Ace of Spades HQ

May 08, 2012

Santorum Offers Tepid (?) Endorsement of Romney
— Ace

The media is casting this as a tepid endorsement -- see, for example, this, or anti-Santorum Drudge's headline, "Bitter Santorum Backs Romney in Tepid Late-Night Endorsement..." -- but I don't see anything "tepid" in the endorsement, myself.

Read it all. It's an argument being made on behalf of Romney to anti-Romney voters, and a fine one.

Here's Yahoo's gloss on it:

"Above all else, we both agree that President Obama must be defeated," Santorum says before finally offering up his support in the 13th paragraph of the 16-paragraph missive.
"It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious. Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime."

Again, the endorsement is in the 13th paragraph because it's an argument in which the suggested conclusion builds from the previous premises.

What does suggest this is "tepid," though, is the time and manner in which it was released -- 11 PM eastern time last night, almost guaranteeing it would not make any news, because, by the time the news day gets started, this is already "old news," and yet no one's actually really covered it fresh as "new news."

He also didn't tweet the endorsement:

However, the former Pennsylvania senator, who posted his endorsement of Nebraska Senate candidate Jon Bruning on Twitter on Saturday, did not tweet the contents of the Romney endorsement. Instead, he posted a link to an interview he did with CNN's Piers Morgan last month.

That does suggest he's "tepid" about it, actually.

Posted by: Ace at 08:10 AM | Comments (141)
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

1 First to talk about this almighty subject

Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 08, 2012 08:12 AM (uXyf3)

2 All I have to say is that Santorum better be on the look out for some of Willard "Hard Time" Romney's enforcers, and if he sees them, he had better run.

Posted by: David, sockpuppeted troll[/i][/b][/u] at May 08, 2012 08:13 AM (UtoLw)

3 Is this a crack at Gremell?

As it is often said, Â“personnel is policy.Â” I strongly encouraged Governor Romney as he builds out his campaign staff and advisors that he add more conservative leaders as an integral part of his team.

Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 08, 2012 08:15 AM (uXyf3)

4 Stay classy, Rick. You would have lost your home state by 10 points and you still think you are some sort of kingmaker. Please. If he had gotten the nomination we would have zero chance. I think that there might be a crippled brain-dead woman somewhere that you can bother.

Posted by: Sean at May 08, 2012 08:16 AM (DEBLj)

5 I don't know why you're giving Rick Sanitarium a pass for his low-class and self-serving "endorsement," Ace. It sounds to me as if the little whiner had a metaphorical gun pointed at his head when he issued it.

Yes, "Poppin' Fresh" was a Rick Rooter after T-Paw, his real fave took a dive and can probably come up with all sorts of justifications and "in fairness..." crap to polish the turd, but the statement still doesn't cut it.

"I support the guy and I'm gonna make sure he gives me something for it and parrots the statements that made me a loser" just doesn't git 'er done.

He is a step above RuPaul, though.

Posted by: MrScribbler at May 08, 2012 08:16 AM (MQc8e)

6 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at May 08, 2012 08:17 AM (8y9MW)

7 Does Mitt gotta choke a bitch?

Posted by: eleven at May 08, 2012 08:17 AM (KXm42)

8 Meh.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter [/i][/b] at May 08, 2012 08:18 AM (4df7R)

9 And he still sounds whiny.

Take note, Santorum, this is why you never had a chance.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 08, 2012 08:18 AM (pLTLS)

10 He gets smeared and jeered and now he's supposed to be all kissy face, smiling like Mitt's an old friend and all? Mitt believes in as different Jesus than Mitt. If that sort of thing can cause nations to war and inquisitions to be held, why don't we understand that Santorum might feel a little cool towards someone who's bested him and has a questionable belief system and an even more questionable integrity. I'm not saying he's right, I'm just saying he has a right to doubt and be a little cool towards Mitt. Beside according to the wisdom around here he doesn't have that many fans anyway right? His endorsement isn't all that big a deal right? RIGHT?

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 08:18 AM (CP+yl)

11 The wages of a scorched earth primary.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 08, 2012 08:18 AM (sPao2)

12 Who is this Ricksantorum fellow you mention? Never heard of him.

Posted by: BJ at May 08, 2012 08:19 AM (K25Ot)

13 [Shrugs] Santorum is yesterday's news. This won't move much one way or another.

Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at May 08, 2012 08:19 AM (RD7QR)

14 Focus on the prize and the meet up in D.C.on 1/20/2013

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at May 08, 2012 08:19 AM (mFxQX)

15 He could have made it last week but the news cycle was dominated by Mitts ppl slamming GOP socons over their hireling flaking out. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at May 08, 2012 08:20 AM (fR6i8)

16 That's "Mitt believes in a different Jesus than he does."

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 08:20 AM (CP+yl)

17 Santorum will always be remembered as a bitter man. No matter what good he has done.

For whatever reason, he just can't seem to let it go.

His endorsement reads like a revised primary campaign speech where someone scribbled the last paragraph and added it.

