-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good
April 30, 2013 | 126 comments
-
Perez Abomination Grows
April 23, 2013 | 81 comments
Streetcar Line
A Santorum Surge or a Jindal Jig
Gingrich, grizzled and grayed, will fizzle and fade.
So many other issues deserve to be written about, but the Republican presidential battle, like heroin for a junkie, compels the attention of political animals everywhere. Herewith, then, the column of a political junkie, trying hard for objective analysis while perhaps succumbing, as is all too human, to the unknowing substitution of wish fulfillment for analytical wisdom.
On the side of analytical ability, there is a strong record to which to point. Be that as it may, when the analysis does track one’s personal preferences, as the following one (more or less) does, a bit of a caveat emptor warning is appropriate.
Okay, enough with the disclaimers. Here’s the prediction, seemingly wild but actually serious: When the dust settles (and when the clichés run out), the final two Republican contenders with a chance for the nomination will be Mitt Romney and… not Newt Gingrich, but either Rick Santorum or an as-yet-undeclared Candidate X named Jindal or Ryan or, Lord forbid, Jeb “it’s my birthright” Bush.
First, why not Gingrich? Because he’s already dropping fast in Iowa and dropping fast in hypothetical match-ups against Obama, and Republican voters are desperate for a candidate who can evict today’s Oval Office Occupier. Before much longer, too many people will have realized that Gingrich is, in style, discipline, and ethics, the Bill Clinton of the Right, without the rape but with only half the charm and twice the abrasiveness. He exhibits the extreme egomania of a new Napoleon — and, for that matter, looks as if he has eaten too many Napoleon puff pastries to have the stamina for the marathon that is the modern presidential campaign.
Okay, then why not a resurgence by Rick Perry, who by most accounts is a good man? Because, while fall debates rarely are strongly decisive in presidential campaigns, Republican voters certainly don’t want to risk having an awful debate performance cause the loss of a close election. Because Perry bombed or underwhelmed in five consecutive debates, Republican voters just won’t be able to bring themselves to trust that he’ll be a winning standard-bearer. (Hence National Review’s dismissal of Perry in the course of their “Not Gingrich” editorial on Wednesday.) A candidate who bombed upon entry even with the advantages of $17 million is not somebody in whom the primary electorate will have sufficient confidence.
Michele Bachmann has much to recommend her as an admirable figure, but the impression is indelible that she is still too green for the White House. Ron Paul will do well in Iowa, but his “blame America for 9/11” shtick will never fly long enough to make him a serious contender. And Jon Huntsman is annoyingly supercilious and unctuous and has far too weirdly gone out of his way to insult too many sub-groups of conservatives.
All of which leaves, among those currently in the race, only Rick Santorum. Now, clearly, Santorum has yet to “project” the charismatic image of a potential winner, and has yet to overcome the stigma of his large loss in his 2006 Senate re-election campaign. On the other hand, he is the only candidate in the whole race who has yet to make a serious gaffe. He is the only candidate other than Gingrich whose every debate performance has been at least solid and substantive. He is the only candidate without any major downside for large numbers of conservatives. He is the only candidate who, if he rises, won’t be subject to surprises that make him collapse like a soufflé upon further inspection. He has, bar none, the strongest grassroots organization in Iowa, along with surprisingly decent bones on which to put real campaign flesh in New Hampshire and especially South Carolina if he does catch some fire in Iowa. He has worked harder, almost certainly, than any of the other candidates (although Bachmann’s campaign work ethic might be equally as strong). He clearly has established more personal connections in Iowa than any of the others, testing whether old-fashioned, one-by-one voter contacts can still pay dividends in the modern political world.
Aside from Gingrich, Santorum has the longest record of actual achievement within government. His legislative record is remarkably substantive, and his rise to the third-ranking position in the Senate GOP hierarchy completely belies the establishment-media portrayal of him as a right-wing gadfly. His foreign/defense-policy knowledge is deeper than anybody’s but Huntsman’s, and his foreign/defense-policy views are far more acceptable to a wide range of conservatives than are Huntsman’s. His biggest economic proposal may not have the most obvious sex appeal, but it would be the strongest and — a key consideration — the most politically achievable job producer of any of them.
Finally, Santorum has a history (in four elections out of five) of peaking at exactly the right time and defying the political odds. If candidate quality, like cream, eventually rises to the stop and remains there, Santorum is the only conservative candidate who has real, potential staying power atop the field. He is an extremely able retail politician, one who should never be underestimated.
THAT SAID, serious talk among serious people continues to involve the possibility of drafting a new entrant into the race. The nomination calendar this year makes this more doable than in any year since 1976. Paul Ryan has twice ruled it out, but he clearly is annoyed by Gingrich and might be motivated to enter if Gingrich seems a serious threat to win. Bobby Jindal has endorsed Perry, but if Perry gave up he is in perfect position to pick up the conservative banner. Reaganite leaders have raved over his book Leadership and Crisis, which easily could serve as a blueprint, or even campaign platform, for a national conservative resurgence. Finally, somebody is making robo-calls in New Hampshire that suggest a Jeb Bush candidacy, but smart people should recognize that 2012 is far too soon for voters to want to return to the Bush leagues. (Indeed, the very threat of an entrance by Bush may catalyze key players to hustle into drafting Ryan or Jindal, in order to fill what amounts to the only remaining spot in the field before Bush can consider it.)
What seems clear, though, is that Romney has a floor of about 20 percent of the Republican electorate, below which he will not fall, which makes him a shoo-in to be one of the final two contenders. Equally as clear, enough Republican voters yearn so strongly for a serious, conservative alternative to Romney that there will emerge a non-Romney candidate from the right who actually has staying power. For all the reasons above, that alternative will not remain Gingrich, and it won’t be Bachmann or Perry either. Santorum’s chance is at hand, as is the chance for the most successful presidential draft movement (for Ryan or Jindal) in American history.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (265) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/16/a-santorum-surge-or-a-jindal-j
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
clark_kent| 12.16.11 @ 6:19AM
Nice hit piece you dip_SHIIT.Ron Paul is not blaming america for 9/11. Read the CIA assessments on why america was attacked before you make shiiT UP.FUUK YOU. its called BLOWBACK,go learn something new you hackjob political journalist wannabe.
