Feel free not to reply to my comments if all you wish is to insult me. You could address the substance of the issues I write about in a substantive way, rather than make it personal. You sued to be a nice lady, but you have been dragged into the slutty dirt by the culture here and now you prostitute yourself to the sychophants of snark. Sad. Clean yourself up girlfriend. I got into a rut like you several years ago and my friends EE and pil’, intervened to produce the model citizen of Redstate you see today.

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

            I rescued her from an abusive home several years ago…God bless

          • earlgrey

            First off, best wishes for your doggie. Rescued pets can be the best, because depending on how old they are when you get them, they can truly be grateful and loyal in a way that others can’t

            Secondly, the climate her at RS hasn’t been great, which is why I barely post here anymore.

            Lastly, no matter who we get, they won’t be perfect, and it is just a matter of dealing with them and continuing to push conservatism and break the backs of the leftist entertainment media complex. (IMO)

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

            tee

          • acat

            There are plenty of examples of social-liberal-fiscal-liberals; pick any Dem elected within the last 15 years, or 25 years in NY and CA…

            There are several examples of social-conservative-fiscal-conservatives as well … Jim DeMint comes to mind…

            There are also several examples of people who say social-conservative stuff but vote almost straight big-government… and Rick Santorum is the posterboy for this.

            In short, I agree with you, in principle, that fiscal conservatism often goes with social conservatism, but I disagree that it happened in Santorum’s case.

            Mew

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

            .

          • Scope

            to RS? or are you hooked on speed dating? Funny fun fact posted at Hotair back in February. The adult diaper wearing Al Franked had joked back in 96 that only the then Speaker Gingrich could rack up an approval rating only 4 points above the Unabomber. Just a joke, but I though it was funny. Did you check out his approval/disapproval ratings among Republicans in this election cycle? he had something like a 63% disapproval rating as opposed to the 25% that gave him high fives, and that was just a month ago.

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

            Wouldn’t mind if Calipari gets a well-deserved championship at Kentucky, …more later

          • Scope

            you have become nothing more than comic relief. No debating or discussion, just revert back to sports teams. That’s always pretty safe. You are not a serious poster GC. Everything is humor with you.

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

            On my time

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            (Newt 2012), even though I was thrilled to see Vandy take the win. I’ve always liked Kentucky round ball, but can’t stand Calipari.

          • demsaresatanic

            nt

          • gracie

            I remember debating Cain with you many moons ago.

            Tell me is every column you write an endorsement of a different candidate?? You readers must feel they are on a merry go round at the park.

            I say this in fun ’cause truly, you are halarious!

          • lapert

            Avoid all conversations on ‘opinions’ (as if anything in politics is any more than opinion) and you never have to question the assumptions of yours.

            So let me ask you this, what factual evidence will finally cause you to accept that Newt is not winning this nomination, he isn’t even coming close?

          • WillWong

            N.t

          • lapert

            Does he have to lose both or would one suffice?

          • WillWong

            Just kidding!

            This is not for negotiation, my friend!

            Btw, calling you my friend is much more than I thought I could do!

          • lapert

            Just want to make sure we are clear on the conditions so there is no confusion Wednesday morning.

          • demsaresatanic

            Apparently they have become tired of endless repetition on the wives issue and have moved on to even more trivial pursuits.

          • lapert

            I’m sorry, but the absurd low was to try and spin his age as an advantage as WilWong did at the start of the thread.

          • lapert

            That is so far down the list of his deficiencies as a president that there is no need. But if you think age is a trivial issue than you must think it a coincidence that in the seven times when the age differential was at least 18 year, only twice has the older candidate one (and one of those was FDR’s fourth term).

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

            …perhaps y’all can declare a truce [and return to issues-oriented discussion], eh?

          • lastgopinillinois

            who replied to one of my posts a while back:

            Dont cast your vote based upon polling data, vote for the one you think is the most conservative!

            If everybody here were doing that, I doubt you’d have many people rooting for romney and santorum !

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

            mandate. But wait, he still favors Medicare Part D, so maybe it takes 14 years to really hone?

            Will’, chill. I like Newt and prefer him over Mitt and did say that he and Rick would be significantly more reliable on conservative issues. Learn how to declare victory man.

  • http://www.twosided.us Two-Sided

    ..that Newt will drop out that easily.

    But as another comment already said, it already seems like a 2 person race.

    Two-Sided
    http://TwoSided.us

    • clowngirl

      when asked about Newt dropping out he said something like “I’m not going to say I wouldn’t like it if Newt dropped out. Of course I would. I’d also like it if Romney dropped out. I’d like President Obama to just give me the thing. It’s not going to happen.”

      When talking about their standings in the race he said something like “Newt was up by double digits, then I was up by double digits. It’s been an ebb and flow race”

      And he said he would seriously consider Newt for his VP.

      I was glad to see Santorum wasn’t taking the same tone as his Super PAC and am sorry I jumped to the conclusion of lumping them together.

      Wonder what the race will look like if Newt wins Alabama and Mississippi…

      • Scope

        reciprocating. I’ve just read that he is doing a blitz against Santorum for the next two days to “show what Santorum’s real record is.” With the speculation that Newt knows he’s helping Romney by staying in, going after Santorum big time instead of Romney, he is making that into something more than speculation.

        • clowngirl

          he’s also trying to win.

          He’s just not jumping on his own Super PAC’s bandwagon with the “Newt should quit talk”

          Newt is attacking Santorum on his record as he should. But not in a way that is disrespectful.

          Incidentally, if Newt gets most of the remaining delegates in GA (as expected) and unbound delegates aren’t counted (as they shouldn’t be) then Newt comes out of Super Tuesday ahead of Santorum in the delegate count.

          Which means based on what you said before Super Tuesday, Santorum should drop out.

          Personally I believe both Gingrich and Santorum remain viable (to perform well – win some states and lots of delegates and force a brokered convention even if neither is likely to win outright prior to the convention)

      • JSobieski

        Its the kind of petty behavior that one expects (and largely gets) out of Newt.

        To be honest, I did expect a bit more out of Rick since it comes across rather petulant.

        • David123

          I didn’t interpret “Congressman Gingrich” to be an insult. It’s certainly not an obvious dig like “vulture capitalist”.

        • clowngirl

          Santorum has employed some disappointing tactics at other points in the race — I am hopeful that he’s getting back on track.

        • demsaresatanic

          That was a typo, wasn’t it?

  • clowngirl

    of whether he wins Alabama and Mississippi. And confirms he’s staying in till Tampa. As he should.

    Also, if Newt wins most of the rest of the GA delegates (as expected) and you don’t count delegates from non-binding caucuses, Newt is slightly ahead of Santorum in the delegate count.

    • quill67

      I am a supporter of Gingrich (although I also like Santorum) and I am also a donor to Gingrich (not yet to Santorum) and I do not mind Gingrich saying he will stay in That is very smart politics. Don’t get people thinking you are going to drop out because then they will give up on you—This is what happened to Perry after Iowa. He never should have said he was going to reassess his campaign.

      If Gingrich wins AL and MS then more power to him and hopefully he can find a way to break through in Texas and California.