Posted by: Exile at May 08, 2012 08:20 AM (O0lVq)

18 >>>I don't know why you're giving Rick Sanitarium a pass for his low-class and self-serving "endorsement," Ace. It sounds to me as if the little whiner had a metaphorical gun pointed at his head when he issued it. Because I read the endorsement and didn't find the words themselves "tepid." Bear in mind his constituency is of anti-Romney conservatives, some of whom need an *argument* about supporting Romney, and who wouldn't just accept "I endorse Romney." In addition, Santorum has a lot of his own credibility riding on the proposition that Romney is a non-conservative disaster. Ergo, the walkback of that is difficult. He can't just say "I lied for half a year," now can he? But the timing of it, and not tweeting it (tweeting other matters), does suggest he's, well, butthurt. Which is always a reason I didn't like him, anyway. The character stuff. He never seemed to be a master of himself. Always pissed off over a slight.

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2012 08:20 AM (nj1bB)

19 It's a classless act and he oughta grow up and act like a man.

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 08, 2012 08:20 AM (i6RpT)

20 Everybody who is whining about "Mitt ignoring distractions" should be extremely happy Santorum didn't make it.

The nasty stuff (to this point) involves animal abuse and criminal behavior. Somehow, some way, we're managing to deflect it.
I like it.

Posted by: jwb7605 at May 08, 2012 08:22 AM (Qxe/p)

21 19 It's a classless act and he oughta grow up and act like a man. Posted by: nevergiveup at May 08, 2012 12:20 PM (i6RpT) The last real man who was a politician was Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: The Robot Devil at May 08, 2012 08:22 AM (136wp)

22 You know when they say "Voters don't like angry candidates"? I know that's true for some voters, because I'm realizing I'm one of them. I find petulance, thin-skinnedness, anger, etc., very off-putting.

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2012 08:22 AM (nj1bB)

23 By the way, it was interesting that Santorum was actually at The Correspondent dinner.

People like Mark Levin, et al when on with these half-hour rants about how those attendees are "out of touch" and vainglorious.

What they failed to mention was their boy Rick was there in his glory.

Posted by: Exile at May 08, 2012 08:23 AM (O0lVq)

24 The last real man who was a politician was Ronald Reagan. Posted by: The Robot Devil at May 08, 2012 12:22 PM (136wp) I don't know about that. Say what you want about his politics, but President Bush always acted like a man.

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 08, 2012 08:23 AM (i6RpT)

25 I suppose anger directed at something legitimately worthy of outrage is a different matter. But it's usually about small-ball stuff, personal stuff, the stuff people get angry about in their daily lives. Trivial stuff. That's always off-putting to me.

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2012 08:24 AM (nj1bB)

26 "Tepid endorsement" is like being pee'd upon begrudgingly by a drunk passing by and noticing your on fire and are currently a warm place to empty your bladder.

Posted by: clemenza at May 08, 2012 08:24 AM (fCSfn)

27 Serious question: How much do these proforma endorsements matter anyway?

They are usually about politicians trying to make themselves seem and feel important. No one in the real world cares.

The exception would be an endorsement that comes with some sort of infrastructure or donor base. Those are pretty rare though and Santorum has neither to offer.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 08, 2012 08:25 AM (sPao2)

28 I don't know about that. Say what you want about his politics, but President Bush ~~always acted~~ still acts like a man.

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 08, 2012 12:23 PM (i6RpT)

FIFY ??

Posted by: jwb7605 at May 08, 2012 08:25 AM (Qxe/p)

29 Oh and as ace correctly points out; we're being manipulated by the media. We know they'll cheerlead on their hero but do we understand they'll also try to undermine our candidate and to weaken our unity. Point to remember from now till November (and beyond) The media is not our friend. They will do anything to get Obama elected. It's easy to see some of what they will do but don't accept ANYTHING they say, infer, imply, ascribe to a third party in reference to anything about this election. They MAY get the date of the vote correct. That's about all.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 08:25 AM (CP+yl)

Santorum did the right thing, but he doesn't have to like it. But the lack of enthusiasm belies the actual words in his statement.

Motherfucker become preeminent, I expect him to have enthusiasm.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 08, 2012 08:25 AM (X9FKq)

31 I wonder if he strained something putting his name on this

Posted by: BlackOrchid at May 08, 2012 08:25 AM (SB0V2)

32 >>>erious question: How much do these proforma endorsements matter anyway It's worth a little. Anyone still anti-Romney needs all the justification Romney can muster to accept him as a viable candidate.

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2012 08:26 AM (nj1bB)

33 Meh. It was fine. I do question the timing, but there may be other reasons for that, too.

I'm not getting why Conservatives seem so happy to find things to fight over. I get why the MFM wants to push those ideas, but Conservatives seem all too happy to jump on them, too. I don't get that.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at May 08, 2012 08:26 AM (8y9MW)

34 You know what Santorum means, don't you?

Posted by: Childish Grinning Pederastic Prevert at May 08, 2012 08:26 AM (w41GQ)

I'm more pissed that Santorum endorsed Jon Bruning over Don Stenberg for senate from Nebraska. I don't know much about Bruning, but Jim Demint's Senate Conservatives Fund (who's judgement I trust) has been a big backer of Stenberg and has been hating on Bruning for a while.

Just confirms my opinion that Santorum is an idiot.

Posted by: OSUsux at May 08, 2012 08:26 AM (DFXmi)

36 Santorum is doing a great job of eliminating himself completely from the Republican movement.

Very effective.

Posted by: Uriah Heep at May 08, 2012 08:26 AM (C5JiW)

37 Yeah.. exactly.. it is written like a speech where you build up to the point you are trying to make. Geeez.. the MFM has gotta put their stamp of disapproval on every fucking thing.