CB| 12.16.11 @ 6:34AM
Profanity is the only way the ignorant know how to express themselves....
Jack in Wi.| 12.16.11 @ 6:56AM
Chicken hawk wars are not wanted. Quin here is having a hissy fit. The six dwarfs who want endless war are about as electable as Jeffrey Dahmer. Obama will be runnning as the guy who got Bin Laden and is bringing the troops home. How are you going to beat that with a guy like Gingrich or Santorum, who never met a war they didn't love, as long as they didn't have to fight it?
Ron and Rand for Life, Peace, Prosperity and Liberty.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 10:13AM
I always find it funny when someone who claims to be a "proud 4-F" calls others "chickenhawks."
But that's ok. All you Iran Firsters go ahead & vote for the guy who will protect the poor innocent Mullahs from "un-just*" war.
* "Just war" being a theory that is as impracticable and stupid as it is well meaning. Like most liberal ideas.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 1:45PM
NB:
What people like Jacvk don't comprehend is the nature of war. Thay do not study it or understand it. What has been going on in Iraq for the last five or six years is NOT war. It was a worthless exercise in nation building a failed Wilsonian policy.
War, sad to say, involves the overwhelming application of force to destroy. That is, as we know, morally reprehensible and the most moral way to end war is to wage it with rapidity and such force as to make it short. What comes after is not a matter for the military. As long as we continue to confuse the two missions, we continue to waste lives and treasure.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 1:48PM
Jack:
I apologize for the misspelling of your name. It was quite unintentional; a result of my too fat arthretic fingers.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 2:00PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I will ask Congress for a Declaration of War against Iran,if necessary."
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Resist We Much! | 12.16.11 @ 2:43PM
"The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism."
- Ron Paul
http://www.textfiles.com/politics/ron_paul.txt
"The Reagans, emulating Stalin, have even praised the chilling example of a child informing on his parents and urged others to follow his example."
- Ron Paul
If he were alive, I doubt Reagan would endorse Ron Paul for tinfoil hat maker, Clint.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 3:36PM
Hello, Dear Barrister!
Resist We Much! | 12.16.11 @ 3:46PM
Hey! Check out the updated:
Ron Paul: See No Newsletters. Write No Newsletters. Read No Newsletters.
http://predicthistunpredictpas.....te-no.html
Quartermaster| 12.16.11 @ 8:02PM
I doubt the Reagan of the late 90s would endorse the Reagan of 1980. Reagan's colors changed a lot in the 10 years after he left the White House as he went from a moderate leftist to a much harder version of the same thing. The Dem party may have left him, but he wasn't too far behind. It was just the McGovern faction that left him far behind.
chuck| 12.16.11 @ 8:13PM
What kind of utter bullshit is this? By the late '90s, Reagan had left the public eye due to the tragedy of Alzheimer's.
You can take your bullshit elsewhere, QM.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 9:17PM
chuck:
How un-Christian of you.. how unloving! After all, what one believes is relative is it not?!
Why....how DARE you speak your mind in such a STRONG and TRUTHFUL manner!!
chuck| 12.18.11 @ 11:53AM
Sorry Margie, I am but a lowly sinner.
chuck| 12.18.11 @ 12:10PM
Forgiveness is good for you soul.
chuck| 12.18.11 @ 12:10PM
sorry, your
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:15PM
I know you are and so am I!
I was giving you a taste of your own medicine, guy.
Merry Christmas.
RCV| 12.16.11 @ 10:00PM
Reagan a leftist? You guys are so far to the right you're off the cliff. You get nuttier and more irrelevant every day.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:22PM
No, RCV.
The Pail-bots are on YOUR side!!!
LOL!
They despise us conservatives as much as you do.
(With a few exceptions that I've seen here on a personal level).
RCV| 12.19.11 @ 7:05PM
No, they're on their own little side. And they're succeeding in screwing up the GOP primary big-time. Paul is now poised to win the Iowa Republican caucuses, and to come in second in New Hampshire, which I would have thought unimaginable a few months ago. The scary prospect for your party is that the Paulbots will be so emboldened by their early wins, that their disillusionment when Romney finally gets the nomination will force Paul to run on a third-party ticket, insuring the GOP loss.
In no small part, this fiasco is due to the inability of the conservatives in the GOP to coalesce early around a single candidate and to stick by that candidate rather than snipe at each other.
And by the way, I do not despise conservatives at all. Many of my close personal friends are conservatives, and I love them dearly.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 7:55PM
Hey, RCV:
Like I said, anybody but Paul against Obama on the current list (I don't think Huntsman's serious).
As I've pointed out, a successful Republican candidate will want to: 1) balance the budget with cuts, 2) bash bad guys with bravura, and 3) keep the lowdown low on lawyering and regulation.
The job description is really simple: but persevering is hard.
By the way, Merry Christmas!
And Jack and Clint: you both are still C. Elegans.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 10:58PM
I just took a match-o-matic on ABC news that I got off of Ace of Spades.
My candidate of choice is: Michele Bachmann. Good to know I know my own mind well.
Jack in Wi.| 12.16.11 @ 6:36PM
The Just War theory goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. The first Christians were absolute pacifists, who refused to fight in the Army. The theory was put forth by St. Augustine in a effort to justify violence only in the name of self defense or to save the life of another.
Agresssive wars like Iraq and the hoped for, by the neocons, war with Iran are condemned not only by the Church, but also by secular International Law. Lots of Germans were hanged for doing what Bush Cheney, Blair, Powell, Rumsfeld and the Neocons did. They lied us into wars using doctored intelligence that a baby should have known was nonsense. I knew it was all nonsense and started blogging at that time in an effort to stop it. So did other patriotic conservatives and libertarians like Bob Novak, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, John Duncan, General Norm Shwartzkoph,
and General Brent Skrowcroft.
The refusal to meet with Hussain and now the Iranians is absolutly against any Just War policy. To be Just, all avenues must be exausted. We had our minds made up on attacking Iraq and nothing could disuade us. The same is true of a the prowar propaganda being pushed to suck us into another immoral and unnecessary war, with Iran. We should send an ambassadro the Iran forthwith and try to negotiate a fair settlement of all the issues. There is zero evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Even if it had one what would it do with it? Israel has 500 of them and has a huge military.