      However, if Gingrich does not win in Alabama and Mississippi then he should suspend his campaign (Suspend…not quit..heck in this race you never know if someone might really shoot themselves in the foot) But if he does not I will turn on him with a vengeance. If he stays in he will act as a spoiler in Wisconsin without hope of winning when the campaign turns to the Southern States again. (as shown by his losses in AL and MS if this happens)

      So for me, as a supporter and a donor, if he does not win in AL and MS it is over. If Gingrich does win…hang on for a while race!

      • jamesm

        If Gingrich wins then his southern strategy can continue. If not he must drop out. If he stays in many conservatives will not forgive him because this will only aid Romney. The anger against Gingrich will grow. This will be unstatesmanlike and it will appear that he is in it for Newt only. As for me I support Gingrich but he needs to have a viable path forward. He has none if he loses Alabama or Mississippi.

        • WillWong

          And while we are at it, let’s hop over to Newt.org and drop a few Newt gallons shall we? :)

          • Vegas_Rick

            And, I hope it pays off. But unless he is successful at denying Romney the 1144, which I think may be a viable strategy for him, I think he’s toast.

          • WillWong

            Newt is clearly the best person to turn this country around and if we had done all we could, we can sleep soundly no matter what happens!

            Yep! I just contributed 10 Newt gallons to help Newt with his whirlwind tour of Alabama and Missisippi

            May God bless you all, Newt and his entire campaign staff, volunteers, and his family and may His Will be done here on earth as it is in Heaven.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I just posted my summary of Newt’s rally in Birmingham tonight. He asked his supporters to donate a Newt gallon ($2.50) if you could, and 10 if you could manage. Also, for those with Facebook to post your status as “Newt = $2.50 a gallon for gas.” And for those who Twitter to go to #$2.50 gas. (I think that was it, but I don’t Twitter, so I could be wrong.)

          • WillWong

            Newt is so blessed to have your second date!

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

            Those are the only “conversions” worthy of the word that I have had in my life. Switching preferences between the GOP presidential contenders this season has been more akin to picking over the least spoiled food in the ‘fridge…smile

          • jamesm

            ,

      • Scope

        reminds me of Guiliani’s Fla. strategy. Guiliani didn’t even compete until the race got to Fla., and then he was out, even after having lead in some earlier polls. The Tenn. primary should worry Gingrich and his supporters. Gingrich came in third in that southern state. The other question should be, can Gingrich win the nomination with only winning in southern states? So far there have been about 21 contests, and Newt has only won 2 states in the south.

        It is looking like Santorum is winning the KS caucus today, while Romney appears to be winning the WY caucus.

        • jamesm

          I believe the Gingrich strategy is to deny Romney 1144 delegates. He is intelliegent.Will his southern strategy suceed tuesday? Probably not. Hopefully a graceful suspension of the campaign. (He will still be at the convention) We will know soon enough.

          • clowngirl

            Last I heard, 1 for Mississippi, 1 for Alabama.

            It hardly seems far fetched that he would win.

      • clowngirl

        Am I remembering wrong?

        Would check but don’t know how to dig it up.

        In that diary you said you were going to vote Santorum because he looked like the only guy who could beat Romney in TN but then you saw a poll with Newt doing well and so decided you could choose and picked Newt.

        If that diary was from you (and I’m not remembering wrong) then it seems clear your support of Newt was always qualified because you give a lot of weight to who is doing well in the horse race.

        I’m glad to see Senator Santorum himself isn’t joining in the “Newt should get out talk” which I see as unjustified for 3 reasons:

        1. Santorum is not that far ahead. Depending how you calculate it, it’s debatable whether he’s ahead on delegates

        The term “spoiler” usually refers to someone who can only get a very small percentage of the vote. The other candidates when they dropped out (with the possible exception of Herman Cain) were in single digits both nationally and in upcoming states. Newt is situated quite differently.

        2. Mathematically, it’s exceedingly unlikely that Santorum can get a majority of delegates with or without Gingrich. And there’s no evidence that I have seen ( much less a compelling case) that Newt dropping out *would* help Santorum ( if by “help” you mean win more states) and, at least one poll suggests the opposite:
        Newt dropping out would help Romney.

        3. IMO, Newt is the stronger candidate. He has the more compelling record, executive experience which Santorum lacks, a record of leadership, etc., etc.

        If Santorum had faced the conditions Newt has faced in this primary- the score would look much different now, IMO…

        • WillWong

          My belief is the same that those who like both Newt and Santorum had probably switched earlier allowing Santorum to get himself off the bottom of the second tier to where he is now following carpet bombing by Romney, the Marianne interview, and the Santorum Endorsement by the group of Evangelicals which questioned Newt’s electability.

          But I do stand by my contention that if Newt does not win both AL and Miss, he should suspend his campaign.

          • clowngirl

            I’m still for Newt staying in to the convention.

            That said, seeing as they are WTA states, I’m very much hoping for a Gingrich win in both states. Losing both would make things difficult.

            Btw, did you see that there’s talk of a pre-convention Gingrich/Perry ticket??

            That would be AWESOME!!! (imho) in fact, I’d like to see them announce that intention ASAP so it can affect voting going forward and Perry supporters would know they could count on him being on the ticket if they vote for Gingrich,

          • lapert

            Neither MS nor AL is winner take all delegates.

            AL is proportional at the district level (3 per district) and state level (26 at large) to everyone who clears a 20% threshold and becomes winner take all if someone wins a majority (which seems highly unlikely) at the district and state levels.

            MS is the same with 25 at-large delegates and a 15% threshold to receive proportional allocation.

          • clowngirl

            Wonder why I thought they were winner take all.

            Thanks for the correction/ for clearing things up!

          • Scope

            April 1 are proportional allocation of delegates.

            The Perry Gingrich story is a rumor put out by someone who either wants to try to gain an advantage for Gingrich tomorrow, or by someone wanting to keep the conservative vote slit between Gingrich and Santorum. I’m starting to believe it may have been the Romney team that is behind this.

          • lapert

            Puerto Rico is winner take all for 20 delegates (they also have 3 super-delegates who are unbound) and is before April 1st.

          • clowngirl

            It’d be an excellent ticket!

            If the Gingrich camp was thinking about a commitment to a dual ticket, it would be foolish to leak the story before anything had been decided.

            Unless they just want to see if there’s support for such a ticket- in my case: YES! Can’t think of a better choice!

            Governor Perry obviously would be wasted as a bucket-of-spit VP but Newt could give him a lot more responsibility and then he’d be President in 2020!

  • acat

    The two numbers to watch are suburbia and cook county.

    The first will show how well Santorum’s newfound fiscal conservative message is playing, the second will show how strong “Reagan Dem” (i.e. union) support for Santorum could be in November.

    Mew

  • conservativeparrothead

    If he was simply selling his populist manufacturing message, I think he would be viable, unfortunately all of this nonsense about contraception, etc has brought issues to the forefront that can paint him as the boogeyman to the people who swing elections. Just too easy to paint as extreme.

    The problem, is that mitt Romney doesn’t have a populist message that I think resonates with voters, to me he is someone who oozes elitism at a time that being out of touch just isn’t a good thing. I’m not buying the whole 99-1pct thing but he is definitely mr 1pct.

    Then there is newt. I honestly believe his “flaws” won’t hurt him in the general. Once supported a mandate? Once sat on couch with pelosi? Scozzofava? These are classic republican primary issues that are non factors in the general. Unfortunately, some of the non factors in the primary for Rick and mitt are going to be.