It's a bit clumsily written, IMHO.. but it is by no means "tepid".

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 08, 2012 08:26 AM (f9c2L)

Sooo... because I don't tweet about somthing... I'm not enthusiastic?

As someone who stays away from Tweeting... I guess I'm not enthusiastic about anything then...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 08, 2012 08:27 AM (lZBBB)

39 You know, I'll vote for him, but I feel pretty "tepid" about Romney myself. Just because he'll be the nominee does not automatically make him Super Conservative Man.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at May 08, 2012 08:27 AM (DuH+r)

40 Honestly, how many conservatives we're really holding back their support unless Santorum endorsed Romney (for the 2nd time)? I'm glad this "endorsement" was a drive by, the man's is the embodiment of everything that's wrong with the GOP.

It still blows my mind that so many otherwise rational conservatives actually thought it was a good idea to nominate a clown that lost his last Senate race by 20 points and promised to make birth control among married Protestants an issue in his Presidential campaign.

Posted by: Brigadier at May 08, 2012 08:28 AM (0kf1G)

41 I want Mitt to keep up the positive outlook and talk about how exceptional America and Americans are in every speech or interview he gives.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at May 08, 2012 08:28 AM (mFxQX)

42 I don't have a twitter account, nor a Facebook page.

Posted by: Unenthusiastic Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 08:29 AM (CP+yl)

At this point in time....why is an endorsement even important?

I mean, who is he endorsing Romney 'over'? ....Luap Nor? Barky?....It would've meant something if he had dropped out way back before the primaries were winding down, and endorsed Romney then

Posted by: wheatie at May 08, 2012 08:29 AM (g4NO6)

44 Sooo... because I don't tweet about somthing... I'm not enthusiastic?

As someone who stays away from Tweeting... I guess I'm not enthusiastic about anything then...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 08, 2012 12:27 PM (lZBBB)

If you don't tweet, then that statement wouldn't apply to you. If a person does tweet often, then the absence of a tweet about a particularly important subject is telling.

Posted by: Tami at May 08, 2012 08:29 AM (X6akg)

45 Doesn't "Santorum" mean "flaccid" in Cherokee?

Posted by: Darth Chipmunk at May 08, 2012 08:29 AM (pVvkk)

46 I didn't think it was bad at all. I thought it was a decently written argument justifying the conclusion at the end to endorse Romney.

Santorum could have gone a bit further and said something like this:

"Mitt Romney will not appoint Sonia Sotomayor / Elena Kagan types to the Supreme Court. If that's not enough reason to stop Obama, then nothing is. Mitt 2012!"

... cause that's how I convinced myself to support Romney, who admittedly wasn't my first choice (Rick Perry was.. as he's been a damn fine governor here in Texas)

Posted by: Naqamel at May 08, 2012 08:29 AM (UMwMT)

47 Go away Rick. We know you to well.

Posted by: alans at May 08, 2012 08:29 AM (hrTcJ)

48 >>>>It's worth a little. Anyone still anti-Romney needs all the justification Romney can muster to accept him as a viable candidate.<<<<

It's worth more than that. Read the WSJ article today about how Romney is putting together his campaign like a fortress and using key people from Rick's and a few other campaigns (and organizations like the RNC) to build outreach.

They will leverage those machines combined with Rick's, et al endorsements.

That is the real, combined value.

Posted by: Exile at May 08, 2012 08:30 AM (O0lVq)

49 Double dittos the previous five comments

Posted by: I'm enthusiastic NOW Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 08:30 AM (CP+yl)

50 He also didn't tweet the endorsement: ********* Wow. The MSM is really stretching. I guess all candidates do their own tweets. Maybe Obama has time to do his own tweets... And hopefully soon he'll have even more time to devote to his to his twitter.

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 08:30 AM (r2PLg)

51 I wonder if he strained something putting his name on this Posted by: BlackOrchid at May 08, 2012 12:25 PM

I think (Self)Righteous Rick strained his "something" long ago.

Granted, he did have one quality that would have led me to rush to the polls to vote for him: He's not Bark Obama.

Fortunately, Romney has that as well, and doesn't act like he spent too many years being one of the heads in a Wack-A-Mole game.

Posted by: MrScribbler at May 08, 2012 08:30 AM (MQc8e)

52 Motherfucker become preeminent, I expect him to have enthusiasm.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 08, 2012 12:25 PM (X9FKq)

Yes... you must follow, enthusiasticly, or be cast out... for we all must think alike... we all must now sing.... Romney, Romenneyyyy, Roommmmnnnneeeeyyyy....

First we were told if we don't vote for the Repub candidate, even if we don't think he's the right guy for the job, we are voting for Obama...

Now, you are saying everyone must be ENTHUSICASTIC about it?

Gee... I thought this was America where we had freedom of choice...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 08, 2012 08:30 AM (lZBBB)

53 Endorsements reflect a unified party. At the very least a "unified party" takes away from the Democrats/Media the distracting stories about a "splintered" GOP.

Posted by: soothsayer at May 08, 2012 08:31 AM (jUytm)

54 It's Romneys crimminal record that Santorum has a problem with and his membership in the Vulture Capitalists prison gang.

