Santorum Kicked The Mitt Out Of Romney
Mr. Mitt "Nice Guy" Romney, recently focused on only attacking Obama, may be going away again as last night after being trounced in three states, the Romney campaign issued a statement similar to the one issued after South Carolina. That one mentioned Newt Gingrich. However, it could be complicated, as Romney's attacks on Gingrich may have helped drag down his numbers, contributing to last night's thrashing by Rick Santorum in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota.
Denver, Colorado (CNN) – As Rick Santorum counted up his victories Tuesday night, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney signaled the campaign would take a tougher approach toward his resurgent rival and portray him as a Washington insider.
In Colorado, last night Romney received 22,875 votes for 35% of the vote. In 2008, he received 33,288 for 60% of the vote. Santorum won with 26,372 for 40%.
In Missouri, Romney received 63,826 votes last night for 25% and second place. In 2008, he received 172,329 votes for 29% and third place. Santorum won with 138,957 for 55%.
As for Minnesota, Romney received 8,096 votes for 17% and third place behind Ron Paul. In 2008, Romney received 25,990 votes for 41% and first place. Santorum won with 21,436 for 35%.
Romney's trending coming off of his loss to John McCain in the 2008 primary is not positive. He attracted more votes as the not McCain alternative that year, than he has for the nomination. The low turnout across the primaries doesn't appear to be good news for the GOP in general, either. They've been counting on an energized base to defeat Barack Obama in November.
What a night for anti-Romneys, anti-media, anti-elitists, and anti-establishment types everywhere!
Wait…I think we’d rather be referred to as media savvy, grass-roots individuals capable of choosing the right candidate for the toughest job in the world.* Bold contrasts still means something in the Heartland! Yippee!
“As for Minnesota, Romney received 8,096 votes for 17% and third place BEHIND Ron Paul.” LMAO! I can’t re-read that line enough!
*Toughest job when you subtract golf, campaigning, Wednesday night parties, late morning starts, and vacation time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7WfIZh690&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL1474E208239B4274
If you can watch this starting at about 17:50 and still make a case on how Santorum could ever get elected..well..you just can’t. It is chilling and creepy and frankly unbelievable.
He tells us how wrong and dangerous birth control is and why people should have sex and why they shouldn’t and how public policy should be involved. Then he says he will end all public funded abortion. Flip flopping on his promise in the past to uphold the Hyde Amendment. I’m stunned.
lgm, are you suggesting that a conservative couldn’t make a cogent, reasoned, argument for completely ending tax-payer funded abortions?
This is what you get when the media keeps telling you that Romney is inevitable.
The Romney leaning folks stay home.
Y’all are going ROGUE. Screw the elites, screw the party, screw everyone! We’ve gone KUH-RAYZEE. Only 27% of us think the President is UH REEUL UHMERICUN. So let’s let it all hang out!
Good god you people are insane. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Neo, you forgot your “sarc” tag…
The energized base is out there and will show up for the general election. They are NOT energized for any of the Republican candidates they have to choose from so turn-out is low. They are energized to vote against Obama so turn-out will not be low in the general.
Dwok, that isn’t what Santorum does.
Not by MILES. He is a BIG GOVERNMENT guy, and he has some really BAD ideas.
Spin this any way you want, but while it was a bad night for Romney, it was a worse night for Gingrich. 4th in Minnesota? 3rd in Colorado? Everyone is hanging on the hope that the Missouri non-binding primary was just a fluke, but Missourians are like Iowans, they want their candidates to press bodies and Newt didn’t even bother to make it to the primary. That will not be forgotten by Missourians. If Santorum is smart, he will continue his ground game there and take the almost 40 delegates at the Mo. caucuses in ten days.
Gingrich currently has only two more delegates than Santorum, and we have had only one Bible Belt primary. And the low turn out in Missouri is not really indicitive of the general election. Missouri is a strong Catholic state and they are not going to forget Obana’s recent slam against the Catholic Church. Virginia is coming up and the question is: will Virginians vote Paul in a protest against what many think was a rigged primary in their state?
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/rick-santorum-wins-in-sweep-in-missouri.html It was a bad night for Mitt.
Santorum is hardly a perfect conservative. He has been big government. He is way too nanny state for my tastes. But he is a better conservative than Newt or Mitt. By a long shot.