Israel can do anything it wants. It can drive out the Palistinians into the wilderness, as so many of it's more insane supporters want. It can kill them all at any time. It can bomb the whole Middle East back to the Stone Age, as I have seen advocated, many times on webbsites. Israel and the world would not survive such lunacy. The only solution in the Middle East is for sane Jews to take power and make a reasonable and honest peace. Peace is the only answer. Praise be Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace, of all mankind. May the Jews here have a good Sabbath. Shalom.
Oldefarte| 12.16.11 @ 2:50PM
All of his state's citizens should be praising Scott Walker for [continuing his outstanding work as] Govenor of Wisconsin!!!!!!!!
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 3:31PM
O/F:
I saw the report a couple days ago that the WI court allowed the names of Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler to stay on the recall petitions since they showed a WI address. Think maybe that tells us something about how next year will go?
W| 12.16.11 @ 4:53PM
Al Adab
Those are two Dem consultants.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 5:43PM
W,
Blogger nom de plume?
Alan Brooks| 12.16.11 @ 9:10PM
Aside from being a conspiracy-nut, Ron Paul is solid.
But Obama is the one to vote for, he is tanned, rested and ready-
very tan.
Alan Brooks| 12.16.11 @ 9:22PM
"Aside from being a conspiracy-nut, Ron Paul is solid."
Well, this IS damning with faint praise, isn't it; like writing:
"aside from his extra-football activities, we appreciate Jerry Sandusky's ability as an assistant coach."
Alan Brooks| 12.17.11 @ 5:47PM
Best one of all time:
"How did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
Cosmo| 12.17.11 @ 1:35AM
Just can't accept Callista as First Lady of the USA.
It's as if Bill Clinton had married Monica Lewinsky and was constantly pushing her on us.
"Monica and I are writing a book"..."I gave Monica $1 Million charge account at Tiffany's."
Wouldn't wash, would it..?
Mike Hawk| 12.17.11 @ 11:19AM
Why not, you accepted Hildebeast as FLOTUS?
Alan Brooks| 12.17.11 @ 5:48PM
"Gingrich, grizzled and grayed, will fizzle and fade."
Thank GOD for small favors!
Shirley Freeman| 12.18.11 @ 12:35PM
If only the war-mongering Islamic jihadists of the world would play nice, too...
Herman| 12.17.11 @ 1:32AM
I don't understand the hatred of Romney...He used to be a liberal...so what? So did Reagan.
Mike Hawk| 12.17.11 @ 11:22AM
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat, not a Liberal. The shift to the Marxist side drove him out of that party as it did many conservative Democrats.
Al Adab| 12.17.11 @ 12:02PM
Reagan was a Democrat when that party still believed in individual liberty and the rule of law; Believed in creating opportunity rather than promising subsistence; Believed in the American system and adhered to American ideals. That party is long gone.
Reagan moved to the party that still holds those values dear. It does so today. That Romney represents the left wing of that party is sadly true. It is that wing which opposed the Conservative movement from the start; that wing which seeks only its own notoriety and power. We do not "hate" Romney, we just understand him for what he is: an opportunistic, accomodationist andestablishmentarian Republican. Not all republicans are Conservatives.
Texas Jayde| 12.16.11 @ 6:42AM
wow. what an articulate intelligent reply to what is a well-thought out article. go away, clark kent. your mom is calling you to take your meds.
Kenny| 12.16.11 @ 6:57AM
No, clark_kent's mom is callig because his diapers need changing -- again.
Jack in Wi.| 12.16.11 @ 6:49AM
Dream on Quin: Rudy Guilianni tried that in 2008. Nobody bought it then and nobody is buying it now. The reason most people are for Ron Paul is for his views on foreign policy. They were attracted to him because he wasn't preaching endless war for Israel. Peace, small government, and liberty are what we Paul supporters want. We want no more wars based on lies and nonsense. No prowar Republican nominee has a chance of being elected President. The Bush Cheney dimwits are down to about 20% of the country.
Santorum is a disgrace to the pro-life movement. All he cares about is war, war, war. Rick has proved that you can't be pro life and pro endless war. These insane wars have distracted us long enough. 3000 people were killed on 9/11. That many innocent babies are killed every day in this country. We don't need a stinking war to distract us from what is important in this country. Life, peace, prosperity, liberty, small government and sound monetary policy.
Bobbie Jindal is a nice guy, but like Rick Perry way over his head on the national scene. Get used to the fact that it is down to Willard Romney and Dr. Ron Paul. if they can't come together on some kind of comprimise Obama will be re-elected. There is no way most of us will vote for another chicken hawk, warmonger, and pro bankster. candidate.
RustyG| 12.16.11 @ 7:51AM
"Most people are for Ron Paul" ...... really Jack? Does the Wi. mean Wishland? Paul has his Paulbots like you and Clark, but "most people" feel that any candidate on stage last night could beat Obama ......except Paul.
coal carrier| 12.16.11 @ 8:44AM
In the 2008 debate Paul blamed us for being attacked on 911. He claims “our policies” are what drove the radical Muslims into attacking us.
What policies? Does he mean the billions of dollars we give to Muslim countries each year? Is it the disaster relief we give to Muslim countries after an earthquake or tsunami? Was it the military supplies we sold to Saudi Arabia? Was it our involvement in the Gulf War where we freed the Muslims of Kuwait from the invasion by Saddam Hussein? Or was it the when we came to the aid of the Muslim coalition in the Bosnian War that pissed them off?
Well I’m sorry but I don’t believe Ron Paul’s view of the world will keep my family and me safe from radical Islam or anyone else. We don’t need another airhead in the White House. We already have one.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 8:51AM
Do Your Homework.
Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East. As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.
“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.
“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
coal carrier| 12.17.11 @ 8:57AM
Listen Buster; I really don’t appreciate your condescending attitude. I’ve done my homework. You need to take off your Paulbot blinders. I am all for bringing our troops home. Not just from Iraqi and Afghanistan but from Europe and the Far East as well. That is not the issue. Your candidate continuously makes such harebrained statements that he has no business holding a position of authority, especially as POUS. When he says that sealing our Southern Border with a fence “will be used in the future to keep Americans from leaving”, is completely asinine.