    Newt 2012

  • fightnright

    even when conventional wisdom would dictate that it is the right time to exit.

    I still think that Gingrich’s big $$$ Vegas donors believe that it is worth their while to continue funding Newt against Santorum. Also there don’t seem to be many big Santorum backers in the RNC, and I think Newt predicts that he will gain more power and currency within the GOP by casting his lot with the establishment, and staying in till the bitter end.

  • JSobieski

    What is libertarianism if not pursuit of the maximizing of liberty (i.e. freedom) over time?

    Government must be sufficiently strong to preserve long term freedom, and that does require order.

    Social engineering shouldn’t however have much of a role at the federal level except for beating back the leftists.

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

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

    Friday, March 09

    Mississippi Republican Presidential Primary
    Rasmussen Reports
    Romney 35, Santorum 27, Gingrich 27, Paul 6
    Romney +8

    Alabama Republican Presidential Primary
    Alabama State
    Romney 20, Gingrich 21, Santorum 17, Paul
    Gingrich +1

    Alabama Republican Presidential Primary
    Rasmussen Reports
    Romney 28, Gingrich 30, Santorum 29, Paul 7
    Gingrich +1

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

      Regarding the tit-for-tat discussion supra, we should all note the levity in the latest reaction from The Newt.

      When asked about the drop-out issue, he has called upon MITT to drop-out, so that the two Conservatives can duke-it-out!

      He always seems to have a pithy rejoinder and, thus, continues to contribute to the pungent political discourse.

      • redmymind

        ANY not-Romney (except Rue Paul) would do for me! If that’s speaker Gingrich, MORE POWER TO US, THE CONSERVATIVE BASE–UNITED!!!

  • Ann2012

    In my mind they are interchangeable, meaning I would be very happy no matter which one could actually win the nomination and beat Obama.

    But it seems clear to me that only Rick Santorum has a real chance of beating Obama, primarily because of one of the things he is sometimes criticized for. He DOES NOT alienate union workers and therefore he can win the manufacturing states. And anywhere else that Reagan Democrats are located.

    That is an incredible advantage that we would have when competing against Obama. There are probably many union workers that would like to vote conservative since they may agree with us on social or national security issues, but they fear a Republican in the White House who they believe would hurt them in some way.

    Rick Santorum has a unique set of characteristics that make him our best choice in my opinion. I was so happy when I read the following from Will Wong on Monday, March 12th at 9:11AM EDT: ?But I do stand by my contention that if Newt does not win both AL and Miss, he should suspend his campaign.?

    That showed me that even the most loyal supporter will see beyond their favorite candidate and put the conservative cause ahead of all else. For me that really helped me feel better about this race. If Newt doesn?t win the next two states and all of Newt?s loyal supporters would do that, the grassroots conservatives will prevail and Romney won?t have a chance.

    • quill67

      Having lived in PA for 7 years gave me a clear understanding of how interwoven unions are in their society. But even union members know that the way unions do things is broken. This, however, does not mean they support eliminating unions. A history of bad faith by many corporate leaders has led to a big distrust of management. While unions have failed also, they feel there is no where else to turn. Think of unions as being a brother or sister. It is ok for the brother to critize brother but not OK for someone outside the family to do it.

      Santorum’s respect for unions will serve him well in the rust belt and hopefully enable some meaniful reform of union structure.

      • Ann2012

        There was a need and a reason that unions were formed early on and they gave us a middle class. But with all things, especially those involving power, things can go terribly wrong. The union bosses have too much power, the teachers union is single-handedly responsible in my opinion for our failing schools. They are a very selfish group of people on so many levels. But that?s another story.

        I understand the need for a balance between management and workers. Workers need to participate in the profits of the company in a more direct way i.e. stock options, pay based on productivity, etc. (eliminating the need for unions). I don?t know what the complete solution would be but I know that if creative, innovative people worked on a solution they would find one. Instead they just seem to take sides and continue to fight.

      • acat

        to manufacturing, i.e. “hard hat” unions while, at the same time, demanding concessions from “skirt” (ACSFME, SEIU, Teachers) unions?

        I haven’t seen any indication that Santorum can pull off a Scott Walker here… can you point me at one?

        Mew

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

          State Member Rank Score Lifetime Status

          SD Thune, John 22 80% 70%
          NC Dole, Elizabeth 22 80% 78% defeated in 2008
          GA Isakson, Johnny 24 79% 82%
          AL Sessions, Jeff 24 79% 86%
          ID Crapo, Mike 26 78% 74%
          TN Alexander, Lamar 26 78% 78%
          LA Vitter, David 28 77% 76%
          AZ McCain, John 29 76% 76%
          FL Martinez, Mel 30 75% 78% retired in 2009
          NC Burr, Richard 30 75% 80%
          TN Frist, Bill 32 73% 81% retired in 2006
          MS Lott, Trent 33 71% 76% retired in 2007
          UT Bennett, Robert 33 71% 74% primaried in 2010
          UT Hatch, Orrin 35 66% 70%
          TX Hutchison, Kay 36 58% 66% retired in 2012
          MT Burns, Conrad 37 57% 63% defeated in 2006
          KS Roberts, Pat 37 57% 66%
          VA Warner, John 39 56% 64% retired in 2008
          MO Bond,Kit 39 56% 65% retired in 2010
          MS Cochran, Thad 39 56% 68%
          MO Talent, John 42 55% 58% defeated in 2008
          AL Shelby, Richard 42 55% 64%
          NM Domenici, Pete 44 54% 62% retired in 2008
          IN Lugar, Richard 45 52% 60%
          OR Smith, Gordon 47 48% 47% defeated in 2008
          AK Stevens, Ted 48 47% 62% defeated in 2008
          MN Coleman, Norm 49 44% 52% defeated in 2008
          OH DeWine, Mike 50 43% 43% defeated in 2006
          AK Murkowski, Lisa 50 43% 62%
          PA Specter, Arlen 52 40% 44% defeated in 2010
          OH Voinovich, Geo 52 40% 48% retired in 2010
          RI Chafee, Lincoln 54 27% 26% defeated in 2006
          ME Collins, Susan 56 22% 22%
          ME Snowe, Olympia 62 9% 14% retired in 2012

          Rick Santorum had a better score than all of these listed.

          • APA Guy

            Especially as you scroll down the list…

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

            .

          • jamesm

            state.

          • APA Guy

            No excuses this time around…he can’t run from his record…PA senator notwithstanding.

          • Scope

            and he actually has lower scores than Santorum on every scoring site I’ve read. Everyone loves to bring up Santorum’s vote for Medicate Part d, but Gingrich lobbied for it. He also wrote many op eds saying that the conservatives needed to support the legislation. Santorum is knocked for his Vote for NCLB, and at the same time Gingrich again wrote supportive articles for the legislation. He went on an education swing through the states with Al Sharpton, supposedly pushing for charter schools. Tell me when any Democrat has ever been for Charter schools, and not for their friends in the public school teachers unions.