“…Missourians are like Iowans, they want their candidates to press bodies…”
Ew. I never knew that about those people. Crikey…the things you learn from b/s…
I’m sticking with Newt for the time being, primarily based on his tax plan which is vastly superior to the other two. I also find him to be a much more effective communicator of conservative principles when he’s on his game.
I can’t stand Romney — he reminds me of Obama in temperament, frankly — but right now I have him above Santorum on my list, primarily because he’s done a better job convincing me that he’s more qualified to be POTUS than Santorum is.
For Santorum to move up on my list he needs to:
1. show me what experience he has that has equipped him to be chief executive and to take on Dems in Congress and actually win (Newt has the latter; Romney has the former)
2. communicate a vision for America that aligns with mine, that means focusing on smaller government and economic freedom, not inserting social issues into everything
3. show a willingness to engage Tea Party conservatives
I am not a Tea Partier, but this notion that conservatives are supposed to grin and bear it with the presumptive nominee (Romney) who has shown very little interest in engaging the base has me fed up. I expect our nominee to represent conservative principles, not shun them to try to appeal to “moderates” and Independents.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-speech-minnesota-strong-second-place-going-062133946.html Romney came in third in Minnesota.
Using first principles, Santorum is a social conservative.
He is not a Conservative in any sense I use the term, though he does lean in that direction.
Sometimes…
Not unlike Paul.
“He is not a Conservative in any sense”
You do realize Ragspierre that true social conservatives (I’m not claiming that’s what Santorum is) are the only true constitutionalists. While we live in the era of Laodicea (which means peoples rights or EQUAL Rights), the social conservative stands at the threshold of the constitution, trying like hell to prevent progressive’s from further sweeping the Constitution into the dustbin of history.
Want proof? It’s the social conservatives that are leading the charge against Obamacare. It was social conservatism that led to the partial collapse of Acorn, the partial defunding of PP. It’s Social Conservatism that’s leading the charge against the Justice Dept. with “Fast and Furious”.
Fiscal Conservatism on it’s own is not conservative. Period.
Well, horse-sh!t, Dwok.
Plus, that is a TOTALLY FALSE dichotomy you’re attempting.
I guess you can make up your own terms. I mean, who’s to stop you?
But you can’t do it unopposed.
There is no reason to feel energized. We could have the presidency, a veto proof majority in the senate and a large majority in the house and still will not turn the government around. We all have seen this before, it gets depressing after a while. The house we put into power refuses to stop so much as a single thin penny of spending, has been helping empower the government to strip the rights of the people and in general continues to mock those who voted for it.
Yes, rags, Missourians want their candidates to “press bodies” which is simply another term for “shaking hands and kissing babies.” It means to get down in the trenches with the voters. And Gingrich didn’t do that. And while EBL talks about Romney taking 3rd in Minnesota, he got 2,962 more votes than Gingrich who placed 4th.
Spin it all you want. Gingrich did the worst last night of all the candidates (I don’t consider Paul a true contender). And we are just now getting started in the Bible Belt.
People can make all the excuses they want for Gingrich, like how the negative ads in Iowa and Florida hurt him, but those negative ads were not as prominent in Minnesota or Colorado, and he still could not make the sale.
Super Tuesday will give Romney two states; Virginia and Massachusetts. The other states are up in the air, and if Gingrich can’t pull it out then, the nomination will drag on until April. Only 820 delegates are up for grabs between Iowa and [including] Super Tuesday. That’s 324 shy of the required number to take the nomination. The Democrats are trying to take Texas out of play by shoving the GOP primary back to June, if they can.
Ragspierre, look at those in Congress that claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism but have followed in lockstep with some of the progressive policies that lead us further away from the constitution.
It seems as though you’re married to the idea of Gingrich, but doesn’t it give you pause as a fiscal conservative that his guidance is derived from Woodrow Wilson and Robert LaFollette. Talk about a “Big Government guy” with “really bad ideas”.
“…to “press bodies” which is simply another term for “shaking hands and kissing babies.”
OK.
So long as nobody confuses the two…
btw, Ragspierre if a social conservative is not in any way how you would describe conservatism, please give me your definition.
