February 28, 2012
— Ace It's almost as if they think Santorum represents Obama's best hope or something.
Obama takes yet another dig, this time about the auto industry, as Romney tries to win in that auto industry heavy state.
President Obama took two swipes at Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in front of auto workers in Washington, on the same day that Romney is fighting for a crucial win in his home state of Michigan…Obama made references in separate parts of the speech, to Romney’s 2008 New York Times op-ed titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” The president used that exact title, and also repeated a line from the piece, “you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.”
In full context, Romney wrote on November 18, 2008 in his position to oppose the auto bailout, “IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.”
Why, it's almost as if he's offering covert endorsement of "Operation Hilarity."
Michael Moore says all his Democratic friends are pulling for Santorum.
"I have to tell you a lot of my Democratic friends will vote for Santorum in something they are calling Operation Hilarity." Moore delightedly reported, referring to the left-wing plot to disrupt the Republican primary.
Old rule: "They'll tell you who they fear"
New rule: "They'll tell you who they fear," and then we should vote against the candidate they fear more, to teach "The Establishment" we know a thing or two about losing elections ourselves
Posted by: Ace at
10:55 AM
| Comments (357)
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2012 10:59 AM (lVGED)
Posted by: Brian at February 28, 2012 10:59 AM (wTSvK)
Posted by: fluffy at February 28, 2012 10:59 AM (vRSeu)
Posted by: TimisKim at February 28, 2012 10:59 AM (co75b)
Posted by: Stephen Hawking at February 28, 2012 11:00 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: H.L. Mencken's Ghost at February 28, 2012 11:00 AM (YFFpo)
Posted by: ParisParamus at February 28, 2012 11:00 AM (+csHE)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at February 28, 2012 11:01 AM (K4Ks5)
Posted by: Truman North at February 28, 2012 11:01 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Not an Artist at February 28, 2012 11:01 AM (Lo/3Q)
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2012 11:01 AM (lVGED)
Posted by: El Kabong at February 28, 2012 11:01 AM (99eo4)
perhaps hillary would have been worse, but hard to imagine.
Posted by: willow at February 28, 2012 11:01 AM (TomZ9)
(p.s. I know Romney talks about his olympics leadership a lot, anyone know if he's ever thrown in a joke about Obama's hilarious Chicago Olympics fail?)
Posted by: Adrian at February 28, 2012 11:02 AM (PY4xx)
Let's go out with a bang.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 28, 2012 11:03 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: Andy at February 28, 2012 11:03 AM (5Rurq)
Posted by: Mr Pink at February 28, 2012 11:03 AM (BK7iZ)
Posted by: Truman North at February 28, 2012 11:03 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: yankeefifth at February 28, 2012 11:03 AM (Z9EHQ)
New rule: "They'll tell you who they fear," and then we should vote against the candidate they fear more, to teach "The Establishment" we know a thing or two about losing elections ourselves
>>> Yes, because a guy who in 8 years of campaigning never learned to avoid things like " I love American cars, my family owns 4 of them, including a couple of caddys" is a guy who absolutely deserves our vote and would be a fantastic choice to solve our problems.
Posted by: Trump at February 28, 2012 11:03 AM (M7Awp)
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at February 28, 2012 11:04 AM (udEUT)
Guilt by association. That's true conservatism.
Pathetic.
Posted by: countrydoc at February 28, 2012 11:04 AM (3lc1Z)
Posted by: Trump at February 28, 2012 03:03 PM (M7Awp)
like the rest of the base, you're just being retarded
Posted by: Mutt Romney at February 28, 2012 11:04 AM (M8yfa)
This is all about keeping this fight going for as long as possible. They think if they can extend the primaries for another month or so, that Romney will be so bloodied and broke it will be that much easier for the SCOAMF to beat him in November.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 28, 2012 11:05 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: Brian at February 28, 2012 11:06 AM (wTSvK)
Posted by: Social Issues at February 28, 2012 11:06 AM (F6KtL)
I know Rush pushes this but I've never considered it a particularly useful guideline.
First I'm not convinced the left has good political insight in general. So I'm not going to blindly accept their views on a candidate since I have a brain and can do my own evaluation.
Secondly the fact that 'they' hate a candidate doesn't tell you all that much about the real electoral potential of that candidate among non-leftists. The left is emotion based and some GOP politicians happen to hit the left's buttons perfectly and drive them batty - but that's no guarantee that they will appeal to independents.
Thirdly if you really follow this rule, you're basically just a contrarian to whatever upsets lefties. And however satisfying that might be it also means that you're just outsourcing your political thinking to the other side.
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 28, 2012 11:06 AM (CkoMi)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 28, 2012 11:06 AM (f9c2L)
You fucking lying pieces of shit.
Posted by: © Sponge at February 28, 2012 11:06 AM (+lD+M)
Has he ever thrown in a joke?
SMOD!
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 28, 2012 11:06 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Not Mitt at February 28, 2012 11:06 AM (qr+7C)
Posted by: buzzion at February 28, 2012 11:07 AM (wcDiz)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at February 28, 2012 11:07 AM (X2u9N)
I own more than 4 cars and caddys aren't the status symbol they used to be so I missed the point of this particular kerfuffle.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 28, 2012 11:07 AM (tf9Ne)
Let's go out with a bang.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 28, 2012 03:03 PM (UOM4
I love this idea. No need for evil birth control, STD prevention or awkward partings afterward. Just drunken, dirty anonymity- takes me back to high school.
Bangapalooza 2012! I'm totally in.
Posted by: Catholic bishops at February 28, 2012 11:07 AM (fYOZx)
Posted by: Not an Artist at February 28, 2012 11:07 AM (Lo/3Q)
Posted by: El Kabong at February 28, 2012 03:01 PM (99eo4)
Santorum's birth control comments were from 2006. Satan comments were from 2008. Obama takes office in 2009, so any of his failures have occurred long after the Santorum remarks you take issue with.
So uhm ... What was your point again?
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 28, 2012 11:07 AM (sGtp+)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 28, 2012 11:08 AM (qx7YW)
Posted by: Mother Angelica at February 28, 2012 11:08 AM (Gx3Fe)
Posted by: ahem at February 28, 2012 11:08 AM (3C5fW)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 28, 2012 11:08 AM (qCR9V)
Posted by: Social Issues (F6KtL)
One again you bring..........nothing.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2012 11:08 AM (lVGED)
Posted by: Ken Royall at February 28, 2012 11:08 AM (9zzk+)
Posted by: erg loughner at February 28, 2012 11:09 AM (gZseM)
Posted by: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain at February 28, 2012 11:09 AM (bj+Nc)
Posted by: blaster at February 28, 2012 11:09 AM (7vSU0)
Me: If they want Romney to be Obama's opponent so bad, why are they running out to vote for Santorum in Romney's home state, which weakens him considerably?
NotRomney Voter: It's reverse psychology. They really want Romney, so they're voting for Santorum to make us think they want him instead. It's obvious.
...aannd then I gave up.
Posted by: TiredWench at February 28, 2012 11:10 AM (oPceJ)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 28, 2012 11:10 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: yankeefifth at February 28, 2012 11:10 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: McLovin at February 28, 2012 11:10 AM (j0IcY)
The polls say what?
Uhmmm.
Gotta go!
Posted by: Greg at February 28, 2012 11:10 AM (J3Ovp)
Every thread I open, I just know this Brian fag has already left a turd in it.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 28, 2012 11:11 AM (Wi8JV)
It'll be almost like having W back in the White House. Only with even less articulation of conservative and pro-freedom ideas. And a little more reverence for the "safety-net."
And Santorum is a frigging train wreck. Huckabee for Northerners.
Posted by: Arms Merchant at February 28, 2012 11:11 AM (VKRmb)
Wow. Who'da thunk it?