Posted by: robtr at May 08, 2012 08:31 AM (MtwBb)

55 Santorum gave an endorsement. He did plenty. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. The guy fought against a much bigger, entrenched opponent on a shoestring budget and did pretty well. Now he has opted to fall in line (unlike the vindictive establishment types who, when they and their handlers lose, aim to take out the outsider) and play good soldier for the bigger picture.

Santorum did fine. He needn't do backflips.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 08, 2012 08:32 AM (eHIJJ)

56 Edwards donor says he told Obama camp about affair By MICHAEL BIESECKER, Associated Press Â– 31 minutes ago GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) Â— A onetime donor to John Edwards testified Tuesday that he warned the campaign of President Barack Obama in 2008 to look closely at rumors about the former North Carolina senator's infidelity before it considered offering him any position in the administration. There is no friend like a democratic friend?

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 08, 2012 08:32 AM (i6RpT)

57 I have to say that if I had sustained the public, demeaning and outright obscene attacks by a person who has proven they are a demented soul from Hell that Rick has then I guess I'd have a little bit of a defensive edge.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 08:32 AM (CP+yl)

58 Santorum did fine. He needn't do backflips. Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 08, 2012 12:32 PM (eHIJJ) No but he should have done mid-day not mid-night

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 08, 2012 08:33 AM (i6RpT)

59 Santorum did fine. He needn't do backflips.

... and he's done more for Romney by endorsing him than RAWNPAUL!!!!1111oneoneone has.

Posted by: Naqamel at May 08, 2012 08:33 AM (UMwMT)

60 Double dittos the previous five comments

Posted by: I'm enthusiastic NOW Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 12:30 PM (CP+yl)

Wait a minute I didn't get a hurromp from that guy

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at May 08, 2012 08:33 AM (mFxQX)

61 Here's Mitt the gangsta sounding a presidental and stuff. http://tinyurl.com/7utmumq

Posted by: sonnyspats at May 08, 2012 08:33 AM (bo11P)

62 Sooo... because I don't tweet about somthing... I'm not enthusiastic?

Well, if you never tweet anything, obviously not tweeting the endorsement wouldn't be an indicator either way.

But let's say you did tweet, and you usually had opinions about... cheese. Yes, let's go with cheese. You tweet about cheese several times a day. You've been fairly vociferous about your opposition to one specific dairy and the cheese they make. Now, you're trying to mend bridges with them (for a variety of reasons).

In that case, it would not be a completely baseless assumption that a failure to tweet your attempt to mend bridges meant you were less than wholly enthused about said bridge mending.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at May 08, 2012 08:33 AM (8y9MW)

63 If, as I assume, he's only 60-70% in the pro-Romney camp and 100% in the anti-Obama camp, then that's a pretty decent endorsement. The timing/non-Tweeting probably signify that he thinks he'd be a better choice. Isn't that what all candidates think? I'm fine with the endorsement as it stands.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 08, 2012 08:34 AM (HethX)

If you don't tweet, then that statement wouldn't apply to you. If a person does tweet often, then the absence of a tweet about a particularly important subject is telling.

Posted by: Tami at May 08, 2012 12:29 PM (X6akg)

Does Santorum, when NOT running for office, Tweet Often? If not, then it does not say anything...

Mountain, molehill....

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 08, 2012 08:34 AM (lZBBB)

The timing may have just been stupid because Santorium didn't exactly have a campaign run by supergeniouses. franky.

Let's also consider that Santorums endorsement was inevitable (if he wanted any future in the party at all frankly.) You can't just not endorse the final nominee unless your Ron Paul (whose future is nonexistant anyway, and even before that it was based on being the most extreme one in the group.) So release it at 11PM so the media doesn't have time to distort it.

It's the PS that makes me wonder, he wasn't even on the VP long form list was he?

Posted by: tsrblke at May 08, 2012 08:34 AM (22rSN)

66 54 It's Romneys crimminal record that Santorum has a problem with and his membership in the Vulture Capitalists prison gang.

Posted by: robtr at May 08, 2012 12:31 PM (MtwBb)

It just occurred to me that we can continue making fun of Romney like most of us did during the primaries, and the end result is that it makes Obama look bad now.

win-win.

Posted by: jwb7605 at May 08, 2012 08:34 AM (Qxe/p)

Yes... you must follow, enthusiasticly, or be cast out... for we all must think alike... we all must now sing.... Romney, Romenneyyyy, Roommmmnnnneeeeyyyy....

First we were told if we don't vote for the Repub candidate, even if we don't think he's the right guy for the job, we are voting for Obama...

Now, you are saying everyone must be ENTHUSICASTIC about it?

Gee... I thought this was America where we had freedom of choice...<<<

The good news is, I think I've diagnosed your problem.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 08, 2012 08:34 AM (X9FKq)

68 I don't know about that. Say what you want about his politics, but President Bush always acted like a man.

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 08, 2012 12:23 PM (i6RpT)

Ehh, I supported GWB and considered him a good man but he badly disappointed me by not pardoning Scooter Libbey (whose conviction was an absolute fraud and an insult to the concept of right versus wrong) and not leveling with the public more on the war on terror. Doing both of those would've revealed more spine.

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 08, 2012 08:35 AM (HfgvZ)

69 "Mitt Romney will not appoint Sonia Sotomayor / Elena Kagan types to the Supreme Court. If that's not enough reason to stop Obama, then nothing is. Mitt 2012!" ********* Don't forget the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals. Those are also life-time appointments.