“…And while EBL talks about Romney taking 3rd in Minnesota, he got 2,962 more votes than Gingrich who placed 4th.”
his problem is that he got 17,897 LESS votes than he did in 2008 when he won minnesota. and this year he had T-Paw campaigning w/ him. that’s scary for romney.
Dwok, I commend to you Bill Whittle’s excellent speech to a TEA Party event.
You will find a video of it if you look. It is one of the best, most concise definitions of Conservative ideals I think I’ve heard.
One of those is economic liberty. Note, please, that is WAY past “fiscal” conservatism, which is a tiny subset.
So Romney’s advisers believe the solution to their failed brand launch is to attack other brands? How many do you want to attack? When consumers are buying anything but your brand, given the choice of a half-dozen alternatives and they constantly will choose “anything but” your brand, your strategy is to attack the other brand?
Who’s paying for this kind of advice? It’s certainly not working for you. Even when you’ve destroyed a brand (Cain through your media friends, Newt in Florida, etc.), all your prospective consumers do is go find another option besides the crap you’re offering.
Hint for the slow RINOs who weren’t sufficiently challenged in their puppy mill farm private schools: the problem is that your product is trash.
Jason
“Good god you people are insane. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.”
We’re not any crazier than a President who kills a pipeline project that potentially could create 200k jobs–many of them unionized–despite a nearly 9% unemployment rate. We’re not any crazier than a President who rails against all those eeeeeeeeevil SuperPacs–and then pivots on a dime and gives his blessing to them. We’re not any crazier than a President who orders religious groups to pay for abortions and contraception in the health plans they offer—regardless of their long-standing, principled, and constitutionally-protected objections to doing so. We’re not any crazier than a President who still thinks we can borrow and spend our way to prosperity despite a $16t debt.
Jason, were you born stupid or did you have to take a special taxpayer-subsidized program to get that way?
I will respectfully disagree with all of a different viewpoint, but I will posit that Santorum is the only legitimate chance to defeat the hellstorm coming from the other side and their media minions in the fall. I get it, some of you don’t have the stomach for it, some of you don’t share the same convictions, no problem, there is an army of us willing to do the heavy lifting, as we did in 010.
Now that said, is Santorum the perfectly ideal candidate? No. But he represents, for me at least, the best chance to offer voters a conservative contrast vs Obama. And win.
Dwok,
“ljm, are you suggesting that a conservative couldn’t make a cogent, reasoned, argument for completely ending tax-payer funded abortions?”
Give it a shot!
Santorum will spend tax money on social programs, it’s in his d.n.a.
Newt pandered his way out.
Mitt will not beat onumbnuts.
And Paul will play ensign Parker in the remake of Mchales Navy.
And the winner is?
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is, that is, I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “well, that’s OK, i mean y’know, contraception is OK.” It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage. They’re supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen.”
How is this going to go over with liberals, independents and libertarians? All it would take is for an Obama superpac to get a hold of this and run it on the airways. Rick Santorum in his own words…it would insure Obama a landslide victory in the fall.
Dan
Isn’t it also true however that Santorum’s #s last night were much worse than Romney’s #s in 2008 as the McCain alternative.
CO Romney 08 33.3K, Rick 12 26.4K
MN Romney 08 26K Rick 12 21.4K
MO Romney 08 172.3K Rick 12 129K
If Romney performing worse than he did in 2008 tells us something about him and his viability and electability vs Obama and his ability to excite conservatives, what does Santorum’s performing worse than Romney did in 2008 tell us about Rick’s electability and ability to excite conservatives?
In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003, and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states’ ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.
–GatewayPundit
I don’t think that trying to regulate consensual adult sexual behavior is a winner. Persuasion is another matter.
And it was great to see Santorum beat Romney last night, but is he really the guy going forward?
Are we really going to run a guy who lost his last race in a key swing state by 18 pts, the biggest defeat for an incumbent Senator in US history?
Someone who has no executive experience at all. No military experience.
Someone who likely voted 95% of the time for the policies of George W Bush? Because we all know how much mileage Obama got out of saying McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. And Santorum was even more pro-Bush as he didn’t have the maverick tendencies that McCain did.
All those Bush policies that the public so loved? Santorum voted for all of them and Obama will make sure everyone knows it.
It’s like in Godfather III. Just when I thought I was out(of the Bush era), they pull me back in !