Posted by: Laura Castellano at February 28, 2012 11:11 AM (fuw6p)
***
And yet the State Media continues to hammer Santorum and push Romney.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 28, 2012 11:11 AM (3aXbg)
Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2012 11:12 AM (a9mQu)
Posted by: Upper Deckington, Esq. at February 28, 2012 11:12 AM (I2LwF)
It's amazing how little the MSM knows about Michigan.
Do they think that Ford workers are happy about Obama bailing out the GM and Chrysler UAW? There just aren't that many auto plants left in the state. Salary people got screwed, so they're not happy.
After the bailout, the handpicked candidate of the UAW lost the governor's race by 19 points. Where was the love then?
Obama will lose Michigan in November by a wide margin.
Posted by: jwest at February 28, 2012 11:12 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2012 11:13 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 28, 2012 03:06 PM (f9c2L)
In the end, as bad as they were, the auto bailouts will cost a fraction of Obamneycare. So yeah, he's still a big government liberal. And I'm going to have to vote for that smarmy fuck in Novermber but I won't like it and no amount of shaming or insults will change that.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, Bangapalooza 2012 at February 28, 2012 11:13 AM (fYOZx)
Posted by: El Kabong at February 28, 2012 11:13 AM (99eo4)
perhaps hillary would have been worse, but hard to imagine.
Posted by: willow at February 28, 2012 03:01 PM (TomZ9)
----------------------------------------
That's not really the complete story. Rush started "Operation Chaos" only after it became evident that Hillary was not going to get the nomination. He wanted the primary to be extended to vette the SCOAMT more. And we did learn more about this POS. Unfortunately, the 52%ers refused to listen.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 11:13 AM (EI3l3)
Santorum has a piss poor record anyway as a Big Government SoCon, all he cares about is his ridiculous Holy War.
I want politicians out of the boardroom AND BEDROOM.
Posted by: Brad Altec at February 28, 2012 11:13 AM (0kf1G)
Posted by: Dr Spank
Actually Dr Spanky, I have contributed to this site before in meaningful dialogue. I just thought I'd throw that out there for shits and giggles. Guess it hit a nerve with you and will perhaps, result in a meaningful dialogue....?
Posted by: Dr. Spank is Wrong at February 28, 2012 11:14 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2012 11:14 AM (a9mQu)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 28, 2012 11:14 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: yankeefifth at February 28, 2012 11:14 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 28, 2012 11:14 AM (IlZPo)
Posted by: Y-not waiting for a thread with policy substance at February 28, 2012 11:15 AM (5H6zj)
things like " I love American cars, my family owns 4 of them, including a
couple of caddys
Oh fuck! Romney isn't pretending to be poor so that people will relate to him! Grow up you pussy, a guy can have 4 cars in America - seriously, it's OK.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 28, 2012 11:15 AM (+lsX1)
It's only a disgusting disqualifying practice when Santorum did it THIS year. In 2008 it was understandable.
Nice try avoiding the real loathsomeness of what Santorum is doing. He's running AGAINST Romney's principled stance against the auto bailouts, while also neglecting to mention that he supposedly opposed them too. In addition, did you hear the robocall he's running today? It's vile:
Attention all Democrats: Governor Rick Snyder just endorsed Mitt Romney, the same Mitt Romney who said "let Detroit go bankrupt." Mitt Romney doesn't care about Michigan. This Tuesday is our chance to send Romney and Gov. Snyder a message. So please, go vote on Tuesday for Rick Santorum in the Republican primary. Now voting for Rick Santorum on Tuesday does not mean you're becoming a Republican. You'll still be able to vote in the Michigan Democratic Party Caucuses and to reelect President Obama in November. This is our chance to send a message to Gov. Rick Snyder and his buddy Mitt Romney...Remember: a vote for Rick Santorum is a vote to embarrass Gov. Rick Snyder and Mitt Romney. Vote Santorum on Tuesday.
Yeah, that's totally fair game.
Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 28, 2012 11:15 AM (BCuX8)
old rule: Mitt Romney is the best candidate because he can get independents and moderate democrats to vote for him.
new rule: waaaahhhh!
------------------------
It's not independents and moderates Santorum is making robo-calls to. It's leftist scum and union thugs. It's amazing how many people on our side are okay with a candidate calling up the opposition and inviting them to disenfranchise Republican primary voters.
Posted by: TiredWench at February 28, 2012 11:15 AM (oPceJ)
I wonder where the Democrats got this idea:
"Romney confirmed he voted for former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas in the stateÂ’s 1992 Democratic presidential primary, saying he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton," the Boston GlobeÂ’s Scot Lehigh and Frank Phillips wrote on Feb. 3, 1994. "He added he had been sure the G.O.P. would renominate George Bush, for whom he voted in the fall election."
ABC Feb 16, 2007
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2012 11:15 AM (kdS6q)
>>Actually Dr Spanky, I have contributed to this site before in meaningful dialogue.
Posted by: (F6KtL)
Actually, you haven't.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2012 11:16 AM (lVGED)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2012 03:13 PM (r4wIV)
In general most lefties are deep in a blue cocoon and know all that much about the other side. I just don't get why we give so much credence to what they think about GOP candidates.
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 28, 2012 11:16 AM (CkoMi)
Well, it's that or SCOAMF.
Is it time to go home yet? I need a drink.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 28, 2012 11:16 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2012 11:16 AM (vc/De)
Posted by: Brian at February 28, 2012 11:16 AM (wTSvK)
I know Rush pushes this but I've never considered it a particularly useful guideline.
First I'm not convinced the left has good political insight in general. So I'm not going to blindly accept their views on a candidate since I have a brain and can do my own evaluation.
...
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 28, 2012 03:06 PM (CkoMi)
Can't recall the number of games I've played where the overly convoluted and "clever" strategies backfire, badly. Super dimensional chessplayers only exist in fiction. (Or are God, I suppose)
Part of Romney's electability is that he's more palatable to the liberals than other Republican candidates. If Democrats play games in the primaries to eliminate him, they're facing the risk that if/when Obama loses the general that the nation gets a more conservative president than otherwise.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 28, 2012 11:16 AM (v3pYe)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 28, 2012 03:07 PM (tf9Ne)
I own three cars, and the Mexicans a couple blocks away in Tijuana own a couple Cadillacs. So, Romney's comment was supposed to mean he's "out of touch"... or that he listens to Reggaeton music at deafening levels?
Posted by: wooga at February 28, 2012 11:16 AM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Lance MCormick at February 28, 2012 11:17 AM (bp264)
Posted by: BurtTC at February 28, 2012 11:17 AM (Gc/Qi)
Ace seems to be bracing for a loss of MI by Mr Electability.
And so if I understand him correctly, we should vot for Willard because he can get the cross over votes we need to win, but it is dirty pool for the other guys to get more cross over votes than Willard gets.
ok, got it...
Posted by: montgomery burns at February 28, 2012 11:17 AM (K/USr)
Posted by: E.M. August at February 28, 2012 11:18 AM (zeBNm)
Threadwinner.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2012 11:18 AM (lVGED)
Um, actually I have before. I'm typing on my work computer during my lunch break and thought I'd toss a little post out there. Now my problem is you being the judge here. Are you always a prick, or just on your good days?
Posted by: Dr. Spank is Wrong at February 28, 2012 11:19 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: yankeefifth at February 28, 2012 11:19 AM (Z9EHQ)
That's not really the complete story. Rush started "Operation Chaos" only after it became evident that Hillary was not going to get the nomination. He wanted the primary to be extended to vette the SCOAMT more. And we did learn more about this POS. Unfortunately, the 52%ers refused to listen.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 03:13 PM (EI3l3)
thanks for the explanation.
Posted by: willow at February 28, 2012 11:20 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: mpfs at February 28, 2012 11:21 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at February 28, 2012 11:21 AM (X2u9N)
Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney have each made major policy speeches (or
OpEds), but I've seen no analysis or commentary here on any of them. I
really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish with threads
like this (and the accompanying twitter battles).
Posted by: Y-not waiting for a thread with policy substance
i guess beating eachother up is better for our team.