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 08:35 AM (r2PLg)

70 Gay bashing fundamentalist who wants to ban birth control offers wholehearted endorsement of arch-conservative Romney: What does he know that you don't (but should)?

Posted by: MFM at May 08, 2012 08:35 AM (2jQGY)

71 soothsayer No it won't. You think the truth will stop them from lying? When has THAT ever happened? They will say what they're going to say regardless of the facts. Get this straight folks we'll be dealing with a propaganda machine the likes of which would've made Goebbels drool with excitement. And most of it will aimed at shaping and distorting anything anyone with and R next to their name does, says or is claimed to have done or said. If there's nothing to lie or distort about, they'll make it up. Think Sarah Palin. A lot of people still think she made that "I can see Russia from my house" comment. That's power folks. To make anyone believe a lie is power.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 08:36 AM (CP+yl)

72 anyone but obama or mittens (PLEASE)!

Posted by: Pragmatic at May 08, 2012 08:36 AM (lTnzg)

73 Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.

Enough said.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 08, 2012 08:37 AM (pLTLS)

74 Posted by: Pragmatic

^^^

Sock? Otherwise, I'm thinking 'pragmatic' isn't the right word...

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 08, 2012 08:37 AM (pLTLS)

75 This is an endorsement much the same as I'm sorry if you were offended is an apology.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at May 08, 2012 08:38 AM (Gk3SS)

76 Help!! I am off to vote in about an hour. I have 2 people I like for congress critter. Cant make up my mind. I thought it was made up but some new info came to light and now I am back to ... unsure. 1. A Dr, conservative, pro life... and Catholic (which I am) 2. A mayor who was in the olympics .. conservative, pro life. Everyone else is a lawyer so.. no way.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at May 08, 2012 08:38 AM (DGIjM)

77 The good news is, I think I've diagnosed your problem.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 08, 2012 12:34 PM (X9FKq)

Yep, I've got a probably terminal case of the Americans... I don't like ANYONE telling me what to do...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 08, 2012 08:38 AM (lZBBB)

78 anyone but obama or mittens (PLEASE)!

What color is the sky in your world? There are no other (viable) options at this point. Support Mittens.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at May 08, 2012 08:38 AM (8y9MW)

79 Is what his/her face back from Target yet??

Posted by: dananjcon at May 08, 2012 08:38 AM (eavT+)

80 go away mittens . . .you suck BIG TIME!

Posted by: Pragmatic at May 08, 2012 08:38 AM (lTnzg)

btw, when I went to vote today in Indiana, there was a Ron Paul guy there handing out a voting sheet for representatives to the state convention. I made sure to vote for anyone not on that list.

Posted by: OSUsux at May 08, 2012 08:38 AM (DFXmi)

82 I don't need backflips or ass kissing. But freakin' man up, dude! I am so sick of metrosexual sensitivity and cowardess. That's the root of why I was never interested in Santorum in the first place. 11pm indeed.

Zombie John Wayne, where are you when our culture needs you so badly?

Posted by: Darth Chipmunk at May 08, 2012 08:38 AM (0tRzD)

83 Ace Dude! You are serious about the --"he didn't twitter it" stuff? I thought you were making fun of the MSM there--until I read your comments in the thread.

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 08:39 AM (r2PLg)

84 Cant make up my mind. I thought it was made up but some new info came to light and now I am back to ... unsure.

For Congress? I'd default to the one who isn't already a politician. But that's just me.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at May 08, 2012 08:39 AM (8y9MW)

85 "Mitt Romney will not appoint Sonia Sotomayor / Elena Kagan types to the Supreme Court. If that's not enough reason to stop Obama, then nothing is. Mitt 2012!"

...you're completely naive and deluded!

Posted by: Pragmatic at May 08, 2012 08:39 AM (lTnzg)

86 For Congress? I'd default to the one who isn't already a politician. But that's just me. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at May 08, 2012 12:39 PM (8y9MW) We think alike.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at May 08, 2012 08:40 AM (DGIjM)

87 Instead, he posted a link to an interview he did with CNN's Piers Morgan last month. That suggests maybe his lackey posted a link to Piers Morgan instead. I really think there is a possibility Santorum doesn't do his tweets.

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 08:41 AM (r2PLg)

88 I would chew the country down to the bone of pure marxism before I will endorse Romney, and graciously step out of the race.

Posted by: RuPaul and the Luap Norettes at May 08, 2012 08:41 AM (HOOye)

89 85 "Mitt Romney will not appoint Sonia Sotomayor / Elena Kagan types to the Supreme Court. If that's not enough reason to stop Obama, then nothing is. Mitt 2012!" ...you're completely naive and deluded! Posted by: Pragmatic at May 08, 2012 12:39 PM (lTnzg) ******* Ha! You're a funny guy.

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 08:41 AM (r2PLg)

Cant make up my mind. I thought it was made up but some new info came to light and now I am back to ... unsure.

Don't send the doctor frankly. They get all turned around on the "Only Doctors can save healthcare" crap and trust me, they can't. In fact since Doctors tend to be aggressively pro-treatment in all cases they tend to make it worse (and with Healthcare reform being one of the big issues we're going to have to come back to even if we repeal obamacare, we'll need tons of help on that.)