Also, is the GOP really going to run a nominee who is on record as being against contraception? Only 99% of American women favor or have used contraception at some point in their lives. That’s a real winning position. Every GOP House and Senate candidate will be asked “Do you also agree that contraception should be illegal?, your Presidential nominee does”
And I haven’t even mentioned his comment to Piers Morgan that rape victims should consider their pregnancy a “gift” from God and to make the best of a bad situation. I mean, do we want to set the record for lowest % of the female vote by a major party since 1916?
And that’s just the start. He did very well last night and he deserves credit. But I think a lot of that had to do with all the attacks on Newt and people being disgusted by Romney and Rick being the only one left. Once more people find out about the above and more I suspect he’ll begin to fade.
lgm, that would be used for nothing more than a boogeyman tactic. Would Santorum end the sales of contraception? No. Could he? No. What he was offering was a personal belief, one that I partly agree with.
The laissez faire attitude towards sex in society has helped hasten modern societies destruction, we have become a society that seems to blindly follow the mantra of Aleister Crowley “Do what thou wilt” instead of following the teachings of a God driven life.
I think if Mr. Santorum wanted to have a more honest open discussion it would be on the basis that Homosexuality is a health crisis, not just a moral crisis. The epidemic of abortion, the lack of procreation within marriages and how we are slowing moving below the replacement rate (ratio between birth and deaths within a society).
Rick in his own words – On The Tea Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
Rick on stimulus plan and the deficit “The president’s package is what the doctor ordered.” “You can’t worry too much about deficits.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZKuHhYNqjA
ljm, CNN poll 11/19/2009 61% – 37% are in favor of ending tax-payer funded abortion…….enough said.
Shorter Dwok: Shut up!
It is a boogeyman tactic that would work! Santorum blurs the line between church and state in the video talking about public policy with regard to sex. He says he isn’t running for preacher or pastor – maybe that is where his calling really lies. He was trounced in PA. His social agenda and big spending ways are what got him roundly and soundly defeated. This guy doesn’t fit well into any party. He’s not conservative. He’s not liberal. He’s certainly not libertarian. Who’s going to vote for him? Right-wing, single issue Christian republicans between the ages of 50-100?
IF you loved Bush BIG GOVERNMENT…
you will love Santorum BIG GOVERNMENT.
And there promises to be a LOT more of it, given his record.
ABC News Washington Post Poll January 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html
American Views on Abortion
Situation Should Be Legal Should Be Illegal
All or Most Cases 57% 42
To Save Woman’s Life 88 10
To Save Woman’s Health 82 14
In Cases of Rape/Incest 81 17
Physically Impaired Baby 54 40
To End Unwanted Pregnancy 42 57
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 23 69
Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 11 86
With those numbers I seriously doubt that Americans would be in favor of ending all funded abortion. Hyde Amendment insures that abortion be available to those who can not afford it only in the incident of risk of life, incest, or rape. Did the poll specify this those qualifications?
ljm,this is not a discussion of legality it’s a discussion about tax payer funded abortion
The public disapproves.
Economy
80%
Health Care
67%
Gov’t Ethics and Corruption
65%
Taxes
60%
Social Security
60%
Education
60%
Immigration
49%
National Security/War on Terror
48%
Afghanistan
24%
War in Iraq
19%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/importance_of_issues
There are existential issues in play. Even Santorum has said so. Dwok’s concerns are not even on most people’s radar, and where they are, Santorum does not look good.
The public disapproves funding of Planned Parenthood (I don’t know what the percentages are) because they believe that even though funds do not go directly to abortions, the funds somehow facilitate all abortions. Can you show be a poll or study that suggests that Americans are in favor of ending funding for poor women who require an abortion in the event of risk of life, rape and incest?
Are you? If so what do you recommend for those women?
ragspierre, the economy obviously is the most important issue. however stands on moral issues are relevant.
“…though funds do not go directly to abortions, the funds somehow facilitate all abortions.”
Money is fungible. If you give money to PP for any purpose, there is no possible way to firewall it. It WILL contribute to the abortions that are PP’s primary business.
If really poor women needing abortions because of health, rape or incest were all that needed funding, that could be READILY handled by private donations, as they are a TINY fraction of all abortions.
ragspierre, l’m curious as to how you view the government instep, forcing catholic healthcare providers to give free contraception to the public.