            I’m not saying that Santorum is fantastic, but out of the three remaining IMO he is the best left. There is nothing you can hold against Santorum that Gingrich isn’t just as guilty of. Please don’t give me the argument that he has more experience as the Speaker. He was facing a coup from his own party members, which included a section of conservatives in Congress when he was Speaker, that he ridiculed as being “the purist caucus.” He may be a brilliant idea factory, with a few really good ones seeping through from time to time, but he is not an effective leader when he couldn’t even lead his own party members as Speaker.

          • aesthete

            There’s a word that fits better. That word is “absolutely”. There is no evidence whatsoever that Gingrich and Sharpton were doing anything other than promoting charter schools, and lots to indicate that they were, in fact, promoting the concept.

            Plenty of folks in the black community, including Jesse Jackson and Sharpton, support school choice.

            All of the candidates absolutely suck. Santorum sucks, had not had a leadership role, and says/does lots of dumb things on the campaign trail.

          • demsaresatanic

            what a particular interest group considers to be a correct series of votes on issues which are often tangential to conservative core values; it is a very blunt instrument. Specific votes on specific issues which can be examined in detail, (in Santorum’s case right to work and voting rights for felons, IMO) is more telling.

          • Scope

            or anything you can post here that provides a bigger and better picture of scoring of House and Senate members.

            Here is the white paper supplied for Newt Gingrich from the Club for growth. They get very specific on the votes he made, and what he has done/said since leaving the House.

            If you have better information, please do what I’ve done please, and provide links to back up your views.

          • demsaresatanic

            you talking about?

          • APA Guy

            Sorry…I WILL make that argument…every time. Speaker while we reformed welfare and balanced budgets as well, thank you very much.

            We’re electing a leader here – and Santorum hasn’t led anything by my estimation. If you want him, you got him. Consider my vote for Gingrich the neutralizer to yours for Santorum.

          • Scope

            Gingrich did rise to a leadership position, and he was booted from that position from his own party. How about addressing his comment, cited in the CFG white papers, that he called the conservatives in the congress at that time “the purists”?

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

            When all is said and done, Newt happens to be the ONLY one of the three who actually has accomplished anything even remotely conservative.

          • jamesm

            is “conservative”

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

            publish “ratings”. They are selective in the votes they rate and ignore the larger record. Santorum is a big government guy to the core. He never, as an elected official, had a leadership role in ANYTHING and the only time he participated – as a back bencher doing as he was told – in any conservative efforts he was nothing more than a foot soldier.

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

            Santorum served as Republican Conference Chairman from 2001 until January 2007. Jon Kyl served a short time in 2007, LaMar Alexander served the rest of 2007 thru 2011. John Thune is the Republican Conference Chairman in 2012.

          • aesthete

            was when he was following the orders of Newt and Kyl, and that he was in a direct leadership position during some of the worst years for conservatism, during which he thought it would be swell to advocate for “compassionate conservatism” and fight to make sure that conservative members voted for Medicare Pt D.

            Oh dear. Kind of puts his “team player” nonsense in perspective, doesn’t it?

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

            Santorum never followed Kyl’s orders. Neither Kyl or Santorum had leadership roles in the House, and Santorum had a leadership role in the Senate before Kyl. Kyl has been the Majority Whip only after Santorum was out of the Senate.

          • aesthete

            then Kasich came to mind, and I honestly have no idea why Kyl came to mind — maybe because both surnames start with a “K”.

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

            One hell of a conservative record in that job.

            Santorum is a pathetic joke. Nominate him, say hi to four more years of Obama and at least two of a bigger Senate majority and probably a D house.

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

            I will be very angry if Newt Gingrich does not drop out and give conservatives a chance to nominate someone besides Romney. You may not like Santorum, but the simple fact is, more people like Santorum that like Newt, and all Newt is now doing is allowing Romney to compete in places he has no business competing in.

          • jamesm

            his campaign and let conservatives win this thing.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Conservatives….

            win…..

            ahhhaaahahahaaahahahahaa

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

            for the dumbest comment of 2012. You may not be topped.

          • jamesm

            enough said

          • jamesm

            Look at his total voting record.

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

            Leadership

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

            great defenders of conservatism on TV for the past decade and more…imho…they help make me a conservative…

          • APA Guy

            nt

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            and 87% lifetime. He’s ranked 15th in Congress. If you include all years, he gets a #1 rank. Sessions is pretty solid.

            CFG Scoreshere

          • ffc99

            was worse in ’05 (for those interested 34 R’s had a better score than Rick in that year). Rick is a lot of things, but a fiscal conservative isn’t one of them.

          • aesthete

            This is the guy who, just yesterday, blew off discussion of his support for Medicare Pt D, NCLB, and other fiscally profligate votes by telling the questioner (and by extension, all those concerned about his votes on those issues) to “vote for Ron Paul”. Because people concerned about votes that massively increased size of government can only be fruit-loops like Paul, I guess.

            Video here:

          • JSobieski

            If the question related to social issues, I wonder if Rick would have invested the time to actually engage with the questioner?

          • aesthete

            of a back-and-forth between Rick Santorum and some clearly hostile students trolling him on a gay marriage question, in which he goes around the same obscure point several times to try and win the argument.

            So yeah, Ricky definitely would have been less dismissive of even a disrespectful question about a tangential social issue than he was to this guy.

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

            would he have beaten Clinton? This is a ‘becker tease btw

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

            or I may have punched him in his face. I understand that people like Newt, but my god, Newt does have so much baggage as well, and much of it has to do with not supporting conservative things. Santorum has not shot an ad with Nancy. I think it is funny how people are acting, because all three of these candidates have a shaky conservative past. Do not be mad at Santorum because the majority of the voters like him over Newt.

          • acat

            Just curious if this is what’s behind your latest attempts to convince me to support Gary Johnson.

            Mew

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

            His lifetime CFG score is 81%. Look at Mississippi’s Cochran or Kansas’s Roberts for a big spender poster child.

          • Scope

            They are listed here for Paul, Gingrich and Santorum.

            It doesn’t matter where anyone goes to find Santorum fiscal conservative scores. Likewise, he’s also trashed on the union issue. It really doesn’t have that much to do with those issues, as some doing the arguing have falsely given Gingrich better grades with respect to his conservative bona fides. With Santorum it likely has everything to do with his social positions, which are not acceptable to most libertarians and/or moderates.

          • acat

            Suppose libertarians do detest Santorum on values issues. I don’t believe this is true, I think it’s likely more to do with Santorum’s inexplicable anti-libertarian outbursts, but .. let’s suppose it is.

            How does Santorum propose to make up that hole in the fusionist conservative alliance if he can’t count on libertarian votes?

            I’m not speaking of the primary, I’m speaking of the general, and I will remind you that, in 2000 and 2004, libertarian-leaning conservatives barely got W elected. Twice.

            How does Santorum do without them?

            Mew

          • garfieldjl

            Though I think the Libertarians would be more apt to vote Santorum over Obama, many of them would likely stay home, write in Ron Paul, or vote for 3rd party.

            We need to unite behind someone, and quite frankly a lot of people will not vote for Romney even against Obama because they view him just as destructive, and would be more damaging because it would cost us our credibility.

            If we look at the facts, Santorum doesn’t have leadership experience. Romney and Gingrich have leadership experience (as did Perry, Pawlenty, and Cain).

            I would trust Romney on policy as far as I could throw the Empire State Building.

            This isn’t an ordinary election, what people are looking for is getting this country back on track.