Posted by: tsrblke at May 08, 2012 08:42 AM (22rSN)

91 I'm betting I surge any day now.

Posted by: Thad McCotter at May 08, 2012 08:42 AM (MMC8r)

92 If Romney loved teh gays like I love the gays, then I would still vote for Obama cuz I hate teanaggers!

Posted by: Cher-nobil at May 08, 2012 08:42 AM (eavT+)

93 88
I would chew the country down to the bone of pure marxism before I will endorse Romney, and graciously step out of the race.

Posted by: RuPaul and the Luap Norettes at May 08, 2012 12:41 PM (HOOye)

So if I send you $100 can I also get your newsletter explaining why money is worthless?

Posted by: jwb7605 at May 08, 2012 08:43 AM (Qxe/p)

94 I'm getting woozy. Must feed self.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 08:43 AM (CP+yl)

95 Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 12:41 PM (r2PLg)

Yeah. I don't follow Santorum on twitter, so I didn't see the tweet, but goodness knows I've linked the wrong thing a time or two. It could be, even if RickyS sent it himself, that he just copied and pasted a wrong link.

Again, I'm saying our best bet is to assume the MFM is trying to set us against each other, and ignore them as much as feasible.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at May 08, 2012 08:43 AM (8y9MW)

96

As a rational, logical, and yes, believe it or not highly intelligent socon, I had hopes for Santorum. Those hopes were quickly dashed when upon given a national spotlight, he showed every bit the zealot he was accused of being. Can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

I mean, really, yes, I'm Catholic and believe that things like birth control serve as barriers to a whole life well lived, but who gives a shit about that in an election where the possibility of socialism isn't hyperbole? State your beliefs and move the fuck on.

Mitt's certainly proven to be a better campaigner than I gave him credit for, and far more combative. He looks good to that 15% of drooling retards out there that subsist on reality shows and entertainment "news," and he's playing down the mormonism.

The endorsement was fine, and did what it needed to do. Thank the Lord he didn't go off on birth control again.

Posted by: imp at May 08, 2012 08:44 AM (UaxA0)

97 chemjeff, FTW!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 08, 2012 08:46 AM (pLTLS)

98 damn straight, ChemJeff!

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at May 08, 2012 08:47 AM (DGIjM)

Yep, I've got a probably terminal case of the Americans... I don't like ANYONE telling me what to do...<<<

That is cringetastically awkward.

Are you enthusiastic about getting Obama out of the White House? If so, you have ONE option - vote for Mitt Romney.

The time to quit your bitching is now. Vote for Romney, persuade the persuadable to do the same, and suppress the turnout of Obama supporters. It's that fucking simple.

No one is coming to hold your hand and everyone is sick of hearing about hurt feelings. There are exactly TWO commenters who originally supported Romney. Neither of them are on this thread.

The rest of us manned the fuck up. I invite you to do the same.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 08, 2012 08:48 AM (X9FKq)

100 If you vote for Romney, you are helping Romney. If you vote for Obama, you are helping Obama. If you vote for some third-party nut, or if you stay home, then you are also helping Obama. It's as simple as that. You have the right to do whatever the hell you want. I also have the right to call you out as a damn fool if you end up assisting Obama get re-elected, even unintentionally. ********** Maybe last election you ould have given them the "unintentionally" but this time- Obama is a known quantity--who blew through $800 billion and who is trying to implement ObmaCare which will take over 15% of the economy--(or more) via an individual mandate that takes the individual out of the process of making a choice. IOW "free will" is out of the equation. With that all in mind-*If* they stay at home they did it with- malice of forethought.

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 08:49 AM (r2PLg)

101 Word to chemjeff. Bravo.

Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 08, 2012 08:49 AM (NS2Mo)

102 Posted by: Pragmatic at May 08, 2012 12:39 PM (lTnzg)

Someone call the HA 'tard wrangler. They had another escape.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 08, 2012 08:49 AM (SY2Kh)

103 Well, at least they didn't say "Santorum reluctantly endorses Romney's eventual loss."

Posted by: Jimmah at May 08, 2012 08:49 AM (UpwlP)

104

Posted by: chemjeff at May 08, 2012 12:44 PM (7FadD)

Unless you're a libtard, I tell all my libtard friends to vote 3rd party out of "protest."

Posted by: tsrblke at May 08, 2012 08:49 AM (22rSN)

105 There are exactly TWO commenters who originally supported Romney. ***** Jeff. B., Jack Straw, and there might have been a David. Oh and polynikes in Texas.

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 08:51 AM (r2PLg)

106 noods

Posted by: soothsayer at May 08, 2012 08:51 AM (jUytm)

107 Jeff. B., Jack Straw, and there might have been a David. Oh and polynikes in Texas.]/i]

I eat crow for lunch in their honor now.

Posted by: jwb7605 at May 08, 2012 08:52 AM (Qxe/p)

108

As I got to know more about Santorum, I came to realize he stood for every bit of the aspects of the Republican Party that I depise, and little of the aspects that I like.

Now I can despise him for being a self-centered a-hole, as well. He can't just come out and endorse Romney properly, for the good of the country? Jack ass!!