My concern with Ron Paul is this; what will he do when the extremists from the religion of peace attack us in the future? Will he retaliate? What will he really do about our open boarder to the South? What will he do about the 20 million illegal nationals? What is his plan? Deportation? Since he is a strict Constitutionalist, there will be no more executive orders; that means he will only act when approved of by the Congress. Do you think for one minute that he has enough political capital to get the Congress to pass a law to deport 20 million people?
How is he going to cut $1 trillion, the first year, from the budget? Remember the President does not have the authority to spend or not to spend one dime, according to the Constitution. So in his proposed budget, what, where and how much is he going to cut? How is he going to get the Congress to do this? I don’t see Ron Paul as an arm twister. He, in my view, is more from the “live and live” mindset.
Oh, and by the way, when I was attending the Tea Party rally in Washington DC a year ago last October, as we walked down to the Capital, I didn’t see anyone with blinders on.
coal carrier| 12.17.11 @ 9:06AM
This is what his official web site states about immigration:
Enforce Border Security
No Amnesty
Abolish the Welfare State
End Birthright Citizenship
Protect Lawful Immigrants
I don’t hear him say how he is going to achieve this.
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 1:17PM
Do Your Homework Busty.
Dr.Ron Paul, " I will ask Congress for A Declaration of War against Iran, if necessary."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
coal carrier| 12.18.11 @ 7:17AM
Yadda, yadda, yadda!
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:00PM
After they get nukes, of course. You know, I don't think the boy has read his Machiavelli, like I did when I was 13. Of course, we specialize differently. He knows how to birth babies; I know how to outwit psychopaths.
Alan Brooks| 12.16.11 @ 9:15PM
"In the 2008 debate Paul blamed us for being attacked on 911. He claims 'our policies' are what drove the radical Muslims into attacking us."
He was correct, we brought it on with our imperialist policies. However in a nationalist world we are no worse than the others. Virtually every nation pursues its self-interest at the expense of the others.
Alan Brooks| 12.16.11 @ 9:17PM
in international relations, national-interest trumps all else, and those with the bigger guns rule and write the history books to glorify themselves.
Oldefarte| 12.16.11 @ 2:52PM
AND THE COW JUMPED OVER THE MOON, WHILE THE DISH RAN AWAY WITH THE SPOON!!!!!!!!!
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 3:04PM
Hahaha!!
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 3:28PM
This is the only intelligent comment you ever posted, Bigot Margie. Stick to this and you'll be ok.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 11:09PM
Stick to the name calling, Papist~ it suits you well, and continues to prove to God just what you really are!
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 5:12PM
Speakin' of Cow's, How's Yo Mama ?
The Tea Party Rebellion Is here And In Iowa.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 10:22AM
I wonder if it was "blowback" when the Barbary Pirates took American sailors hostage for ransom?
"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."...American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas Jefferson Papers"
Gee, I guess we shouldn't have been so interventionist back then. And since there was no Israel for us to support, hence no "blowback" because of it, I wonder why they still attacked us? Maybe its the Jews we allowed to settle in the colonies.
As for the poor innocent Muzzies, even though they believe that Allah tells them to capture or kill the infidel, but it still MUST'VE been & still continues to be, our fault.
You "Blame America Firsters" are a real hoot.
JeffK| 12.16.11 @ 11:58AM
Well done, sir.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 12:13PM
Paultards, like regressives, are very ignorant of history.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 1:49PM
"Pedikaris alive or Raisuli dead." TR
Quartermaster| 12.16.11 @ 8:07PM
Alas, the anti-Paultards are just as bad.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:01PM
No we are not, QM. Sorry. Paul would let madmen get nukes to start using on Europe and the Saudis.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 2:06PM
From Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, March 4th,1801:
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 2:26PM
Do Your Homework.
" Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 3:42PM
Congress explicitly authorized action in Iraq, too, dipshit.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 5:10PM
And Dr. Ron Paul voted to use force in Afghanistan.
Now, Go Fetch Bibi's Bone, Israel Firster Propaganda Clown,Con Job.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:08PM
Followed by: "Defeat the Barbary Pirates by any means necessary."
Quartermaster| 12.16.11 @ 8:06PM
Apples and oranges con Chef. The Barbary Pirates were just Islamists acting like Islamists. The Taliban and Paks are blow back. The Rooskis are getting their own version of it in the Caucasus and near abroad. They are finding you can't confine it to the Maghreb, Levant or central Asia as the Stalinists thought.
Barky| 12.16.11 @ 1:03PM
Quin is right about Gingrich and right about a new candidate entering the race....Please somebody do a poll to ask Republicans: "Are you satisfied with the candidates?" If not, and it will be not, then it's time to look for real conservatives and encourage them to enter the race: Jim DeMint, Sen.Barasso, Steve King, Mike Pence, we have plenty of good conservatives...It's early, the election is 11 months away...a lifetime in politics.
florin| 12.16.11 @ 4:57PM
I believe a new candidate will enter the race...not Bobby Jindall I hope. I think he's a wonderful man but not presidential material yet...Paul Ryan yes ---I think a Romney/Ryan ticket with the state of the economy being what it is would be unbeatable...
Quartermaster| 12.16.11 @ 8:09PM
Oh no. Oh HELL no! Not Romney or the fake Ryan. neither of them have the stones to do to FedGov what we desperately need to have done. You may as well vote for Obama.
Milpundit | 12.16.11 @ 1:26PM
Grow up Clark. This is what pundits do, advance a point. And Quin's reasoning is sound: Gingrich is too flawed and Romney has too much collectivist baggage to move the country back to fiscal sanity.
I've always wondered why Santorum hasn't caught fire with conservatives. Maybe that'll change this year.
Dick Nome| 12.17.11 @ 3:25PM
Ron Paul is a senile old crank, crackpot, neoisolationist. His foreign policy ideas are McGovernesque and more in tune with Obama than anyone else.
As long as he has lived in Texas, he still sounds like he lives in Pittsburg. (just an observation, nothing wrong with that)
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.16.11 @ 7:12AM
Hah! Quin!
I knew you were a closet Santorumite :~)
I'm going to hang in there with Governor Perry. I simply respect him ...and his accomplishments...more than anyone else on the stage.