Posted by: willow at February 28, 2012 11:21 AM (TomZ9)
So what are these grand pearls of wisdom you've spouted recently?
And what are we to call you?
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2012 11:21 AM (lVGED)
The point of these robocalls is that Santorum is attacking Romney FROM THE LEFT. And the hard, union-coddling, gonna-bankroll-Obama-to-the-hilt-anyway Left.
Santorum is LESS conservative than Romney. The only reason to support him in any way is to punish Romney.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:21 AM (T0NGe)
And Romney is a 1%er.
The MFM will build a narrative no matter who the nominee is.
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna at February 28, 2012 11:21 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at February 28, 2012 11:21 AM (JNqU9)
But in a jobs'n'economy election --which this can't help but be-- the guy who differentiates himself most from the incumbent wins. That's it. You might not like what Santorum represents -- and I can't repeat this enough, I do NOT -- but he actually presents a clear alternative to Obama. Romney doesn't.
And before you all jump down my throat (I'm a longtime reader, first-time commenter), I realize that Santorum's "difference" is that he's a theocon nutjob, a sweater-vested ayatollah who wants to yoke women to the oven while they're not birthin' babies. A) He's a Republican; that would be the media's line of attack if we ran Richard Dawkins; and B) it doesn't much matter what the difference from Obama is, as long as there is one.
The best analogue, I think, is 2004. In an election that was nothing BUT a referendum on the war, the Democrats ran.... a "war hero." Kerry billed himself as the smarter, more proactive Bush, the Robert E. Lee to Bush's George McClellan. The entire Democratic base hated Kerry -- they longed for a peace-nik; they thought they were getting a peace-nik ("Winter Soldier"); but when he all of a sudden started claiming he was a bigger-nutted Chuck Norris back in 'Nam, lots of what should've been his base stayed home.
Santorum -- ugly as he is -- is our best shot at defeating Obama. It sucks, but that's marketing.
Posted by: Severian at February 28, 2012 11:22 AM (3xodR)
If Dustin stretches anymore he's going to end up in a wheelchair.Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at February 28, 2012 11:22 AM (X2u9N)
Awwww! Are the Romneybots whining and crying?
Guess "dirty tricks" and "this ain't bean bag" only apply when Romney is on the giving end.
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at February 28, 2012 11:23 AM (6wKJC)
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 28, 2012 11:23 AM (CNKge)
Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2012 11:23 AM (a9mQu)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 11:23 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: yankeefifth at February 28, 2012 11:23 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Mitt Romney: Reaching Out To The Common Man......At A Comfortable Distance at February 28, 2012 11:24 AM (qr+7C)
Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 28, 2012 11:24 AM (QxSug)
(Oh, and Michael Moore? Why can't he get hit by a runaway 18-wheeler or something? Why must he be inflicted on us?)
Posted by: joncelli at February 28, 2012 11:25 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: BurtTC at February 28, 2012 11:25 AM (Gc/Qi)
It's not independents and moderates Santorum is making robo-calls to. It's leftist scum and union thugs.It's amazing how manypeople on our side areokay with a candidate calling up the opposition and inviting them to disenfranchise Republican primary voters.
Posted by: TiredWench at February 28, 2012 03:15 PM (oPceJ)
------------------------------------
MI is a state that the RNC allows an open fucking primary. Demcrats get to vote too. If I were a repub candidate facing an open primary, I'd be throwing the dems a bone also.
The best cure for this is to somehow revamp the RNC and totally discontinue open primaries or not count them if states insist on doing it that way.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 11:25 AM (EI3l3)
And what are we to call you?
Posted by: Dr Spank
Well considering I haven't been on in like a week or two, you can take your self-serving prick-ass attitude and shove it up where Sweater Vest Ricky finds it uncomfortable. Furthermore, it's people like you that I find fucking annoying in daily life. But I digress, let's have a 'grand pearl of wisdom' discussion here you prick...what would you like to discuss...I'm open to anything...
Posted by: Dr. Spanky is Wrong at February 28, 2012 11:26 AM (F6KtL)
Santorum does much better with indies than Romney does or ever can, given his shameful flip flops.
The democrats are telling us that nominating Santorum would be awful. conventional wisdom is that so cons like that are extreme and absurd.
I think this is a big lie, though I also think a lot of people have heard it so long they think it's just a law of nature.
There are very few people out there who would boast about voting in the wrong party's primary to screw that party into 'the weakest candidate' and then call encouraging voting in the wrong primary "disgusting". That's romney, and you just won't find many people who identify with that. Especially in the middle. I think you will find a lot of people in the middle who identify with Santorum. Even folks who disagree with him often wind up supporting him.
Of the many things I disagree with Santorum on is this calling on democrats to vote in the GOP primary. That's wrong. But interestingly, Santorum isn't being dishonest about these robocalls. He's just owning them like a man. He doesn't give me one weird story rewriting history after another, either.
We should be careful before we assume Romney is the most electable. As far as I can tell, he's headed in the wrong direction, and his in ability to do anywhere near as well in the MI primary as he did last time is instructive.
Ultimately, I think we are making a mistake with either of the two most likely nominees.
Posted by: Dustin at February 28, 2012 11:26 AM (wcT+8)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 28, 2012 11:26 AM (IlZPo)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2012 11:26 AM (7X6/u)
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 28, 2012 11:27 AM (CNKge)
Posted by: yankeefifth at February 28, 2012 11:27 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2012 11:27 AM (a9mQu)
It's almost as if Obomba wanted to shift the discussion away from his disastrous handling of the economy or something...
Now why would he do something like that?
Posted by: Rick Horsey-assy Santorum [/i] at February 28, 2012 11:27 AM (9Hw3U)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 11:27 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Y-not waiting for a thread with policy substance at February 28, 2012 11:27 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at February 28, 2012 11:27 AM (X2u9N)
Thanks for proving my point -- this was <i>exactly</i> the left's reaction to John F'n Kerry.
I work in a blue state, around lots of union types; i.e. automatic Democratic votes. Lots of them stayed home.
When you have an awful candidate -- and Santorum, Mitt, Newt, and the SMOD are all atrocious -- you don't win by energizing supporters FOR him; you win by energizing voters <i>against</i> the other guy. Which you do by differentiating him as much as possible from the other guy. Hence, Rick-mentum.
Posted by: Severian at February 28, 2012 11:28 AM (3xodR)
Posted by: Benson at February 28, 2012 11:28 AM (qzcNU)
That Santorum is a joke is mere coincidence.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2012 11:28 AM (SY2Kh)
Have pity on the truck driver.
Posted by: fluffy smells the diesel at February 28, 2012 11:29 AM (vRSeu)
Posted by: Y-not waiting for a thread with policy substance at February 28, 2012 03:27 PM (5H6zj)
well, it does help Mr. Electable
Posted by: The Dude at February 28, 2012 11:29 AM (M8yfa)
Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 28, 2012 11:29 AM (qHCyt)
However, McCain didn't stoop to robocalls.
I find it despicable that Rush is pushing this while pretending not to take sides. He is a true not-good moron who apparently is not worried that he might be helping Obama. Screw him, and I am done listening to him.
In 2000, Bush went on to win the nomination. I can't do anything about this but remember that Santorum is a sneaky little shit who will do whatever he thinks will let him win while acting all sanctimonious and religious. He's a hypocrite of the worst sort.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out he wears a pinky ring.
Posted by: Miss Marple at February 28, 2012 11:29 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 28, 2012 11:29 AM (i6RpT)
Oh thank God, I thought I was the only fan of the Book of the New Sun left alive.
Posted by: joncelli at February 28, 2012 11:29 AM (RD7QR)
SCOAMF when standing next to Santorum has no moral authenticity at all and it shows.
Methinks the administration might be a little scared of Ricky.
Posted by: mpfs at February 28, 2012 11:30 AM (iYbLN)
I can defend a 1%er to an independent voter who might vote GOP in the fall. I can't defend a guy who keeps getting off the fiscal message.