Posted by: Optimizer at May 08, 2012 08:52 AM (As94z)

109 Power out in parts of Boston. Ah democratic state, so what

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 08, 2012 08:53 AM (i6RpT)

110 oh, and for the record, I told you all months ago how this was all gonna play out so jeffb and jackstraw can suck my dick

Posted by: soothsayer nugent at May 08, 2012 08:53 AM (jUytm)

111 Nicely done, chemjeff. Well said.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 08, 2012 08:53 AM (X9FKq)

112

I would love for Mitt to pick Palin as the VP, just to drive the libs, the MSM and Ace up a wall.

Posted by: jwest at May 08, 2012 08:55 AM (ZDsRL)

113 Romney's up by 5 points now, emphasis on now. It could very well end up being a rout.

Posted by: Jimmah at May 08, 2012 08:56 AM (UpwlP)

114 oh, and for the record, I told you all months ago how this was all gonna play out so jeffb and jackstraw can suck my dick Posted by: soothsayer nugent at May 08, 2012 12:53 PM (jUytm) ********** That's true soothsayer. I just remembered. It was just that you were cooler about it. New thread--more "trouble".

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 08:56 AM (r2PLg)

115 Well in all honesty I cannot criticize people too harshly who vote third party. Confession: I voted for the Libertarian candidate in 2000. That was when (a) I was young and stupid, and (b) the country was not nearly in as perilous of a state as it is in now. ********** Cripes I voted for Perot--so I'm still whipping myself. But for heaven's sake, this election really MATTERS, don't screw it up because Mr. Purity Conservative isn't on the ballot (and never will be, BTW ******** Absolutely correct.

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 08:58 AM (r2PLg)

116 I can criticize them harshly if they vote 3rd party, but only if they're in swing states. Being in NY, I could comfortably go 3rd party, and show some suppport for libertarianism, without damaging Romney's prospects.

Posted by: Optimizer at May 08, 2012 08:58 AM (As94z)

117 Beside according to the wisdom around here he doesn't have that many fans anyway right? His endorsement isn't all that big a deal right?

RIGHT?

Decaf. And if that doesn't hack it, take a Midol, Sally...

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent (1/16 Potawatomi) at May 08, 2012 08:58 AM (PMGbu)

118 118 I can criticize them harshly if they vote 3rd party, but only if they're in swing states. Being in NY,I could comfortably go 3rd party, and show some suppport for libertarianism, without damaging Romney's prospects. Posted by: Optimizer at May 08, 2012 12:58 PM (As94z) ********* Don't you want to beat the hell out of the Dems for what they have done? And "optimize" the vote? Hell give Romney all the help he can get in the popular vote. No mercy.

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 09:02 AM (r2PLg)

119 Yeah, the idea of saying "Screw you" to the country - letting a Fabian Socialist bent on destroying the place stay in power - because you're having a hissy fit about not getting your way over abortion (which wasn't going to happen anyway) is more than just stupid. It's malevalence towards the country you live in, and supposedly care about.

Posted by: Optimizer at May 08, 2012 09:02 AM (As94z)

120 >>>Jeff. B., Jack Straw, and there might have been a David. Oh and polynikes in Texas

Actually, you can strike my name from that list. Ironically enough, I was very much on the ABR-wagon at the outset of this. Supported Pawlenty, then Perry, and only then Romney. I did go 'all in', however, when I realized that he was literally the only plausible option left and that any other choice would have spelled guaranteed doom. THAT's when I got loud.

Posted by: Jeff B. at May 08, 2012 09:03 AM (xAJql)

121

Last I heard, presidents weren't elected via popular vote.

But I did go vote for Romney in the primary, to do what I could to end the stupid and counterproductive fantasies about Romney possibly not being the Republican nominee.

Posted by: Optimizer at May 08, 2012 09:05 AM (As94z)

122 I could do the same here in NJ although that evil right wing pollster Rasmussen has Christie's favorability at 56/33...could Jersey become a swing state?? Or am I just extrapolating and projecting with myself??

Posted by: dananjcon at May 08, 2012 09:11 AM (eavT+)

123

Last I heard, presidents weren't elected via popular vote.

At a national level no. However, given the way most states allocate their EC votes, at the state level this turns out to be true. So it's still very important to ensure that (to the extent possible) the margin of victory is as high in each state as possible.

(Also I don't want a repeat or 2000 personally, so a popular vote win is a must if we ever want to see Obama ousted.)

Posted by: tsrblke at May 08, 2012 09:12 AM (22rSN)

124 The rest of us manned the fuck up. I invite you to do the same.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 08, 2012 12:48 PM (X9FKq)

LOL MAN UP???? Because I don't slavishly follow the 'trend' which you want me to follow? and becaue I'm not enthusiastic about YOUR choice for President???

Next up? The traditional calling me a Traitor, because I'm not ENTHUSIASTIC.... because I do not Parrot the new Party Line...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 08, 2012 09:13 AM (lZBBB)

125 OT, but good grief. The Preznit is going to give ANOTHER speech today? Can someone please chuck a beanbag at his enormous ears?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter [/i][/b] at May 08, 2012 09:15 AM (4df7R)

126 If you vote for Romney, you are helping Romney. If you vote for Obama, you are helping Obama. If you vote for some third-party nut, or if you stay home, then you are also helping Obama. I voted for Bush and McCain. See how that worked out? Maybe my judgment isn't so good and I think it's better if the Country stumble on without my "help". I did vote for Reagan but not the first time. I haven't voted for Democrat since McGovern. (but only because RMN was such a sleaze.) So far on average, I'm screwing and getting screwed by the candidates I vote for about 50/50.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 09:18 AM (CP+yl)

127

Who gives a shit what Santorum thinks or who he endorses? The only reason that sweater vest with a room temperature IQ lasted as long as he did was because no one took him seriously enough to include him in the circular firing squad with all the other not-Romneys. Santorum is a fucking joke.