Heck... I am willing to bet he is voted the most likely to succeed from Paint Creek, Texas
Dave | 12.16.11 @ 9:26AM
Sorry, Ol' Texan, but Perry not knowing how many judges sit on the Supreme Court (9 not 8), the voting age in American is 18 (not 21) and not being able to list at least one department he'd target for elimination or reduction as president ranks right up there with Obama's 57 states tour, and Joe Biden asking a man in a wheelchair to "stand-up" tends to make me a little queasy.
But that's just me. Your queasies may vary.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 1:51PM
Dave:
How many Judges actually sit on the Supreme Court? Surely you don't count Kagen, Sotomayor or Ginsberg among them do you?
To nitpick, there are nine Justices and no Judges.
Alleena| 12.18.11 @ 10:17AM
Rick Perry has been governor of a state for over ten years, and he's done a good job. From that ten years, you extract a few moments and judge him as being unworthy. This gives me the queasies.
martin j smith| 12.16.11 @ 7:36AM
It is possible that Romney and Gingrich will cancel each other out. But, Hillyer as of now Romney joins Ron Paul and John Huntsman on my NO list. I will not support or vote for any of these candidates. I have no confidence in them because Romney and Huntsman are not strong enough or Conservative enough to run against Obama--to weak. Ron Paul may as well be Obama.
Old Soldier| 12.16.11 @ 7:36AM
Oh how happy I would be if Bobby Jindal entered the race! An actual conservative without personal baggage.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 10:46AM
I'm with ya! The guy's a rock star in our party!
Quartermaster| 12.16.11 @ 8:10PM
People didn't do their homework on Dubya, and you aren't doing your homework on Jindal either. He really isn't any better than Bush was.
pnmnm| 12.16.11 @ 11:33PM
Bobby Jindal is the man.
John Daniel| 12.16.11 @ 7:43AM
Maybe Jim DeMint?
chuck| 12.16.11 @ 8:11AM
Seriously? Santorum? Mister End of the Stage, 2% in the polls,but hey, it's a SOLID 2%!
No way. The guy looks like he hasn't taken a dump in a month. The Holier-than-Thou act is really old.
Quin, you are just desperate for Anyone-but-Newt.
And Ron Paul proved that he can never be trusted with the Presidency with his incredibly naive comments on Iran. The Paul-bots' dreams slipped away last night.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 8:44AM
The Neo-Chickenhawk Candidates Are All Doin' TheirSgt. Rock Toughie Girls Purse Swinging , While The Veteran Air Force Officer Dr.Ron Paul Talks Diplomatic Responsibility And Going To Congress For A Constitutional Declaration Of War And Not Allowing The Neo-Chickenhawks To Attempt To Use Our Warriors For Their Cannon Fodder Global Policing.
Where Did Little Ricky, Mittens , Neutered & Michele Serve In The Military?
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
chuck| 12.16.11 @ 8:56AM
Clint robo-post number 83.
You know, at least you are occasionally mildly entertaining. Still full of crap though!
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 9:37AM
Chuckie At The Post Debate Party.
http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....c-head.jpg
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 9:37AM
Chuckie At The Post Debate Party.
http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....c-head.jpg
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 10:25AM
Clint at his "Tea Party" organization:
http://zombietime.com/sf_rally.....palestine/
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 2:09PM
Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Cheerleader Con Job, At A BibiBots For Bibi Rally.
http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....er-jew.jpg
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dai Alanye | 12.16.11 @ 10:32AM
I've been requesting info on Clint's military record so I can publicize his winning the Medal of Honor. But no-one -- not even Clint himself -- is coming through. I'm begun to wonder whether the rumors of his heroism -- based mainly on insinuations by Clint himself -- might be exaggerated.
As for "The Veteran Air Force Officer" Ron Paul, his military service, such as it was, was involuntary. He has admitted to being a draftee not a volunteer. His comments on American military policy qualify him as a chicken, and are entirely unsuitable for calling others "chickenhawk."
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 10:45AM
Clint is a valour thief. He claims his dad was a "Recon Ranger" in WWII & that they liberated a death camp. Yet there's not one mention of the name of said camp. And who the HELL in the Army, other than Vietnam era LRPS, MAYBE, would call themselves a "recon ranger?" Clint's a fraud on may fronts.
I now await the "wanna make something of it cupcake/come to the Tea Party meetings that I claim to be a member of (that was also debunked by another one of our posters here) so I can kick your ass/Israel Firster response. That'll be about 3 sentences. Then he'll post one of his 150 pre-canned screeds.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 2:43PM
Asked & Answered, Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk , Con Job.
Dad was a commander in The 38th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron with Rangers of The 2nd Ranger Battalion attached to him.
They fought from Normandy, to Paris, to The Battle of The Bulge, to Germany, to the link up with The Russkies in Czechoslovakia.
He wears The Bronze Star, The Silver Star, The Fourragere, The Croix de Guerre And The Presidential Unit Citation and mustered out as a Light Colonel.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 3:22PM
Clint:
Many thanks to your father, and you?
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 5:04PM
I was talked to death by the Neo-Chickenhawk Mouth Fighter Candidates At The Battle of RINO Hill.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 5:39PM
Clint:
Thank you for your candor.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 8:35PM
I really really really wanted to enlist but I just couldn't leave my cats.
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 1:08PM
That Wasn't My Post.
That's The Israel Firster Poseur Punk Poster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 3:44PM
Until you post the citations, I don't believe a word that comes from your hands to this keyboard. Every single vet I know, when challenged, can present some record of his service. YOU have been unable or unwilling to do so. Until you do, you're a valour thief in my book.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 5:08PM
Gee, Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Con Job, Neither I Nor My Dad Give A Rat's Rump.
Now, Go Fetch Bibi's Bone.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Con Job.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:11PM
Your dad doesn't care because he's dead. According to you. Would you like me to fetch your comments on that if you state that he's alive here?
Quartermaster| 12.16.11 @ 8:13PM
Are you able to read? Two posts above you you is your answer. he didn't serve and isn't trying to pull teh wool over your eyes. I guess reading is too much to expect of you faux-conservatives.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 2:21PM
" Dr.Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968)."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
SpiralArchitect| 12.16.11 @ 1:40PM
Clint, do you know when the last time Congress declared war...? I do.
Quin, take some time off. Go see a game, any game. Perhaps write about the game. Try to write something where you do not insert NG's name.
Thanks,
TAS Reader Base
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 2:23PM
Yes.