Case closed.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 28, 2012 11:30 AM (qx7YW)
(Oh, and Michael Moore? Why can't he get hit by a runaway 18-wheeler or something? Why must he be inflicted on us?)
Posted by: joncelli at February 28, 2012 03:25 PM (RD7QR)
He'd survive that and the poor 18 wheeler would be totalled.
Posted by: buzzion at February 28, 2012 11:30 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 28, 2012 11:30 AM (DGIjM)
I thought Mitten's greatest appeal was he would be able to attract Reagan dems?
Posted by: Flapjackmaka
No no no. The Democrats aren't allowed to vote for a Republican until Simon says "Vote for the Republican"....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2012 11:31 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 28, 2012 11:31 AM (qCR9V)
nope, there's at least one more of us. But, as you no doubt recall, in that book, Severian himself claimed "I am in some degree insane."
That's why I don't post many comments on blogs. I'm probably speaking from the level of my pyloric sphincter, if you know what I'm saying.....
Posted by: Severian at February 28, 2012 11:32 AM (3xodR)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 28, 2012 11:32 AM (qx7YW)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at February 28, 2012 11:32 AM (X2u9N)
I wouldn't be surprised to find out he wears a pinky ring.
Posted by: Miss Marple
............
At the very least, this stunt of Santorum's will guarantee no spot for him as VP on the Romney ticket. Most of this kind of crap is forgivable. But not this.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 28, 2012 11:32 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 28, 2012 11:32 AM (QxSug)
First, this isn't "attracting Reagan Dems" this is only about attacking Romney for NOT supporting an auto bailout. He's appealing to the hardcore union crowd. He's not bringing them to conservatism, he's pandering.
Second, it's clear that the Dems are voting for Santorum because they think he is weaker. You can argue that he's not (you're wrong) but that is what they think.
Look, I'm sorry you're all butthurt that Romney said things about the other candidates that needed to be said, but that isn't the issue here. It's that Santorum is attacking Romney FROM THE LEFT.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:32 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 11:32 AM (5H6zj)
But hey, let's support the retard candidate who has ALLOWED his campaign to become about birth control and abortions. In this economy.
Fucking perfect.
Posted by: E.M. August at February 28, 2012 03:18 PM (zeBNm)
With the selection bias being people who have Internet and talk politics online. Almost everyone I know online is a liberal if they are willing to talk about politics. If I blindly extrapolated that stat, there are no conservatives in the US, anywhere.
Not to discount what you're seeing - just an extra tidbit to keep in mind. If Santorum can trigger Internet hatred along the lines of SOPA, then that would be a problem.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 28, 2012 11:33 AM (v3pYe)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 28, 2012 03:26 PM (IlZPo)
It's all Ace's fault. For some reason, he'll believe the worst of the most ridiculous polls but totally discount all the evidence that Obama will lose worse than Carter.
Some people think sunshine is just a momentary pause between storms.
Posted by: jwest at February 28, 2012 11:33 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: montgomery burns at February 28, 2012 11:33 AM (K/USr)
Posted by: Benson at February 28, 2012 11:33 AM (qzcNU)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 28, 2012 03:26 PM (IlZPo)
------------------------------------------
There is one positive note, however. After we elect our nominee, whoever that may be, we'll be able to start more easily discerning who the DNCbots are and who is not.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 11:33 AM (EI3l3)
Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 28, 2012 11:34 AM (DGIjM)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 28, 2012 11:34 AM (xGjRE)
It's statistical noise coupled with a small handful of people who are doing the "holding my nose and turning blue if you nominate Romney" schtick who say they won't support Romney.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:34 AM (T0NGe)
Yepper.
Posted by: Knemon at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (u1+3w)
Posted by: Truth at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (GL1SF)
Your comments are terrible. They're not funny, not even accidentally. If you want, I can list a sampling for you, but trust me, you don't want.
And get a name.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (lVGED)
Posted by: Benson at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (qzcNU)
Posted by: Laura Castellano at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (fuw6p)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (qndXR)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (wWV5q)
srsly i'm heart broken over all the spilled guts, being so angry at each other, wouldn't it be sensible to know everyone here is of good conscience when trying to support their candidate? whether Romney- Santorum, Newt?
Posted by: willow at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: BurtTC at February 28, 2012 11:35 AM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 28, 2012 11:36 AM (QxSug)
The MFM is making a lot more of Michigan than it deserves.
Mich is penalized by the GOP and loses half of their delegates and they are awarded proportionally because they moved up their primary so early.
So, in the grand scheme of things, Michigan is not all that important. More symbolically than anything.
Secondly, Santorum has just given Mittens his excuse if he does lose.. "It was a bunch of crossover Democrats who gave the primary to Santorum."
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 28, 2012 11:36 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: yankeefifth at February 28, 2012 11:36 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: jewells45 at February 28, 2012 11:36 AM (l/N7H)
Look, I'm sorry you're all butthurt that Romney said things about the other candidates that needed to be said, but that isn't the issue here. It's that Santorum is attacking Romney FROM THE LEFT.
Oh, like how Romney blasted Perry for his stance on Social Security? Oh, sweet irony.
I don't like it either, but I don't consider it in of itself disqualifying at this point, because by that standard we've disqualified everyone already. .
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 28, 2012 11:36 AM (sGtp+)
Santorum is totally undisciplined. He's like the guy in that "Niagara Falls" vaudeville sketch.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:36 AM (T0NGe)
160--hahahaha! How ungrateful of Santorum. If he keeps beating Willard in the primaries, he won't be allowed to carry Willard's bags in the general. good one...
Posted by: montgomery burns at February 28, 2012 11:36 AM (K/USr)
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 03:32 PM (T0NGe)
And as we all know, its only acceptable for Mitt Romney to attack from the left.
Posted by: buzzion at February 28, 2012 11:37 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 28, 2012 11:37 AM (DGIjM)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 03:35 PM (r2PLg)
didn't know calling the base retarded was a bone being thrown by Romney
Posted by: The Dude at February 28, 2012 11:37 AM (M8yfa)
-----------------
No he doesnt. Santorum does better against Obama in polls. Mittens has crashed with indies
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2012 11:37 AM (7X6/u)
Why do I get the feeling you'll be saying the same thing about Ohio next week?
Posted by: Knemon at February 28, 2012 11:37 AM (u1+3w)
Posted by: Benson at February 28, 2012 11:37 AM (qzcNU)
When I pointed this out last week, JeffB. insisted that Mitt's dip was reversible.
He offered no evidence to support this assertion. If he has some, I'd love to see it.
Posted by: Knemon at February 28, 2012 11:38 AM (u1+3w)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 11:38 AM (wWV5q)
McCain had a higher conservative turn out in 2008 than Bush did in 2004.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] at February 28, 2012 11:38 AM (9Hw3U)
Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 28, 2012 11:39 AM (DGIjM)
Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 28, 2012 11:39 AM (HzhBE)
They don't fear romney. His take down is in the box, ready to go. They don't want to have to do the work for the others.
Posted by: tinsley at February 28, 2012 11:39 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: willow at February 28, 2012 11:39 AM (TomZ9)
Yes, exactly. You see, I supported Perry and not Romney in part for this. But if you want to elect the Great Conservative Hope, it ain't Santorum. Look at what the hell you're doing.
I don't like it either, but I don't consider it in of itself disqualifying at this point,
You want so badly to punish Romney that you don't understand the instrument you're using.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:39 AM (T0NGe)
Quelle suprize!
Whoever the Republican nominee is I'll vote for him come November. I won't like it but I'll do it.
I was a Perry gal (sob)
Posted by: mpfs at February 28, 2012 11:40 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2012 11:40 AM (a9mQu)
Posted by: Jimmah at February 28, 2012 11:40 AM (845uI)
That was the Palin Factor at work.
Posted by: mpfs at February 28, 2012 11:40 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Crude at February 28, 2012 11:40 AM (O2z0C)
Romney gets Virginia.
Posted by: Benson
See, if you don't allow other candidates on the ballot, Romney does remarkably well.