            People remember the Clinton years, they remember how we were doing when Gingrich was speaker of the house (regardless of how much he annoyed everyone in Washington). I say that against Obama, people will overlook Gingrich’s past marital issues.

          • acat

            Gary Johnson (former R-Gov, NM) is.

            This is why I’ve asked, elsewhere, how Santorum and Romney propose to address an attack on them from the *fiscal* right.

            Mew

          • garfieldjl

            They typically do write ins.

            If Romney wins this evening and becomes the nominee, we’ve lost the election.

            Doesn’t matter who wins, Romney’s natural inclination is to veer hard left.

            If Santorum wins and becomes the nominee we will have a choice, but I don’t think Santorum is able to stay on message. If Santorum gets Newt on board as his VP and adopts Newt’s policies I think Santorum would have a real chance.

            That said, it’s really discouraging that our best candidate to verse Obama, whom has the ideas, got smeared by Romney and the establishment.

            If Gingrich wins this and becomes the nominee, I think he would beat Obama soundly.

            I find it sad that with how we all know that the media is supporting Obama, yet we still go along with their Opinion polls.

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

            buy the car, health ins policy, medical care, etc that you want or want to start a business, etc ad infinitum…

          • acat

            #null

          • Scope

            You really think that Gary Johnson can sway the election? That’s funny right there. You keep bringing up the Johnson factor with respect to the eventual R nominee. Johnson won’t even get the votes that Ross Perot did way back then, which you also seem to think is relevant to the election in 2012. Perot ran on very very very different policy positions than what Gary Johnson will. Perot was all day every day against NAFTA. Johnson will be all day, every day for drug legalization which will never go over very well other than with the very small percentage of libertarians. Cat, get real, libertarian positions, to the point that you push them, are not popular, or even rational. If nothing else, the social conservatives, those that you are so against, will never give Johnson a first look, let alone a vote. Ron Paul has done in any hopes for the libertarians with his far right radical positions. Interesting that Obama and the liberals have come out swinging hard against the Christians, and the traditional social values issues. If I’m not mistaken it may have been streiff that said, you can always recover an economy, but once moral values are gone, you can’t recover that. Think Rome.

          • aesthete

            It would explain much that was heretofore unexplained…

          • Scope

            libertarians are mad. Mad I tell you. How dare I be in favor of traditional conservative values, especially the social ones. Ohhh, I’m shaking in my boots aesthete. Your libertarian rallies could fit in a telephone booth, if not on the head of a pin.

          • acat

            (nothing further)

          • aesthete

            I hope you didn’t pay much for those “How to become a telepath in three easy installments” classes.

            I just found it funny to see someone frothing at the mouth about the “far-right extremists”, drug legalization, and the Roman Empire in true non-sequitur fashion.

            Hmm, you’re right — that *does* sound more like Tom Friedman.

          • EyeofMitt

            No Text

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

            teease

          • acat

            You *do* know that George H.W., Bush lost because of Perot, right?

            You know that Nader and Perot won not a single State, right?

            Johnson can’t win, but if he siphons enough votes from Santorum or Romney, he can hand the election to Obama.

            Rather than getting into the drug legalization weeds, an issue that you seem stuck in the 1980s on, I’ll just point out that Johnson can run rings around any of the remaining candidates on fiscal issues.

            Johnson ran New Mexico as a small-government Republican. He cut government, he reduced spending in *real* dollars, not just cuts in proposed growth.

            Johnson can’t win, but he can siphon enough votes from Santorum or Romney to swing the race to Obama.

            Further, I’ll note that Johnson has a good rating from the New Mexico Right to Life groups. How can that be, Scope? He’s a libertarian-leaner!

            Mew

          • Scope

            with the you do know this or that. I don’t care. Is that good enough for you. I don’t care. All I know for sure is that Romney is in deep dodododo after tonight. He ain’t as inevitable as once believed, and the American people have shouted that loud and clear. The American people have also said that out of the weak field of candidates, Newt is at the bottom of that pile up.

          • acat

            …letting Santorum and Gingrich spend their small war chest money to win *some* delegates in proportional States (and rack up some on-paper wins) while Romney waits, with his large war chest, to start out-spending them at 5-1 or 8-1 or 10-1 in winner-take-all States.

            They need a knock-out blow, but your boy in the sweater-vest can’t deliver. Neither can Gingrich, unfortunately.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            That sounds familiar… aren’t those the guys who would force schools to set up heroin vending machines next to the locker room, right across from the opium dens and prostitution halls? (“Prostitution halls”… that’s a thing, right? Well, it will be if libertarians are in charge!)

          • acat

            Cheshire grin

          • Scope

            As much as you personally, and a few others here want to say Ron Paul is not a libertarian, unfortunately for you guys, he is considered a Libertarian, and he has taken the Libertarian movement all the way. Ron Paul has done absolutely nothing in this election except to act as the old crank. Too bad for you libertarians that have a different meaning of the ideology, he has now defined it. How many have argued that Ron Paul will not win a state? How many believe that the Ron Paul supporters will not vote for anyone other than Paul, or will push Paul to run for a third party. How many realistically will vote for Gary Johnson. There is a reason Cat that the majority reject your beloved libertarianism. You can thank Ron Paul for that, I guess. The few libertarians who post here, that are not Paulies, wouldn’t make up the first blip on the radar. Your positions are just not popular Cat. Oh and, RR was considered a fusionist, but he expected those with your political philosophies to come to him, he didn’t pander to you.

          • acat

            Instead, you went off on an anti-libertarian screed worthy of Santorum.

            Further, while Reagan did not change his position, he welcomed those who agreed with him 60% of the time to work with him… Santorum seems to want to drive those who disagree 40% of the time completely out of his camp.

            I’ll repeat the question. How does Santorum win the general without them?

            Mew

          • Scope

            Easily. The libertarian positions are not acceptable, period, end of story. As much as the Paulbots thought they had such a great organization, with big increasing numbers, it hasn’t panned out.

            Now answer this question Cat. If Santorum wins the nomination, will you vote for him?

          • acat

            What group of voters does Santorum get to replace the libertarian-leaners who won’t vote for him?

            Mew

          • Scope

            so you just keep asking all your dumb questions, and I and others will keep ignoring your dumb questions. The libertarian leaners as you call them, won’t vote for any Republican candidate anyway, most likely. They will vote for Gary Johnson, right Cat?

          • acat

            As you pointed out, Reagan managed to get quite a lot of libertarians, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, strong-defense conservatives, and pro-life conservatives on the same page ..

            Santorum has started by driving out a part of that coalition. Deliberately. Driving out.

            If Santorum doesn’t have a strategy to replace us, that’s on him. As his supporter, it’s on you to be able to explain it to any libertarian-leaning conservatives you may encounter. Like, say, moi.

            You can keep behaving like a six year old who ate too much candy, keep deluding yourself that the libertarian-leaners who voted for McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, Reagan, and Ford don’t really count, and that Reagan’s specific outreach to them were just a waste of breath… or you can get serious about taking the White House away from Obama.

            Mew

          • Scope

            It seems to me that the libertarian “morally relative” arguments have just been pushed way way back. Social liberalism is now truly being pushed back hard.

          • acat

            You’re dancing around like a puppet trying to make this about what I believe or what asthete believes rather than answering.