In my view, not only is it a violation of the constitution, it’s also a personal moral issue.
btw, I’m not catholic, just a constitutionalist.
“stands on moral issues are relevant”
Wul, duh. In the sense they are not “irrelevant”.
Ever heard about choosing your battles? Priorities?
One thing that makes Conservatives “Conservative” is that we believe government is the WRONG tool for MOST problems. Not that the problems don’t exist, but they can be BETTER addressed than by government.
Rags,
I understand what you are saying but you have to understand that many, probably most of the situations of health, rape or incest would need to be handled in a hospital setting. Facilities like Planned Parenthood are not equipped for such emergencies or are they readily available to all women. So you are left again with private/public funding conundrum. Many hospitals and doctors are funded with public funds. Would those hospitals not be allowed to perform abortions under the ban?
Santorum supports a Personhood Amendment which was even defeated in Mississppi. He wants to go back to don’t ask don’t tell. Is this the debate we want to have in the general election?
“forcing catholic healthcare providers to give free contraception to the public”
Actually, that is a misstatement of the issue. Nobody is asking anybody to provide contraception to “the public”.
But, as to the new mandate, I’m agin it. Totally. It isn’t a Catholic issue. It is a global assault on the First Amendment. Period.
ljm, you went a lot of places I haven’t been or suggested.
What “ban”????
Most doctors and hospitals do not perform abortions. Those who do would have no trouble accepting private funds.
What are you talking about???
Can you read??? See my post at 4:12, please.
No constitutional right to privacy exists in the referred to document. Amazing that Ragspierre supports an unstable, leftist fake like Gingrich, an Alan Toffler-ite who backed deal breaker bailouts, supported AGW for decades, but calls Santorum, who is not perfect or equal to both fiscal and social a big gov guy.
He votes correct a lot more than is widely assumed, on the BIG ISSUES.
He also gets the difference between corporate socialists like Romney who support stimulus and bailouts and taxpayer funded clean up crews BAIN style and avoid looking too angry, unstable and baggage ridden.
Anyone arguing Newt is more electable than Rick Stantorum is delusional. He’s more electable than Romney, who cannot explain Colorado where he led by as many as 9 points in final polls and lost by 5.
The big error was Palin’s and Cains, who endorse Newt for SC when to have quick solidifying base for a Romney alternative that had to Santorum, since he won Iowa 1st. Then he’d have had 2 going into Florida, etc.
It might be too little too late for Santorum since Newt’s votes are peeling away too advanced into the sequence.
Gingrich needs to drop out at once, and take one for the team and endorse Santorum, who has won more states now than anyone else. Then the votes can be combined into one bloc against Romney. Neither Rick nor Newt can win if both stay in stubbornly until the convention.
Rick Santorum said in the video provided that he would ban public funding of abortions. I was having a conversation with Dwok about that. You chose to butt in and give your 2 cents worth apparently with no consideration as to the discussion.
I have no desire to get into school yard debate with you Rags. If you want to play nice then – let’s talk.
Right now EMTLA requires any hospital that receives public funding (most of them do) to provide emergency abortions or transfer the pregnant woman to somewhere that does.
Some in the GOP have tried to get the law changed with no success – so far. The proposed legislation below would make it possible for hospitals and doctors to refuse to perform an abortion or transfer the patient to somewhere that does. In fact they would not be legally required to do anything at all.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:42
Ragspierre, you’re right I mispoke, I guess I’m jumping the gun a little. Once private health insurance providers collapse I’m sure that will be the next course.
Please don’t confuse Social Conservatism with Constitutional interloping. It’s not us that finds the “right” to abortion in the 4th amendment or uses varying interpretations of the 14th amendment to attempt to nationally implement the “right” for gays to marry. And I’m against a federal amendment defining marriage because I firmly believe in the 10th amendment.
Please don’t put words in my mouth, I know what priorities are most important in these times but I’m not going to help elect someone that can’t walk a straight line because he doesn’t know where he stands. That’s Newt and Mitt.
Social cons actually tend to be more in true deeds MORE fiscally hard line than one’s who are moderates or libs on “social issues” but claim to be in favor of small gov and spending, but in praxis vote for bailouts and stimulus and fake capitalism where big business and wall street makes bad reckless bets, then asks for gov bailouts to give them their corporate socialism fix.