Do You Israel Firster ?
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 3:45PM
He "axed" you first, "Vatican Firster."
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 4:45PM
Anti-Catholic Bigot!
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 4:55PM
Con Chef,
That was not the real Papist Dan, but Margie or Clint.
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 5:10PM
No it wasn't, was me.
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 5:27PM
Clint, Clint, bad boy. You have a history of stealing names. You want to insult someone, have some balls and use your name. Your are confusing Margie by doing this.
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 6:07PM
That was not me either. What's going on? I only insult Margie constantly and nobody else. I have a thing for her, I am obsessed with her personally and I can't stop.
Somebody please help me!
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 6:50PM
Sorry Clint, it is Margie, the idiot. Wait..is margie using clint's name, or clint using margie? is clint margie? is margie clint? is there a difference?
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 8:06PM
That wasn't me, either, it must be the idiot Margie again. Or Clint. It has to be because who else would be doing this? Am I losing my mind here?
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 1:05PM
I'm A Catholic, Who Understands Why Papist Dan Stands Up To American Spectator's Resident Anti-Catholic Bigot, Margie.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 1:11PM
I'm A Catholic, Who Understands Why Papist Dan Stands Up To American Spectator's Resident Anti-Catholic Bigot, Margie.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
PapistDan| 12.17.11 @ 2:19PM
I just thought Margie is too stupid to use my name but she is desperate. OK, sorry for mixup.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 8:32PM
Looks like the Vatican-Firsters have their wittle panties all in a twist!
W| 12.18.11 @ 4:41PM
MullahMargie
You seem obsessed with panties and rooms today.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 9:21PM
Q: What's worse than a combination Paul-bot and Vatican Firster?
A: Nothing!
Well, except maybe for Islamist fundamentalists, they also see fit to cut off the heads and hands and torture the "unbelievers!"
PapistDan| 12.17.11 @ 10:13PM
IdiotBigotMargie,
Now this is funny, the Mullah talking about torture. Is that what you want to do Catholics and everybody else on this site who think your are crazy?
Go read you kenny emails. Sicko.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:18PM
Oh oh!
It's Troll "W" using Papist Daan.
You are a fraud, kiddo. You spoke those same words to me in another thread~ you're slipping!
Repent of your lying and Religious Idolatry.
I am free in Christ to speak His Truth and I judge you a liar and a fraud!
W| 12.18.11 @ 4:33PM
MullahMargie,
As I explained to you before, it is W.
You are not that smart I saw "kenny emails" and like the phrase. This may surprise you but more than one person can use the same english words.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:24PM
By the way, "W" (Papist Dan):
I speak in Scriptures.. you are the one who hates them.
So then, who is the hater and character assassination con artist here, hmmm?
Hypocrite!
Use your own Troll name instead of being a coward AND a liar.
W| 12.18.11 @ 4:37PM
MullahMargie,
You are delusional. Did anyone else use that word in replying to you? Go back and read. Maybe I am that person!
I thought you believe I am Clint? Or am I Papist Dan? Who am I?
You should know by now I have no hesitation in telling you what I think.
W| 12.18.11 @ 4:42PM
MullahMargie
Go read you kenny emails.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:04PM
You're an immature, sickening, filthy, lying, hypocritical, God hating FRAUD.
I hope you repent:
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev.21:8.
W| 12.18.11 @ 11:23PM
MullahMargie
You are a sweet, mature, rational person that everyone here like and compliments, and has converted many to her religious beliefs.
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 2:23PM
Well, snake, you don't get to speak for "everyone".
I notice not a SOUL dares speak to your filthy lying and hounding of a Bible believing Christian~ which means not that they agree with you, you egotistical hypocrite~ but it does mean they are cowards.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:13PM
Hey, Margie, I like you.
By the way, everyone, Margie is capable of very sweet compassion, even for others not of her faith. See her comments on the death of Amy Winehouse (a Jew) and cut her some slack.
Margie and Victor: Merry Christmas!
Dick Nome| 12.17.11 @ 3:29PM
STFU. You haven't served in the military either. I see your insults to those of us who have have ceased. I'll give credit for that.
coal carrier| 12.16.11 @ 8:34AM
With all due respect, Rick Santorum? You can not be serious. Santorum is the consummate politician, used car salesman. You want a blue suit; he’ll turn on a blue light. If he did so well, as he has stated in all of the debates, why did the people vote him out of office from his state? When asked a question you can see he is clearly searching for the answer and winds up spouting off wordy lip service replies. Let’s put it in Jersey terms. He ain’t got it.
Ryan| 12.16.11 @ 8:34AM
Newt is dropping, but his support is apparently a little broader-based. I think that Santorum and Bachmann are too far down to make a definitive resurgence, and they practically need to do better than third - which won't happen - to take Iowa.
I'm no Paulite/Paulbot, but I think he has a good shot there. Newt/Romney/Paul in some order 1-2-3 in Iowa.
Dick Nome| 12.17.11 @ 3:31PM
The 77 yr old Crackpot has little chance.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 12.16.11 @ 8:38AM
Ohhhh Quinn.........NEVER say never...........!
Derek Leaberry| 12.16.11 @ 9:08AM
But for Santorum's dismal 2006 election performance, he would be an ideal candidate. But his re-election for senate produced one of the worst landslides in senate re-election history, rivaling Blanche Lincoln's and Paula Hawkins' record in senate re-election futility. Santorum is yet another victim of the blundering presidency of George W. Bush just as Barack Obama was the chief beneficiary.
Vern Crisler| 12.16.11 @ 9:22AM
I think Newt came across pretty well at the debate last night. Romney was okay but drab as usual. Perry was more relaxed but it's too late for him. Bachman came across as desperate, and thus attacked and attacked to no real purpose. The others were similarly uninspiring. I was impressed by Ron Paul's passion against war, but you need more than passion when it comes to foreign policy. You need hard-headed realism about the dangers in our world, something that Ron Paul and his followers lack.
All in all, Newt is the only one who actually expresses conservatism in a way that is inspiring. The danger for Newt is his Progressive streak, witness his passing invocation of Roosevelt. This is when Newt is at his worst. He will need a Republican Congress to remind him of his conservatism when it comes to actual policy implementation.
Ross Kaminsky | 12.16.11 @ 9:23AM
I agree about Newt, Perry, Bachmann.