            Mew

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

            smile

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

            subject, but that I doubt there are enough libertarians that would take that so seriously once the issues are between an Obama and a Santorum that it would be significant, and that if it is then we have lost this country long ago anyway.

          • acat

            Santorum’s practically begging some of us to support Johnson if he’s the nominee.

            Explain to me how this isn’t cracked.

            Mew

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

            You know that I have lived in Atlanta for 90% of the last 12 years and so am a regular listener of one of THE most prominent L’s and l’s in the US and I have noticed a major change in Boortz over the 3+ years of Obama, ie he expressly advocates for GOP votes now. And an issues conservative like me has to respect Santorum for his intellectual honesty in addressing the real differences between conservatives and Big L sand to a lesser extent little ls.

            But I don’t think it is in the GOP’s and conservatives DNA to try and trick ignorant young people or fringe groups that may be offended, to vote for us. That’s what Dems do. Plus, I don’t worry too much about puny issues because to do so would sell out the big themes that we must advance and if America wants to continue to decline under liberal Democrats, then that is our pathetic faith.

            We won’t prevent that based upon differences between Newt, Mitt and Rick on appealing to libertarians.

          • acat

            that asthete brought to light here …

            That’s not “failing to appeal to libertarians”, that’s a purge.

            Mew

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

            seriously

          • aesthete

            I’d call it being an ***hole. Blowing off someone who asks a valid question, or going out of your way to attack someone who partly agrees with you? Is being an ***hole. I’m just trying to get all these fools who think that Santorum is some great strategist or bridge-builder in the vein of Reagan to see that he throws away votes and insults people for… no reason? Basically, Santorum threw away votes and support in exchange for the political equivalent of jacking off in an alley, while voting for and supporting things that conservatives *really* don’t like. Anyone who votes for and defends Santorum has no standing to talk to third partiers or Ron Paul supporters about electability — both Ron Paul and Santorum suffer politically from basically the same thing (going off into irrelevant tangents and going out of their way to p*ss off non-cultists), and say stupid, unnecessary things that 90% of people disagree with and say “WTF?!?!” to. They only differ in core beliefs — and you know what? I’ll take the nut who thinks that we’re building a fence to build Gulag America, over the nut who thinks we should recriminalize sodomy and massively expand government, any day.

            A vote for either one is mental masturbation. Heck, add the other two schmucks running for the Republican candidacy as completely irrelevant masturbatory votes.

            DOOOOOM, and all that.

          • JSobieski

            THe national debt is > 100% of GDP.

            If you include the debt of state governments, the number is even higher.

            If you include unfunded liabilities for entitlements, the numbers are off the charts. There literally is enough money in the world to fund Medicare at the turn of the next century.

            No candidate is providing meaningful solutions on this point.

            The country has ceased being serious if it can’t confront problems in a serious way.

            If we can’t be serious, we might as well turn the campaign into a game of survivor and start voting people off the Island.

            Santorum telling libertarians to vote for someone else is precisely that. A guy talking about freedom (i.e. liberty) one second, and then telling libertarians to vote for someone else the next second is . .. the kind of thing that happens in reality TV.

            Lets prove to ourselves that America is no longer a serious place capable of self government.

            I hope someone goes out of their way to renounce the transcendental meditation plan of the Natural Law party.

          • sulmak

            But on a more serious note as a libertarian leaner myself, I think that Santorum could pull in some blue collar dems. Will they be enough to offset his losses in libertarians? Certainly not in the popular vote, but that is not what matters. Blue collar dems who often buy the BS that the democrats are for the “middle class” are somewhat concentrated in rusty swing states such as Pennsylvania, Indiana and Ohio, magnifying their effect. And for that reason they could offset it enough.

            I could also see he getting more of the populist vote.

            Also, any true libertarian would not be voting Obama this time around, the worst that could happen is third party or stay home. The only state I could think of that they might swing is NH and to a lesser extent Florida and Wyoming.

          • acat

            It’s more with libertarians voting for a third party… especially since the Libertarian party now have Gary Johnson – successful small-government (R) governor of rather blue New Mexico as their nominee.

            Enough of that happens, and Santorum joins H.W. Bush and Gore as “sunk by a third party”….

            Mew

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

            Strong conservative Repubs always do.

          • aesthete

            Waiting for a candidate who is anywhere near as good on at least some of their issues as Reagan was.

            Santorum is not that guy, and (for some strange reason) has dedicated a good chunk of his time to explicitly, and in no uncertain terms, castigate that part of the coalition. I have not heard any libertarians, or any other social conservatives, for that matter, express their disagreement with other coalition members that unproductively.

            This is just an academic exercise, since I’m convinced that Santorum can win neither the primary nor the general, but I would like to know what voters you think Santorum can get that Bush didn’t, and why. As far as I can tell, Santorum is not going to have a good time attracting Hispanic or black votes, and has pretty much lost the libertarian vote (which, believe it or not, Bush had in 2000). I hope I don’t need to remind you that Bush barely won both times with the coalition that he had: losing any part of it would have doomed him.

          • JSobieski

            In Poland in the 1990s there was a joke…it went like this.

            What do you call three guys sitting on a couch?
            A political party.

            I think it is great idea for Republican candidates to go out of their way to that they don’t want voters from the Constitutional party, the Libertarian party, or the Conservative party.

            I also think it is a great idea that with a national debt larger than GDP, that we avoid talking about the debt and spending as much as possible.

            At this point, our candidates should focus on Snookie’s pregnancy. If we aren’t going to focus on meaningful solutions, we might as well go for ratings.

          • aesthete

            Let’s also nominate the guy who holds the exact views that lost us the White House and Congress last time, and whose domestic policies were antithetical to the ideology of the party.

            Let’s find someone who not only believes the above, but communicates it in the worst, most abrasive, way possible. It would help if he looked kind of goofy, and acted prickly and smarmy on a regular basis.

            Perhaps we should also completely ignore the Congress while all of this is happening. It’s only a co-equal branch of government that controls the purse strings and which we could positively effect at the margins, after all.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          • JSobieski

            All this arguing about who supports whom seems increasingly pointless to me.

            None of the candidates voluntarily brings up the issue of the debt in a meaningful way. Given the magnitude of the debt threat, its pretty clear that our “pathway to victory” is not to mention it much, and to advocate for meaningful solutions even less.

            As our problems become more severe, our politics become more and more like bad reality TV.

          • littlehouse18

            I’ve been trying to figure out why Ron Paul seems to hate Santorum, and I’m sure someone can enlighten me. Right now I’m guessing it’s because Santorum was the one who most vigorously went after his crazy position on Iran.

            I thought Paul very cruelly and smugly twisted the facts against Santorum at the Arizona debate, and it was disgusting.

          • jamesm

            .

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

            more later

          • acat

            answer to the question I asked? Has Santorum shown any signs of being able to act as a wedge between “skirt” and “hard hat” unions?

            Mew

          • jamesm

            http://www.clubforgrowth.org/projects/

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

            and in which Obama and the media tried to make everyone cheer the “improving” economy. Obama lost major ground with women while trying to emphasize “women’s health”.

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

            Fiscal conservatives must come up with actual plans to cut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security and garner support for same rather than rail that those that don’t commit electoral suicide are all unacceptable “big government conservatives” and then point us at governors that never served in DC and had to face the reality with votes.