Soc cons tend to support our values on the border, unlike amnesty clown Gingrich or business abusers in the Romney mold (being fair to Romney here as his immigration stated current positions are supposedly harder line) who want cheap labor at the expense of our security against terrorists and invasion by law breakers.
Many fiscal cons do not know what real conservatism actually is, sadly. Another product of liberal invasion of public schools, TV, universities, etc.
Newt is Mr. Department of education, he is an amnesty candidate by his own mouth, and nothing could be less conservative than that since if our borders are not secure we are doomed, both culturally and from terrorist infiltration.
Seems I’ve pissed off everybody.
My work here is done…
Just a note…in the case of a rape or incest, you are dealing (mostly) with exigent care. A morning-after pill very often. BFD.
Social cons realize ALL issues are social ones, both economic and the stereotypical ones like “gay marriage” and abortion.
It’s actually a poor label designed to confuse the ignorant.
Further, unless you understand that right come from a higher law, be it “God” or what have you, you do not get how governments can abuse you, due to human nature failings, etc.
So called Social conservatives are much more likely to understand that and restrain the gov when and were it really counts when it comes down to brass tacks, BTW.
I’ve known many “strictly fiscal con types” aside from libs, libertarians and moderates, claiming to be on the “conservative side” and they tend to support huge gov intervention with self serving values like “bailouts for me, not for thee” and get wrong HUGE spending aspects when really pressed, both personally and in candidates.
No thanx, voting for Santorum, warts and all, even with his impure votes already beaten to death here…
Rags,
Copernicus called and the earth doesn’t rotate around you after all. You butted into a conversation that I was having with Dwok with regard to RICK SANTORUM’s pledge to end all federal funding for abortion if elected. I’m not particularly interested in your views on the subject.
Your ability to debate all too often degrades into childishness.
Bite me, ljm.
As often you show, you don’t know what the FLUCK you are talking about, and HATE it being shown.
You Kidding, vote for who you want. Go with power up.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/seven-minutes-of-rick-santorum-talking-about-how-g
Just don’t pretend.
There really isn’t a better time to fight over these social issues than right now – and in the general election.
We are now, and have been for many decades, in a culture war – one which we are badly losing in great part precisely because “conservatives” fear waging the war in state wide and nation wide elections for fear of losing them resulting in more and more converts to the other side resulting in an ever increasing difficulty in winning that war – an endless cycle of non-engagement resulting in accelerating incremental losses which will, ultimately, lose the war totally.
Much of the problems we currently have in this country, fiscal and otherwise, are an outgrowth of the cultural values (and non-values) of the current winners of that cultural war.
I believe that now is, if not the final, certainly close to the final battle. It must be waged.
Don’t know if Santorum is the banner carrier or not, but someone has to be else there is little hope for our country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8EbWALW3C0&feature=youtu.be
Like I said…
If you like W,
you’ll LOVE Santorum.
There ain’t a one of them which ain’t big government. The nature of a legislator is to legislate.
It’s what they do. The question is, as unfortunately always: “Which is the lesser of the available evils?”
I’m still with Newt – but he has done the two things I feared he would – failed to keep his temper in check and failed to keep his ego in check. He may come back from his ill-tempered hubris, but, if he doesn’t, I’m cool with Santorum over Romney.
Montana Sheep Institute, Bridge to Nowhere, No Child Left Behind, Makes Love to Earmarks, Sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and ironically for a so called conservative sponsored or cosponsored zero bills to cut spending.My favorite quote from Santorum ” I am no longer a deficit hawk, I had to spend the surplus.”
F-ing conservative my arse.
Look at the delgate chart and tell me that this isn’t a rigged game. The winner takes all states and PR really favor Mitt. The unbound delegates could be worthless. Newt and Santorum and Paul have no chance. The only way to stop Romney is with a brokered convention revolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
Romneybots should sleep easy. Reince Priebus and the boys rigged the game for Mittens. Romney probably has 400 delgates certain to go his way in the winner take all states.
I thought it was Price Riebus!!
The unheard rino
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/separated-at-birth-mitt-romney-and_09.html Separated at Birth: Mitt Romney and…?
when Obama is on the ballot the enthusiasm will be back up to 2010 levels …
Time for conservatives to support Romney: http://americaisconservative.blogspot.com/2012/02/conservatives-it-is-time-to-support.html