Tres electable.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2012 11:40 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: whatever at February 28, 2012 11:41 AM (i/wm2)
And get a name.'
Oh, so you're just a prick, then? And gimme a break, I don't need you to tell me what I've written before. My god, I thought from your comments you were a dick, and as it turned out, I was right.
Posted by: Dr. Spanky is Wrong at February 28, 2012 11:41 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 11:41 AM (r2PLg)
Look; the conservative case is not "PILLS ARE BAD"; it's that private individuals should have more responsibility and control over their own health care expenditures; and that the government shouldn't be choosing how employers or private colleges offer benefits to anyone or intervene in third party contracts.
Conservatives should be pushing for tax breaks (reduction of confiscated money) to encourage persons to prudently manage risks to their own health and the health of their dependents. This means encouraging purchase of private insurance through sheltered savings accounts and no fica or income tax or capital gains tax on money put into such accounts/investments or expended on care.
Posted by: Sarahw at February 28, 2012 11:41 AM (LYwCh)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 11:42 AM (5H6zj)
Seeing as how next week is Super Tuesday? Er, no.
Santorum is up big in Ohio, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. Romney gets Virginia. Gingrich, Georgia.
Posted by: Benson at February 28, 2012 03:37 PM (qzcNU)
--------------------------------------
That's my take too. I've always said that this primary is going to the convention. Like it or not, it's the way it's shaking out.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 11:42 AM (EI3l3)
That's the point. It's like Luap Nor and the fiscal stuff. He's got huge neon lights that say TEH CRAZY while he hands out Times New Roman pamphlets on fiscal stuff.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:42 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2012 11:42 AM (7X6/u)
No, they've set it up perfectly. If Santorum is nominated and loses, it's proof that the base suxx. If Romney is nominated and loses, it's *also* proof that the base suxx.
Unfalsifiable.
Posted by: Knemon at February 28, 2012 11:42 AM (u1+3w)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 28, 2012 03:35 PM (Ho2rs)
--------------------------------
You go girl. I plan to waste my primary vote next week too.
Posted by: Not an Artist at February 28, 2012 11:42 AM (Lo/3Q)
No, that's the libertarian/economic conservative case.
The *social* conservative case is indeed that "PILLS ARE BAD."
I'm not a socon, so I don't make that latter case. But that's the case.
The coalition of the right is inherently fractious. Both sides have to play nice or it'll get split.
Posted by: Knemon at February 28, 2012 11:44 AM (u1+3w)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 28, 2012 11:44 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 11:44 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 03:21 PM
It's interesting that you should make that claim. Today I heard a Club for Growth radio spot that was decidedly not-Romney.
You know, Club for Growth. That rabidly liberal organization that only promotes leftists.
Posted by: mama winger at February 28, 2012 11:44 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 28, 2012 11:45 AM (xGjRE)
179..... "i calmed myself down and drew that fucking line for the only one i ever liked enough to vote for....that's right......RICK PERRY.........."
........
If he is still on the ballot here on Super Tuesday....I will be tempted do the same thing, phoenixgirl. .....But I'll likely vote for Newt, whom Perry endorsed.
........
Newt is the one whose outlook on things is the closest to what I like about Perry. .....So I am hoping that Romney and Santorum knock each other out and leave an open path for Newt to surge.
Posted by: wheatie at February 28, 2012 11:45 AM (UOOK1)
Posted by: Brian at February 28, 2012 11:45 AM (wTSvK)
Unfalsifiable.
Posted by: Knemon at February 28, 2012 03:42 PM (u1+3w)
yep and if somehow the Reps win the election, those 2 fucksticks become the new line for being far right (just like Bush was). Same shit that happened in England
Posted by: The Dude at February 28, 2012 11:45 AM (M8yfa)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 11:45 AM (wWV5q)
Posted by: Pragmatic at February 28, 2012 11:45 AM (z8Cts)
At this stage, Romney isn't the most electable for any ideological reasons. It's for the non-ideological ones. It's not purely about ideology.
Besides, Santorum is far more liberal. Sorry, he is.
Gingrich is not, at least most of the time. But Gingrich has non-ideological problems.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:45 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Pecos at February 28, 2012 11:45 AM (2Gb0y)
Posted by: Chris at February 28, 2012 11:46 AM (fsFpl)
Banhammer anyone?
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 28, 2012 11:46 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2012 11:46 AM (a9mQu)
Santorum vs. Romney? NO CONTEST!
Rmney is a Democrat. . . .he'll never get my vote!
Go Ricky GO!
Posted by: Pragmatic at February 28, 2012 11:46 AM (z8Cts)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 11:47 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 28, 2012 11:47 AM (qCR9V)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 03:44 PM (5H6zj)
----------------------------------
Haven't been paying attention. After VA's ruling, they've been dead to me. It's a non-contest.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 11:48 AM (EI3l3)
Unfalsifiable.
Posted by: Knemon at February 28, 2012 03:42 PM (u1+3w)
Congratulations on identifying the end game of those fucking grifters. Except you left out how, in case of victory, it's all because of those wonderful independents.
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2012 11:48 AM (vc/De)
Posted by: Benson at February 28, 2012 11:48 AM (qzcNU)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 11:48 AM (5H6zj)
Both Newt and Santorum are far, far superior candidates thatn Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is a Democrat who doesn't deserve the Republican nomination (it's ludicrous to allow him to run as a Republican). The Republican Party is an absolute laughing-stock . . .a joke!
Posted by: Pragmatic at February 28, 2012 11:48 AM (z8Cts)
you make a good point. I don't think I was as clear as I meant to be. When I talk about "difference," I'm not asserting that Santorum is some kind of rock-ribbed fiscal conservative. Far from it -- he's a big-government RINO squish (he's pretty much Obama-lite on that score), rightwing social engineering is still social engineering, &c.
I'm only talking about difference as a cynical marketing ploy. Why is Nike different from Reebok? It's the same damn sweatshop-manufactured crap, except one of them has a swoosh and Michael Jordan. Santorum has *that kind* of identity-- he's "The Jesus Guy." Mitt, on the other hand, is.... Mitt. The slightly-lighter Obama. The guy who can produce his birth certificate, college transcripts, and tax returns in less than three years. And.... that's about it. Santorum has a BRAND, in the way Mittens just doesn't.
I'd also dispute this:
the zero presidency and the current state of affairs is much different than when Kerry ran. The desire for change on both sides of the aisle is much higher now
Sorry, I just don't see it. Rank-and-file liberals *hated* George Bush with a passion I only wish we could muster (for candidates other than our own, anyway). They stayed home anyway, largely because Kerry did a 180 in the general on the peace-freak crap that won him the primary.
The Dems banked that his "not-Bush" credentials would carry him over.
They didn't, because he was he wasn't not-Bush enough.
Santorum is more not-Obama than Romney. Hence, he's a better candidate IFF your main consideration is getting Zero out. Which is frankly all I care about.
Posted by: Severian at February 28, 2012 11:48 AM (3xodR)
How is Santorum better?
I'm not being pedantic here. I know why Romney sucks. Why is Santorum better?
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:49 AM (T0NGe)
Not according to Club for Growth. You are entitled to your opinion, but at some point it would be helpful to see your evidence for them.
Posted by: mama winger at February 28, 2012 11:49 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at February 28, 2012 11:49 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 11:49 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 11:49 AM (wWV5q)
---------
Seeing as how the first points of mitt's 6984568 point plan is "Maintain current" rates. I would say not romney. Government isnt a business either.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2012 11:50 AM (7X6/u)
Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2012 03:46 PM (a9mQu)
Who is this 'you' you're referring to?
Since I just see candidates competing for delegates in GOP primaries, I think you're real beef is with primary voters.
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 28, 2012 11:50 AM (CkoMi)
You know why Romney sucks so hard? It's because people eventually figure out how dishonest he is. The more people learn about him, the less they like him. This is true both now and in 2008.