I think it's too late for anyone else to get in.
As for Santorum: He always looks constipated. More importantly, he says "I respect the 10th Amendment, but..." whenever it comes to social issues.
The media will correctly portray him as perhaps the furthest right Republican candidate on social issues which will distract attention from the key issue of the economy.
Santorum is a big government Republican who wants to tell people how they should live their lives. Indeed, he told me the latter in person several years ago and I presume he has not changed.
The most conservative part of the GOP might like him, but I don't and the broader electorate will have a very hard time with him.
Anyway, I don't think he'll become a serious contender.
Derek Leaberry| 12.16.11 @ 10:22AM
Although Santorum's chances to be nominated are about as likely as the Washington Wizards winning the NBA title this season, I don't see how Santorum "wants to tell people how they should live their lives." Despite what libertarians might wish and hope for, all societies have some sort of order and some sort of law. The lawless state is a fantasyland for libertarians, a state that can only exist in the febrile minds of neurotics like Ayn Rand. Western Civilization, with it's sense of order and law, not only brought us the most successful civilization on earth, it even allowed for pernicious movements like liberalism, socialism, feminism and liberalism's slutty sister, libertarianism.
Santorum is a supporter of Western Civilization, the civilization that brought us Michaelangelo, Leonardo De Vinci, St. Francis Assisi, the Federalist Papers and Constitution of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, Walker Percy, Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, to name but a few. Santorum will never be president but he has more in common with the aforementioned than any libertarian.
In the world that libertarians wish and hope for, a world with no rules and where people were expected to barter peaceably with one another, John Gault would be robbed of all his goods and murdered and his girlfriend Dagney Taggert would be raped.
W| 12.16.11 @ 10:35AM
Newt is a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, like John McCain, that wants to use the federal government as he sees fit. He just has a different agenda than lefty Democrats who love the power of the federal government. That is why Newt and McCain constantly "work" with lefty Democrats.
Santorum wants to use the power of the federal government for what he views as moral issues such as abortion and marriage. He is more like Abraham Lincoln who used the power of the federal goverment to abolish slavery.
Santorum has no marital infidelity issues, no big consulting fees from the feds, does not blame America for 9/11 and terrrorism, and has been consistent on abortion and cutting taxes.
Vern Crisler| 12.16.11 @ 11:18AM
Not to defend Ayn Rand, but didn't she detest libertarianism?
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 1:54PM
W:
As you note, "activist Conservative" is an oxymoron, another name for big government only in the service of different ideals.
W| 12.16.11 @ 5:05PM
Al Adab,
Most of the current Reps and many Dems love Teddy Roosevelt which proves both favor big government and the only disagreement is who gets the government money. Goldwater wanted to reduce the federal government period and not just change the beneficiaries.
RonPaul want to reduce the federal government but the rest of his views especially on defense and foreign policy make him unelectable in a general election.
Roosevelt is one of the most overrated presidents. He ran as a third party candidate in 1912 thus ensuring the election of Woodrow Wilson, who gave us the income tax and World War I.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 5:37PM
W:
Well I remember reading in Conscience of a Conservative, the great line, "Do not talk about making government more efficient, for I intend to reduce its size." That has been the cry ever since.
Isn't it Walter Williams who had the book titled, "Less Government Means More Liberty"? That should be our watchword.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 2:47PM
Good stuff there, Derek, I must say!!
Hunter| 12.16.11 @ 9:38AM
Very very thin argument against Bachmann.
"but the impression is indelible that she is still too green for the White House"
Unlike a backbencher, voting present, anti-Semitic, communist senator?
bull-gator| 12.16.11 @ 9:39AM
Gov Perry / Gov Walker in 2012.
Mike Hawk| 12.16.11 @ 9:52AM
Pualbot reruns agian. How boring.
Bob K.| 12.16.11 @ 9:57AM
I'm from PA like Santorum. I have serious doubts that he could carry PA if he were nominated.
Although the Republicans control the State now and will have the benefits of controlling the redesign of it's congressional districts it won't help Santorum because there are still about 1 million more registered Democrats in the state than Republicans.
Despite his relative youngness he is an old face here and he has done nothing to make the average voter look at him and see a new and refreshed image.
bill| 12.16.11 @ 11:51AM
I agrre with you.
Santorum is a desperate debater, and lacked leadership and accomplishment.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 1:57PM
No GOP candidate will carry PA. Or NY, NJ, IL, CA either. This election will be decided by Fla, Ohio, VA. No McCain state will realign and the GOP must carry those three to prevail. Which candidate wins those? It is all about the electoral vote not any percentages. The GOP should not even campaign in the above listed People's republics.
Bob K.| 12.16.11 @ 2:25PM
PA went Republican big time in 2010. There is no good reason that it won't happen again with a good candidate. Neither Obama or the Republican candidate will have coattails. They will have to rely on the turnouts in the individual districts to win.
Bob K.| 12.16.11 @ 2:32PM
Republicans won the Governorship and control of the House and Senate in the Legislature. Democrat Congressmen were defeated. A Republican beat Specter for his Senate seat.
Lots of Reagan Democrats live here. I get e-mails all the time from friends who are Democrats who work in skilled trades and who are members of Labor Unions that are anti-Obama.
W| 12.16.11 @ 4:41PM
The main problem in Pa is that Philadelphia produces a 350,000 voter margin that has to be overcome by the Republicans throughout the state. The 350,000 is an average, depending on the turnout from the cemeteries. Reagan and Bush 41 carried Pa, Santorum won twice. It can be won but it is difficult. However, Obama is now a weak candidate, Biden is useless, so a good ticket has a chance. Toomey would make a fine VP, Bush 43 was considering Tom Ridge. They would have carried Pa with Ridge. Ridge wasa very popular governor, a Vietnam vet, but pro choice.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 5:46PM
These are Chicago politicos we are up against gentlemen. Remember Harry Reid and Nevada.
Bob K.| 12.16.11 @ 9:54PM
They are pikers compared to PA politicos!
Al Adab| 12.17.11 @ 12:08PM
Bob K, W:
If you and others like you can indeed deliver PA and its electoral votes to the GOP nominee, you will earn the undying gratitude of us all and the "all cloudless glory" which comes from setting your nation free.