Posted by: DRayRaven at May 08, 2012 09:20 AM (SGSVE)

128 Romeo, relax. this is just the adjustment before the next shift. They have to go full moron retarded enthusiatic for the latest leader in the polls. Then once they accommodate themselves to the new level of suckitude they realiz .. {wha?} {he's got the nomination wrapped up?} {why doesn't anyone tell me they already had the convention?} Well, Romeo, seems that the convention's been held and Mitt has been crowned Queen of the May by the MFM. So that makes it official. Get on board or be left at the station you unenthusiastic wimp you!!! MAN UP!! or is it MAN DOWN!!!

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 09:22 AM (CP+yl)

129 And Fox was still saying yesterday that Newt had hinted at an endorsement of Romney, but hadn't actually committed to it, which is not true. On Sunday, during Face the Nation, Schieffer said the same thing and Newt stated (pp) "I've said I would campaign for him. I've said I would raise money for him. etc.... I don't know how much clearer I can be that I am supporting Mitt Romney." To which Schieffer responded, "So, you're endorsing Mitt Romney?"

Newt, "Yes."

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 08, 2012 09:26 AM (piMMO)

130 I'm focusing my attention on down-ticket races, making sure we get Tea Partiers in Congress, the Senate and State Houses. That way, it makes it easier for Romney to go right, if his congress is to the right of him.

Posted by: Iblis at May 08, 2012 09:27 AM (9221z)

131 Iblis, given the way things went for the last 20 years, they'll just do what they want and he'll sign whatever they put before him. They keep the earmarks and corporate welfare but cut the money to those who can't work or find work and claim it's their fault they're in the street. I can see THIS train coming for miles. Austerity but without getting rid of the burden of government just makes different winners and losers.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 09:32 AM (CP+yl)

132

LOL MAN UP???? Because I don't slavishly follow the 'trend' which you want me to follow?and becaue I'm not enthusiastic about YOUR choice for President???

Next up? The traditional calling me a Traitor, because I'm not ENTHUSIASTIC.... because I do not Parrot the new Party Line...<>>>

No, not a traitor, just a dipshit. Although it's obvious that you're eager to play the martyr.

You sound like a fucking Paultard.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 08, 2012 09:38 AM (X9FKq)

133 It's a fact that NO politician ever worked to: A. lower their power B. Make them unnecessary C. Lower their salary or perks D. Lessen the likelihood of being voted out So term limits and salary caps and spending limits? fuggetaboutit. I've heard this same line from Republicans for 40 years. Once in power though they showed what they really were all about. Sorry to be so negative. I have no answers as the Dems are nutball crazy and think money grows on trees and want to control everything and everybody. So do the Reps but with a different set of parameters and recipients of the various benefits an penalties. The President isn't even a referee anymore just another piglet sucking at the tit waiting for the real payoff when they retire.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 09:38 AM (CP+yl)

134 Actually, you can strike my name from that list. Ironically enough, I was very much on the ABR-wagon at the outset of this. Supported Pawlenty, then Perry, and only then Romney. I did go 'all in', however, when I realized that he was literally the only plausible option left and that any other choice would have spelled guaranteed doom. THAT's when I got loud. Posted by: Jeff B. at May 08, 2012 01:03 PM (xAJql) ************* Oops! Sorry Jeff B. Hey but when you go all in--you really do go...

Posted by: tasker at May 08, 2012 09:39 AM (r2PLg)

135 What profiteth a man if he gain the world and lose his only soul? We win the election but lose the country is my biggest fear and Mitt isn't saying anything to allay that fear. Yet. I'll give him more time but soon, he better start talking turkey soon.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at May 08, 2012 09:43 AM (CP+yl)

136 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at May 08, 2012 02:29 PM (7W3wI)

137 How does kicking Santorum in the nuts help? Are you trying to lose?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at May 08, 2012 02:37 PM (BQF27)

138 All this BS aside, Romney is going to need Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul's support in charging the base. The Romney base might be charged (definitley after reading these blogs), but the Republican base is not. To defeat Obama, he cannot take the Conservative base for granted. What some, especially the Romney base, do not understand is that it is not Santorum/Gingrich/Paul needing Romney, it's that Romney needs Santorum/Gingrich/Paul. If he goes it alone, he goes the way of McCain and Dole.

Posted by: Charles Nelson at May 09, 2012 07:00 PM (EHbHj)

139 I am not clear if I totally understand the full thought pattern behind this.

Posted by: Stolen Prey epub at May 10, 2012 06:07 PM (uNx8J)

140 There are so much to learn from your post here, Uma, well done.

Posted by: A Life Without Limits iBooks at May 10, 2012 07:29 PM (xf8eN)

141 There are so much to learn from your post here, Uma, well done.

Posted by: The Columbus Affair iBook at May 10, 2012 09:05 PM (D5J83)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

146kb generated in CPU 0.0526, elapsed 0.2497 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2049 seconds, 269 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.