Posted by: Chris at February 28, 2012 11:50 AM (fsFpl)
Posted by: Anony at February 28, 2012 11:50 AM (Yigvc)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 28, 2012 03:45 PM (xGjRE)
Chin up, little Buckaroo. The 2010 elections gave us a number of state offices, which will make it harder for the bastards to cheat. When the win is big enough, even democrats can't make enought dead people vote to change the inevitable.
Posted by: jwest at February 28, 2012 11:51 AM (FdndL)
Just because Obama and the Dems think they can beat a "Social issues Theocrat" more easily, doesn't mean they are right. Both 1988 and 2002 showed that social issues can be electoral winners.
If we are going to put the Boy Scout up against Obama, I'm feeling pretty good about those chances. That is a very sharp contrast that doesn't put Obama in a good light.
The left (and apparently Ace) have bought into this MFM narrative that social issues drive off independents in national elections. I'd like some evidence of that as a fact, because I just pointed to 2 elections where it was clearly not the case.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 28, 2012 11:51 AM (RtKsX)
Posted by: Pecos at February 28, 2012 03:45 PM (2Gb0y)
-----------------------------------------
No. Rush only did his "chaos" thing after it became clearly evident that the SCOAMT was going to win the nomination. He just wanted to extend the primary to vette the SCOAMT more.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 11:52 AM (EI3l3)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 11:53 AM (wWV5q)
I understand your point, but I just think it's wrong. Lifetime Movies have a brand.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:53 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: snowcrash at February 28, 2012 11:53 AM (jfM/Y)
Actually, no matter who we run, it will be a tight race. The economy is sputtering just enough to make people think its getting better, and Obama is personally not as annoying to me anymore..I think its Obama Hatred Fatigue. If you remind me of Fast and the furious, Soluyndra, etc. it comes back, but since the media make sure we don't have 24-7 coverage of that, it loses potency.
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 03:49 PM (wWV5q)
I'm much harder to ignore than those things. Even without the "Pain at the Pump" headlines I can't be swept under a rug.
Posted by: $5/Gallon Gas at February 28, 2012 11:53 AM (GULKT)
Yes, exactly. You see, I supported Perry and not Romney in part for this. But if you want to elect the Great Conservative Hope, it ain't Santorum. Look at what the hell you're doing.
...
You want so badly to punish Romney that you don't understand the instrument you're using.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 03:39 PM (T0NGe)
So the principled thing to do here is to give Romney a pass for using the same method because he's the "electable" candidate? If this hurts him, he's been hoisted on his own petard.
I don't really care about punishing Romney. I'm more amused by this new "no ATTACKING FROM THE LEFT" rule that we need to protect Romney with. He opened the can of worms in the first place, let him put his big boy pants on and deal with it like a winner.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 28, 2012 11:54 AM (sGtp+)
What Soros said--that's a big Obama campaign talking point. Word is that O supporters are being encouraged to vomit (be like Rick) the nonsense that there is no difference between Obama and Romney all over the conservative blogs. I read it so often that it's hard not to believe this is their strategy. Just wait 'til they start playing the race card. Again.
The purity brigade may think independents are low-info voters, but I know all I need to know about Santorum, Christian Extraordinaire. He'll never get my vote, although I'll never vote for SCOAMF, either. They're both unacceptably extremist. But as soon as other swing voters get a good look at Rick, he'll scare them right into the Obama camp. Only a don't-believe-in-separation-of-church-and-state, anti-contraception, anti-college, homophobic religious scold like Santorum could make Obama look like the reasonable choice.
Posted by: Dumb low-info squishy moderate independent at February 28, 2012 11:54 AM (9QchD)
I'm in Cali so my vote doesn't matter anyways.
I dunno, I think it may matter this year.
Posted by: Y-not
It occurred to me the other night that if this does go on, I can look forward to Schwarzenegger running around the state flacking for Mitt and called Romney "Dah real Termanatuh".
*shudder*
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2012 11:54 AM (kdS6q)
Romney just reads platitudes that someone handed to him, Santorum actually expresses conservative ideological concerns over state power and the demise of traditionalism.
Posted by: Chris at February 28, 2012 11:55 AM (fsFpl)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 11:55 AM (wWV5q)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 28, 2012 11:55 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 11:56 AM (wWV5q)
The Stupid Party needs to get it off this ridiculous idea that the most outwardly Theocrat politicians are also the most conservative. it should also tell you something that Leftists like Michael Moore are rallying behind Santorum.
Posted by: Brad Altec at February 28, 2012 11:56 AM (0kf1G)
I didn't see the CfG ad. Is it anti-Romney or pro-Santorum?
Santorum, who supports auto bailouts.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:56 AM (T0NGe)
Wake up, people. The real America hates social liberalism.
Posted by: Chris at February 28, 2012 11:57 AM (fsFpl)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 11:57 AM (wWV5q)
Posted by: Laura Castellano at February 28, 2012 03:54 PM
Me neither. If anything, mine gets hotter every day. I've got rivers of rage running through my veins. If it were fuel, I could run my car on it for a decade.
Posted by: mama winger at February 28, 2012 11:57 AM (P6QsQ)
If you needed someone to manage a large organization with a very complicated structure who would you hire, Romney or Santorum?
If you had a company that needed someone to represent you in regard to your foreign interests who would you hire, Romney or Santorum?
If you had to hire someone based on letters of recommendations who would you hire, Romney or Santorum.
Santorum in all cases. . . .I trust him MUCH more than Romney.
Posted by: Pragmatic at February 28, 2012 11:57 AM (z8Cts)
I do not like Santorum. At all.
Posted by: snowcrash
Could you, would you,
with a goat?
Would you, could you,
on a boat?
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2012 11:57 AM (kdS6q)
What "principled thing"? I have one principle: Defeat the SCOAM(T)F
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 11:58 AM (T0NGe)
And he couldn't be any worse I suppose. We'll just get the subsidized solar power panels in the shape of a cross now.
Don't be silly. A cross wouldn't maximize surface area. ; P
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 28, 2012 11:58 AM (sGtp+)
santorum is the only one involved in a woman's vagina! You can darn well do whatever you want with what you have, but don't ask the rest of us to pay for it!
I think santorum is the lowest of lows. Not because of a vagina, but because he has voted overwhelmingly for lib policies and yet you all call Romney a flip flopper. Well, I guess once you decide to stick a name to someone it's hard to get rid of it.
santorum allows ministers to introduce him, and disparage Romney and he never distances himself from it. Have you evfer, ever seen Romney have a Minister/Bishop/Priest introduce him and disparage anyone? No it doesn't happen, now and it never will.
santorum is a sleaze!
Romney is the only one on both sides of the aisle who has had any business experience at all. That heavens he knows how to hire and fire people! We need a lot of them to be fired in Washington!
Posted by: No Fan at February 28, 2012 11:59 AM (rsOPT)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 28, 2012 03:55 PM (Ho2rs)
It means the cocksuckers have won
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2012 11:59 AM (vc/De)
Posted by: Benson at February 28, 2012 11:59 AM (qzcNU)
Zactly.
Posted by: Laura Castellano at February 28, 2012 11:59 AM (fuw6p)
Posted by: snowcrash at February 28, 2012 11:59 AM (jfM/Y)
Wow. I do not have that.
-------------------------------
It comes and goes.
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 03:57 PM (wWV5q)
------------------------------------------
And that is why I hold every comment you make as suspect.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 12:00 PM (EI3l3)
Posted by: yankeefifth at February 28, 2012 12:00 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: mama winger at February 28, 2012 03:57 PM (P6QsQ)
All that hate's gonna eat you up inside and burn you out. You've got to find a level of dislike and disgust that you can maintain while still having a good happy life.
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 28, 2012 12:00 PM (CkoMi)
Posted by: Mitt Romney: Reaching Out To The Common Man......At A Comfortable Distance at February 28, 2012 12:00 PM (qr+7C)
Posted by: BurtTC at February 28, 2012 12:00 PM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: No Fan at February 28, 2012 12:00 PM (rsOPT)
The dude is just a horrible politician. I wonder when Ann and the boys will sit him down and talk some sense to him about embarrassing himself and wasting the family fortune. I mean really, Romney is fabulously wealthy and in late middle-age. Time to enjoy that wealth and spend time with the grandkids. Why does he feel compelled to insert himself into normal peoples' lives by constantly running for public office and losing?