            Medicare Part D is the best cost saving part of Medicare and its a small part of Medicare. NCLB is puny.

            Newt understands that there must be politically viable TRANSITION from the existing system to the smaller government we desire. The trashing of good conservatives by any relevant measure comparing our candidate’s careers to other is not supported by the evidence.

            Santorum has been at the forefront of battling the Democrats over their truly big government plans for 15 years and to trash him as a BG con because of minor differences over a few signature items of Bush is quite ridiculous..

            How would Daniels, Christy have voted if they were in DC? With RON Paul? Please…and Even Paul Ryan has scores on these ratings that would have him vilified…but at least they don’t talk about social issues! Egad!!!

            Yet, 2 weeks after Rush made the point poorly and Santorum made it often, and Newt brought up infanticide…Lo and behold if Obama is doing worse with women.

            more later

          • jamesm

            are driving Obama’s numbers down? Maybe social issues? Not sure

          • acat

            …

          • jamesm

            and beg them to heeeeelllpppp!

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

            You can find it here. Quick summary reads are here and here.

            It’s a very good start.

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

            ran for President. We need to have a candidate that lays out a transition to an actually small(er) government and Newt comes the closest to bold proposals that understand the transition period required and the sales job.

            Thx for the links bro

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

            but I don’t put much stock in that myself

    • zooboy

      If Gingrich stays in the race after failing to win both Alabama and Mississippi, it shows that Newt cares more about Newt than about the conservative cause.
      Staying in is a quiet endorsement of Romney.

      • garfieldjl

        He wouldn’t be staying in it like he is.

        Newt’s in this because he loves this country, if this were just about Newt, he’d be making far more on the lecture circuit and selling books rather than putting up with Romney’s smear campaign.

        • lapert

          Newt as poster boy for the reluctant candidate – yeah, doesn’t really seem to fit.

          Of course Newt’s first concern is Newt – his ego isn’t exactly sized for a regular man. But of course it is also true that the other candidates are doing this for themselves – that is the nature of nearly everyone who is willing to run for president in the first place, no reason to pretend otherwise.

          • APA Guy

            Sheesh…sell crazy someplace else…we’re all stocked up here.

          • lapert

            Did you not notice how I said the same is true of the other candidates?

            At least the stupidity ends tonight when Romney takes MS and Santorum take AL.

          • EyeofMitt

            When they start throwing out clinical terms like “crazy” (hat tip to APA Guy) you know they are desperate.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            on “eye of newt” – or on the “Eye of Sauron”? Or nothing like that at all?

      • acat

        No meat to your argument.

        Mew

      • zachv

        On top of that, Santorum is not the poster child for conservatism.

        Fact is, the Marco Rubio and Paul Ryans of the world didn’t disappear because they chose not to run this election cycle. Santorum is wishy-washy big government at best, and a terrible candidate to boot.

        • zooboy

          Wouldn’t it make good strategy for the non-Romney conservative faction, at this late date, to stop splitting our vote? Shouldn’t we coalesce behind the candidate with the best chance of stopping Romney? (ie has the most delegates thus far). Gingrich’s conservative credentials are also very blemished, to say the least. Even if Newt were my first choice (he’s my 2nd), I’d be supporting Rick Santorum by now, as a matter of strategy. I’ve seen conservatives shoot themselves in the foot like this in the primaries, and end up giving the nomination to the moderate more times than I can recount. There’s a reason why Newt’s major PAC donor, that guy Adelson from Nevada, is a Romney supporter. He understands the strategy.

          • acat

            And at this point, I’m staying behind Gingrich. Your argument is not persuasive. Santorum is not the “best chance”, he’s a big-government pro-Union guy with no real fiscal cred.

            Also, you got a cite for Adelson being a Romney guy, or are you just making stuff up?

            Mew

          • Scope

            asking for a cite on the Adelson support of Romney if Gingrich doesn’t do well? It’s been posted here, and it’s been “cited” in many places on the internet. I can forgive you for not watching any TV, but you have no excuse for not researching the internet for info. Are you so lazy you can’t do any research, or are you playing a game. I’ve noticed that you very often ask for cites/links, but rearly provide any of your own. Provide info on how Santrum can drive a wedge between the “skirt” unions, and the “hard hat” unions is laughable. You do like to send the unknown to your tactics out to provide info to you that you know isn’t likely available. That’s what libertarians do, never let the discussion come to any conclusion or solution. It’s the same moral relativism argument that the liberals argue regularly. Contraception is ” a women’s health issue” is a good example.

          • acat

            So .. you’re saying Adelson will support Romney in the general if Gingrich loses… so what? So will I. So will you, for that matter.

            Sounds to me like much ado about nothing.

            Mew

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

            Yes, its fun to say! more later

          • garfieldjl

            Santorum should let Gingrich have the South.

            Romney focuses on Gingrich and Santorum takes a few states.

            This keeps going back and forth.

            Santorum won’t have enough delegates, same with Gingrich, but if they combine totals at the end, they will have enough.

            Key is to negate Romney’s money advantage.

          • sulmak

            With high percentages of very conservative and “evangelicals”.

            1. Unions, the south is very anti-union, and Santorum is relatively supportive of labor cartels, in fact the most supportive of the four.

            2. States Rights/Federalism, which Santorum is relatively(keyword) weak on, in fact he is probably the worst of the four.

            By the time Texas(my state) votes there may be a clear anti-Romney, in which case I will vote for that one. Right now there is really no reason to vote against my preference, Gingrich, especially since most of Santorum’s delegates are from caucus states that haven’t been bound for sure yet.

            Right now, it would be virtually impossible for any candidate other Romney to win in the first round in the convention. Which means that if Santorum or Gingrich wins, it will be in the unbound later rounds. The important thing is denying Romney as many delegates as possible, and in mostly proportional states that can be done almost as well by voting for anyone but Romney as it would for one particular not-Romney.

          • Scope

            on your projections. Did you know that Newt Gingrich thought the SEIU former leader Andy Stern was a hero of Newt Gingrich? Yeah that’s true. Gingrich thought that Andy Stern was one of the greatest leaders of the unions, who understood the international union movement, according to Newt’s own words. Ha, Newt is for the big Democrat unions, yet Santorum gets faulter for his support of private sector unions. Amazing.

  • zooboy

    I’ts especially important that we conservatives coalesce behind a single non-Romney before the big state winner-take -all state primaries. We can’t afford to let Romney get all those delegate blocks.

    • garfieldjl

      We’re running against someone whom is worse than Jimmy Carter, I think we could run a lawn gnome against Obama and win.

      Romney is probably the only one that can’t beat Obama or doesn’t have a good chance of winning.

      • acat

        I find your suggestion .. funny.

        While Obama is terrible, this is still his election to lose. With that in mind, I want to run someone who keeps the most issues on the table.

        Romney takes jobs and healthcare off the table.

        Santorum takes government-unions off the table .. and I’m not convinced he can bring union support in November when it counts.

        Gingrich takes .. what, exactly? off the table.

        Mew

        • garfieldjl

          I’m saying that a lawn gnome is a better choice than Romney.

          Obama is better at lieing than Santorum is at calling people out.

          Gingrich is as credible as Santorum on Obamacare, if not more credible. The fact he has admitted to originally be for individual mandates and then decided that they were a bad idea, can actually be used in a way that is more damaging to Obama than Santorum can be.

          Newt can say he was originally for individual mandates so people took responsibility for themselves, but after seeing the blatent abuse of power as seen in Obamacare, that he doesn’t believe Government can be trusted with that power. That it is unconstitutional and should be repealed ASAP.

          In short he would be just as effective if not more effective at using Obamacare against Obama.

          A lot of Gingrich’s baggage would be hard for Obama to attack without it being turned against him.

          Freddie Mac consultant vs. Senator that protected Fannae and Freddie

          Pelosi couch ad vs. drilling moratorium and Solyndra
          (Gingrich later testified against cap & trade)

          Gingrich would be hard for Obama to attack because of Obama’s own baggage.

        • Scope

          support right out of the equasion. Please address the Gingrich support of Andy Stern in you next comment if you want to retain credibility.

          • acat

            Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, is the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market and the need to make American union members productive in the face of world competition.

            (hat tip barleycorn)

            You’re making a very black-or-white argument here, Scope; because Stern is a liberal Dem and Obama supporter, he must be all evil, he may not be a competent union leader. Because Rahm Emanuel is a Dem and Obama supporter, he can’t be a competent mayor.

            I’ll note I have no credibility with you for the same reason – I do not see things exactly the way you do, so it doesn’t much matter what I say, I have no cred with you anyway.

            Fortunately for me, I have different standards.

            Mew

  • Scope

    Today’s voting- Both have open primaries.

    Miss.
    D- 4%, R-80%, I-17%.

    AL.
    D-6%,R-66%, I-28%.

    Seems to be little cross over voting. Ron Paul will come in last again. LOL

    • jamesm

      does not look good for Newt. Lets see what the votes look like

      • jamesm

        with voters under 50k and over 100k in Alabama. Santorum winning with rural and urban voters over Gingrich

  • Scope

    and I have to decide what kind of pizza topping/s I want tonight. Any good ideas, and don’t even go there with anchovies.

  • Scope

    AL Exit poll info per CNN

    Tea Party supporter-
    S-34
    G-34
    R-27

    Oppose Tea Party-
    R-39
    S-33
    P-12
    G-11

    Urban-
    R-37
    S-36
    G-20

    Rural-
    S-32
    G-31
    R-30

    Age 65 and over
    R-37
    G-31
    S-27

    Under $50,000 earners-
    S-35
    G-30
    R-27

    Over $100,000 earners-
    R-39
    S-31
    G-21

    College Grads-
    S-38
    R-32
    G-26

    Postgraduate Education-
    R-37
    S-32
    G-23

    Moderates-
    R-44
    S-27
    G-16

    Very Conservative-
    S-41
    S-36
    G-19

    For whatever it’s worth.

    • jamesm

      Romney a close second and Gingrich third. 44% of Alabama is urban. The rest is rural. People can do the math. We will need to see the numbers though

    • garfieldjl

      If not, they aren’t supposed to release that data.

      Btw, Santorum supporters I have absolutely no enthusiasm for Santorm.

      Congratulations Santorum, you may have just given Romney the nomination and Obama an easy victory in November.

      • jamesm

        the rest an hour later

        • garfieldjl

          That information is not supposed to become available until after all the polls in a state close.

          • jamesm

            they are reading the tea leaves.

      • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

        We’re in the Central Time Zone where it’s 5:45 pm.

        • garfieldjl

          If I remember correctly, if it can be proven it was deliberate this is pretty serious.

          Can’t find if it is illegal or not I thought it was, but can’t find the specific law.

          • jamesm

            but it is clear that Santorum is doing very well in the exit polls

          • jamesm

            http://www.billspetrino.com/2012/03/12/mississippi-exit-polls-mississippi-exit-polls-2012-updated-exit-polls-mississippi-gop-primary-march-13/

            Newt may be done if this is true

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            Why by 2016 we’ll just do everything by computer programs. Why should people have to go out to the polls and actually DO something, the Voting Commission will just use the national computer data banks to determine their votes. Everyone can just sit back and watch the election results on their screens.

      • Scope

        or Woe Is Me? Doesn’t appear that Cheezy Grits Y’all is doing as well as Fox and his cling on pundits wanted everyone to believe. We shall see what the final numbers are.

        • littlehouse18

          But don’t pity me …. Fox declares Santorum wins both!! Woo hoo!

          • lapert

            They have been releasing the early demographics at 5pm for all primaries. They don’t release the top line data until the polls close and they are updated throughout the night as they compile the rest of the interview data and adjust the sample based on actual turnout.

            There is nothing wrong with this practice.

    • Scope

      Very conservative-
      S-41
      G-36
      R-19

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

    ..

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      *no*text*

  • Scope

    he is the projected winner of Alabama. Thank you Alabama voters.

  • Scope

    It’s been a good night for the conservatives.

  • Don T.

    Fox News just called the race for him. It’s a twofer for Santorum for the evening so far.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      ^no^text^

  • Scope

    are currently having yet another victory speech for him losing yet again.

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

    he is smart enough to know that he has not business still being in this race. He is not winning any states; he is helping Romney by splitting the vote. How can one man put himself before the cause that he has benefited from. He is going to be the spoiler that helps Romney, and that is the only thing I will remember about him in this campaign if he does not try. Is it time that someone tells him that this whole thing is not about him. He is not going to be president come 2013, so why not give Santorum a chance to take Romney on.

    • littlehouse18

      he’d better stop this ego trip real soon. It is indeed looking selfish and petty.

      • clintonformccain

        …is Newt’s legacy.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          Clinton lovers never will get over it. Kinda funny, actually.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            when moderates try to tell conservatives who we should elect and how.

    • demsaresatanic

      trying to take Newt out of the race because he just can’t stand Newt’s help. Romney has tried to eliminate Newt because he realizes that Newt is the larger danger to him, Romney considers Santorum a lightweight that he can take down later.

      There is of course a short-term advantage to splitting the conservative vote for Romney but in the long term Romney would probably benefit by being able to concentrate all his resources on Santorum.

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

        so that the most conservative left in the race would have a chance to be the nominee. Newt lost in his home base.

        • demsaresatanic

          Newt get out in only a few tokes. http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2012/03/12/2556/
          How long before you discover that Obama was right all along?

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

            was about who I would have voted for today. The situation has now changed. New data, and my main objective is beating Obama with the most conservative guy.

            One thing you and I share, given my 36 years an activist Dem and part official until my 2000 conservative epiphany, is that I know first hand that the Dem party is satanic. So no, I would never go back to the Dems, even if it were Clinton…now if JFK came back…smile

  • demsaresatanic

    deep stuff.

    • littlehouse18

      ..

  • lynnotting

    if Newtt get’s out….Newt’s votes will be split between them because half of his supporters are fiscal conservatives. Regardless, I don’t see Romney or Santorum winning the general election… Obviously, the members of this party do not want to win this election and don’t want a fiscal conservative government. It would be fun watching these candidates come up with their own workable energy and economic plans. Then, they can go back on the defense against this administration and lose all credibility with the general electorate. Heck, if I was Newt, I wouldn’t help them win the battles against this President just so they could disrespect me as they have time after time after time…