Say what you will about Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul but at least they are professional politicians. As in, good at being politicians who do politics for their living. Hell, Santorum is showing just how good he is at being a pro politico. He's even money to win this thing with 1/1000 the cash and virtually no support from the party establishment.
That's a dude who is good at being a politician. Like his positions or not, the dude is actually good at his job. And the last time I checked, we were looking for someone who was good at the actual job being offered. They aren't running for CEO, they are running for president, which is the job of a professional politician.
Romney is perfectly suited for being a CEO. As a pro politician? Not so much. He's 1-3 lifetime in general elections, if you count the entire 2008 primary process as a "general election" of sorts. Santorum is 4-1 by the same measure. Regardless of the outcome of this process, Santorum will still have a winning record no matter what. Romney will have to win the nomination and the general against Obama just to get to .500 as a pro politician.
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 28, 2012 12:01 PM (dcoFe)
It's a radio spot, and it might only be in Wisconsin as it is sponsored by Wis. Club for Growth. It is definitely anti-Romney altho never mentions him by name, rather referring to him as the GOP establishment candidate who we are SUPPOSED to vote for, rather than a true conservative.
I doubt very much if they are referring to Santorum as the establishment candidate who we are supposed to vote for rather than the true conservative. But it doesn't specify by name, no.
Posted by: mama winger at February 28, 2012 12:01 PM (P6QsQ)
So let me get this straight, Obama and Michael Moore are letting people know that they want to run against Santorum and we are supposed to believe them?
Ace is now on the Obama/Michael Moore Kool-Aid. Next thing we'll see is 10,000 word treatises on why there is man-made global warming.
Here's a premise for you: Obama and Michael Moore want conservatives to think they want to run against Santorum so that the GOP establishment goes apetastic and all fall in line behind Romney, so Obama could face him....
That is far more likely.
Posted by: doug at February 28, 2012 12:01 PM (gUGI6)
Posted by: Benson at February 28, 2012 12:02 PM (qzcNU)
Posted by: Pragmatic at February 28, 2012 12:03 PM (z8Cts)
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 28, 2012 04:00 PM
Thanks Maet, but indeed I have a very rich, rewarding and happy life. I compartmentalize very well. And as I am a believer, I have no illusions about government or any governmental leader as being where my salvation lies.
I just do the hate thing as a hobby.
Posted by: mama winger at February 28, 2012 12:03 PM (P6QsQ)
Nope, not a 9/11 election at all. All the Dems went full bore terrorist hawk prior to the election, 9/11 was a non-issue. 2002 was all about gay marriage, it was an amendment on 13 state ballots, and it won 13 out of 13.
As for 1988, everyone is remembering Dukakis after he imploded and became a laughing stock. But he was in a very good position to win, until Bush unleashed the Willie Horton attacks. That lead to the "Kitty Dukakis rape and murder" question in the debate, and it was all over. Prior to all of this, Dukakis was holding a pretty good 5% lead.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 28, 2012 12:04 PM (RtKsX)
Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2012 12:04 PM (a9mQu)
I went out today and bought two cases of hard liquor. I don't drink hard liquor.
It will be used for barter in the upcoming economic disaster that is unfolding at light speed before our very eyes.
Just get that damned communist out of the white house before it turns into a genocide. Just trying to stay focused.
Posted by: Derak at February 28, 2012 12:04 PM (VEhDR)
Its not that I like Obama, I just get sick of him instead of being angry at him.
I think it could be because its hard to fight against the media bias and our candidates aren't that stellar, Mitt very much included.
and its pretty easy to be depressed about politics in general with the GOP flailing as usual.Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 12:05 PM (wWV5q)
I went out today and bought two cases of hard liquor. I don't drink hard liquor.
You will. Oh, you will.
Posted by: Laura Castellano at February 28, 2012 12:06 PM (fuw6p)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 12:07 PM (r2PLg)
I lost my copy of True Conservatism so help me out: we revere professional politicians now?
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] at February 28, 2012 12:07 PM (9Hw3U)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 12:07 PM (5H6zj)
I am voting for anyone except Obama and or any other democrats, national or local elections I will vote Republican. I do not care which Republican.
Posted by: HEP-T at February 28, 2012 12:07 PM (tGH2B)
When did morality become defined by whatever St. Ricky says? Feel free to go on thinking that married couples using contraception are the tools of Satan, that should be of great comfort during Obama's second term.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 28, 2012 12:08 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 12:09 PM (wWV5q)
Wishcasting for a Romney implosion is going to be very premature. Its going to be momentum against actual delegates, and I know which I would rather have.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 28, 2012 12:10 PM (RtKsX)
Yeah, that's it. You get the real conspiracy. We all know that the Kos Kids are able to have several layers of thought.
Oh wait, no they don't. They're dirt stupid people who just want to rant at stuff.
Posted by: Anony at February 28, 2012 12:11 PM (Yigvc)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 12:11 PM (wWV5q)
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 28, 2012 04:00 PM (CkoMi)
That describes my life pursuit to a T. The trouble is that I believe a part of the JEF's method is to hit us daily with so much anti American shit that he hopes we'll get numb to the whole fucking thing and get disconnected. Fuck that shit; it just revs up my desire to kick his pansy ass out in November
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2012 12:13 PM (vc/De)
What "principled thing"? I have one principle: Defeat the SCOAM(T)F
Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2012 03:58 PM (T0NGe)
Then why complain about what I'm "doing"?
2008, the candidate was picked long before my state (CA) had its primary. I expected the same thing this year, but it's still going. In any case, I don't have to commit to any of the options until my primary comes up. In the meantime, I can watch the committed and the uncommitted hash things out and collect important details.
What I'm doing is spectating - and pointing out that some attacks/arguments suck. Some people seem to think that using every single attack available will help to destroy their opponent and end the primary contest. Personally, I find weak attacks stink of desperation - and when weak attacks bounce off, it makes the target look stronger, not weaker.
The most important choice for a GOP candidate? He must be a winner. He must be the least worst option for conserving what is good in our country. So let's see how Romney or Santorum are the candidate to put forward. (or not) ABBO 2012.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 28, 2012 12:14 PM (v3pYe)
Posted by: Severian at February 28, 2012 12:15 PM (3xodR)
Posted by: At_Liberty at February 28, 2012 12:15 PM (mLzys)
Sen. Rob Portman is a professional politician. Sen. Jim DeMint is, too. Gov. Scott Walker, Gov. Chris Christie, Rep. Darrel Issa, Sen. Marco Rubio - professional politicians all.
Anyone who ever gets elected to high office in this, or any other country, is usually pretty damn good at doing the job of being a pro politician. We can long for Cincinnatus all we want, but high office is a job that requires certain skills and experiences. Even Cincinnatus was a high-ranking Roman general and politician.
Romney is a lousy politician. That does not recommend him to me as someone likely to prevail in an arena that requires one to be a first-class politician. Santorum is proving every day why everyone though in 2004 that he would be one of the top two or three candidates for the 2008 GOP nomination until he hit the speedbump of 2006. Had he prevailed in 2006 against everything the Dems threw at him in that race, he would have been even money odds to have been our nominee in 2008, not McCain or Romney.
Go back and read some articles about RS from 2002-2004. He was a rising star of the party.
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 28, 2012 12:16 PM (dcoFe)
Well the voters showed sufficient trust on that issue in 2006 and 2008 to elect lots of "conservative" Dems.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 28, 2012 12:16 PM (RtKsX)
I lost my copy of True Conservatism so help me out: we revere professional politicians now?
Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 28, 2012 04:07 PM (9Hw3U)
Didn't you get the memo from Ace? We're totally against amateur politicians running as outsiders.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 28, 2012 12:17 PM (sGtp+)
and its pretty easy to be depressed about politics in general with the GOP flailing as usual.
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 04:05 PM (wWV5q)
----------------------------------------
I'm not sure that the GOP is flailing. Now, the idea of open primaries that the RNC is allowing is a flail. Otherwise, I think many of us are experiencing for the first time a true piece of Americana: A fully engaged, long primary. I'm glad that we're finally taking our time and finding out who these people are and how dedicated to their core values they claim to be. We really didn't do that the last time around and look who we got.
Let the process play out. I think it's good for our nation.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 12:18 PM (EI3l3)
Go back and read some articles about RS from 2002-2004. He was a rising star of the party.
Do you have a link? I forgot to keep my back issues of High Times.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 28, 2012 12:20 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 12:21 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 28, 2012 12:22 PM (dcoFe)
The MSM will also however attack Romney nefariously on the religion issue."
Tasker, you have outlined the dilemma perfectly.
The Lady or the Tiger.
Posted by: Knemon at February 28, 2012 12:23 PM (u1+3w)
NOT THE BEES!!!
Posted by: mpfs at February 28, 2012 12:24 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 12:24 PM (r2PLg)
Let the process play out. I think it's good for our nation.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 04:18 PM (EI3l3)
Very well stated.
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2012 12:25 PM (vc/De)
Given Palin, Bachmann, and Cain, umm, yeah. You sure did point out the obvious.
Posted by: Anony at February 28, 2012 12:26 PM (Yigvc)
Posted by: tasker at February 28, 2012 12:26 PM (r2PLg)
70+% of the country thinks we are on the wrong track. Historically, this has been the best indicator this far out on how an election is going to go. Unemployment will still be hovering around 9% next November. Gas prices will be through the roof. Wages are flat.
Every (and I do mean every) indicator for Obama to lose in a landslide are off the charts in our favor. We could run Bozo the Fuckin Clown and still win 40 states.
Calm down and quit eating our own.
Posted by: jwest at February 28, 2012 12:26 PM (FdndL)
Exactly, the time to complain about the establishment GOP is when there are no elections and it doesn't matter.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2012 12:27 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 12:31 PM (5H6zj)
of open primaries that the RNC is allowing is a flail. Otherwise, I
think many of us are experiencing for the first time a true piece of
Americana: A fully engaged, long primary. I'm glad that we're finally
taking our time and finding out who these people are and how dedicated
to their core values they claim to be. We really didn't do that the last
time around and look who we got.
Let the process play out. I think it's good for our nation.
Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2012 04:18 PM (EI3l3)
Very well stated.
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2012 04:25 PM (vc/De)
Democracy be messy.
Part of what liberalism sells is that they can make the process clean and "consensus"-based, and everyone lives in harmony and never has to compromise or make tough choices. One way they do that is to take away all that messy democracy and have experts make the tough choices for you. (Will they make the right choices? TOP. MEN.)
Meh. Human history is conflict. All we've done here is that we yell at each other and fill out paper ballots instead of fighting civil wars. So let's fight it out, shake hands, and unite to face the SCOAMF.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 28, 2012 12:31 PM (sGtp+)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 12:33 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2012 04:31 PM (5H6zj)
must be a short list
Posted by: The Dude at February 28, 2012 12:34 PM (M8yfa)
Romney, who supports automatic hikes of minimum wage. Who to this day stands by his government-run health care program. Who ripped Perry apart for telling the truth about Social Security. Who said he thought the stimulus would work.
The Club for Growth concluded about Romney:
"Romney, on some level, supports discredited Keynesian economics."
I can't imagine why they don't support him.
Posted by: Benson at February 28, 2012 04:02 PM (qzcNU)
Gun Owners of America don't support Mittens and I'm mystified. Why wouldn't they support an unrepentant gun banner? He's severely conservative after all.
Posted by: Larsen E Whipsnade at February 28, 2012 12:34 PM (Z8BZm)
Frankly, had Sarah Palin not been picked by McCain and run for and won re-election as Alaska Governor, which was highly likely as of early summer 2008, she would have been high on the radar for this year as a sitting 2-term governor in an election that is about energy policy as much as anything else. She was rolled out too soon by a desperate and manipulative GOP campaign in 2008.
RS wasn't ready 4-6 years ago. He may not be totally ready now. But he sure is scaring the hell out of Romney, who thought the path had been cleared by all his money to enable his own deficiencies as a politician to be down-played and overcome. At least until the general election exposed them in spades.
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 28, 2012 12:35 PM (dcoFe)
I blame him for a lot of Republicans staying home in '08.
Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 28, 2012 03:34 PM (DGIjM)
Along with Sean Vanity and Laura Ingraham. All they did was bitch about "McAmnesty" on the border issue for months on end until they became unlistenable. The idiots kept so many GOP voters home or switched them to 'hope and change'. ~spit~
Posted by: eureka! at February 28, 2012 12:35 PM (4e3Me)
I donÂ’t understand why this website needs to reinforce the liberal MSM line that Obama is doing great in his campaign. If the right had any idea of what they were doing, we would be pounding articles about how the big donors on the left are sitting this election out.
The truth of the matter is that people in the know already realize how bad Obama is going to lose, and the donations are running far below where they thought they would be at this time. Leftists in the media are trying to blow some sunshine up the collective asses of democrats, but few are buying it.
Time for us to get on message.
Posted by: jwest at February 28, 2012 12:35 PM (FdndL)
That's kind of what I was thinking with this and the alleged robocalls bit. This is a bit too clever by half, and its more likely to hurt them than help. You'd think after 2004 they wouldn't trust Moore for anything any more.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2012 12:36 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Reno_Dave at February 28, 2012 12:37 PM (OL4L4)
Posted by: Chris at February 28, 2012 12:37 PM (XGZYX)
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 28, 2012 12:39 PM (dcoFe)
Liberals in 2004 thought Bush was toast. They were shocked that he won. So we can't trust what they think in their little bubble.
Posted by: Chris at February 28, 2012 12:39 PM (XGZYX)
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 28, 2012 12:40 PM (dcoFe)
Posted by: Anony at February 28, 2012 12:41 PM (Yigvc)
Posted by: sexypig at February 28, 2012 12:44 PM (wWV5q)
Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2012 12:46 PM (a9mQu)
Posted by: Anony at February 28, 2012 04:41 PM (Yigvc) "
Which conservatives thought that??? What crack are you smoking, must be the expensive stuff? Conservatives despised John McCain and thought he was and still is a total loser, some of us tried to pull his old tired ass across the finish line, but only because Palin was on the ticket. Oh yeah, I am sorry to say I was wrong, she should have run this year. She would have taken the full assault of the media, giving the others a chance to sail through.
Posted by: Africanus at February 28, 2012 01:29 PM (fCSys)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2012 01:46 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: steevy at February 28, 2012 01:51 PM (7W3wI)
"New rule: "They'll tell you who they fear," and then we should vote against the candidate they fear more, to teach "The Establishment" we know a thing or two about losing elections ourselves"
THIS!
Posted by: Blacksmith8✡ at February 28, 2012 02:53 PM (Q1qy3)
Posted by: HenryMalredo at February 28, 2012 03:38 PM (B4/gO)
Posted by: Ken at February 28, 2012 03:38 PM (7yb9x)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 28, 2012 04:06 PM (8XumG)
Again, are you sure Santorum was behind it?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2012 04:18 PM (r4wIV)
2) Even if a "moderate" Republican wins the nomination, and then the Whitehouse, why are people making the assumption that they will try to introduce liberal legislation? There is still the Republicans in the House and Senate that must go along with it. Most of the legislation will start WITH them...and it is unlikely they he would do anything but sign conservative legislation that makes it to his desk...of course, there is the issue of executive orders, so there is always that risk.
Posted by: SICK2DEATH at February 29, 2012 10:09 AM (f4Yw+)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.6905 seconds, 485 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: toby928© at February 28, 2012 10:58 AM (GTbGH)