W| 12.17.11 @ 12:32PM
Al Adab,
We will do our best.
I know you don't like Romney, and I respect your opinion, but he has the best chance to carry Pa, or at least make it a fight to force Obama to campaign and spend money here.
Perry , Newt, or especially Bachman have no chance here.
If it is Romney he needs a solid principled conservative, like Rubio or Jindal or Nikki Haley or Paul Ryan. Our current governor, Tom Corbett, is a center-right Republican.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:15PM
Bob:
No, no they aren't. Chicago Pols are bastards of the 1st water.
emo| 12.16.11 @ 6:34PM
I am not sure that no McCain state will flip. I live in GA and it could very well flip. Obama has a 47-48% approval rating in the state, unchanged from his 2008 result.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 6:55PM
emo,
Hard to believe is it not that three years later all the true believers still adhere to the kingdom of broken dreams? Put not your trust in Princes.
USSAlabama| 12.16.11 @ 9:58AM
As the political cream rises to the top and stays there,
Newt was just a curd.
Jeb for President| 12.16.11 @ 10:38AM
Jeb Bush is the last and only hope to win the White House. None of the clowns debating last night can beat Obama. It's time for the GOP to shelve this stupid primary process and go back to smoke filled rooms and choose Jeb Bush. If they nominate Romney or Gingrich I'm burning my Republican Party membership card and I encourage other Republicans to do so.
Vern Crisler| 12.16.11 @ 11:19AM
No more Bushes....
George S| 12.16.11 @ 11:58AM
One of the major reasons, IMO, that Obama and the Democrats are in trouble is that George Bush hasn't said peep since he left office. How they would have loved it if GWB voiced criticism or commented on Obama ala Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. It would have given them the perfect vehicle to continually run the 2008 campaign to this day.
No. More. Bushes. Compassionate Conservatism must go the way of the Pet Rock.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 10:39AM
Santorum is the only true conservative left in the race. He won a House & Senate seat in PA. One of the most union heavy states in the nation. This is a state where people still think that the Democrat party is still the JFK Democrat party.
I know he lost for his support of Exspectorate, but that's the "you fundraise for me, I'll fund raise for you" nature of politics between 2 guys from the same state's Senate delegation. And the times, they have a changed here in PA. The state went red in BOTH chambers of the State House & the Governorship in 2010. The ire against Obama in this state is palpable, especially since his EPA is seeking to stop the Marcellus shale exploration. A decision which would blunt the rather robust revenues this state has seen since the Marcellus filed was found.
And let's face it. Who in the HELL would vote for the doddering old man who thinks we should "talk" to Iran. Gee, that's worked out so well SO far. "Iran's no threat." So I guess the weekly flights (who's only passengers are the Hezbos, IRG & Quds Force operatives) from Tehran to Cairo & then on to Venezuela are just sightseeing tours. And I'm sure that the Hezbos down in Mexico are there only because they're on "holiday."
You isolationist children won't get it until an American city is either immolated outright or irradiated. Or until the EMP goes off. And keep telling yourselves they can't do it. Fools.
W| 12.16.11 @ 10:56AM
Con Chef
I agree. Further, Santorum endorsed Specter at the request of Bush who wanted Specter on the Judicairy Committee for his judicail picks, such as Alito.
Some Pa trivia:
In the 94 primary the Rep Establishment in Pa wanted Teresa Heinz for the "John Heinz" seat that had been given to Harris Wofford by Governor Bob Casey (the smart Bob Casey) when John Heinza died in a plane crash. John Heinz was a terrific Senator and very popular in Pa.
Rick scared off Teresa, and beat Wofford in the election. Teresa then went off and bought herself a Senator, someboy named John K.....something, which was easier than running for office.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 10:59AM
Thanks for filling in those blanks. I wasn't living up here then.
bill| 12.16.11 @ 11:50AM
With all due respect, Rick Perry is the only conservative left in the GOP field, who is articulate, smart, and electable.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 11:55AM
I wouldn't be averse to Perry, either. I just like Santorum better. He's more of a "firebrand" for conservatism. And that's what we need, in my humble opinion.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:18PM
Con: and when the city(ies) are immolated, the Wake Up America! Party will rise, and a terrible vengeance on the Islamic world will be taken....(See Tom Kratman's "Caliphate," called by John Ringo "America Alone" with a body count...)
It is to avoid that bloodbath that we need a resolute man now, not a Paul.
Louis Jenkins| 12.16.11 @ 10:49AM
Well, Newt has compared himself to Roosevelt and to to Wilson. That about bakes the cake the for me. Newt is too bookish, and almost too militant in his knowledge. It will be interesting now that we are past the debating and are getting down to the primaries. How we threw out the best candidates and retain the chaffe is astounding. I smell an Obama vistory, and a loss for the conservatives.
Vern Crisler| 12.16.11 @ 11:21AM
The best candidate -- Sarah -- never got into the race.
bill| 12.16.11 @ 10:50AM
Sen. Santorum is going nowhere. He is neither rising nor falling. His failed senate bid in 2006 ruined his future political ambition.
Gov. Jindal has a bright future ahead. He already endorsed Rick Perry as GOP nominee, and that will give him a VP or a cabinet post if Rick Perry becomes the POTUS.
Santorum is dead water, while Jindal is a rising star.
bill| 12.16.11 @ 10:59AM
In my humble opinion, the Fox GOP debate, the winner is Rick Perry, who was untouched, articulate, and shoed leadership and positive solutions on issues.
Newt was O.K., but was shred by Mitt and Bachmann. Newt is wounded and bleeding. His campaign is severely damaged, and it will cost him.
Mitt was professional and handled his critism well. Yet, he has a long way ahead.
Bachmann remained the conservative candidate who would never hesitate to criticize her fellow GOPers, and ultimately she is hurting her campaign by doing so.
Santorum is boring and fading away.
Huntman worked for Obama, and no boy will vote for him that reason.
The winner is Rick Perry, and he will rise from the ashes.
Vern Crisler| 12.16.11 @ 11:23AM
Wishing won't make it so. I like Rick, and his debate performance was okay this time. It's just a little too late for him this time around. Maybe next time.
bill| 12.16.11 @ 11:42AM
It's never too late.
Rick Perry is a Reaganite republican. He is a problem solver. He is articultae and smart, and he showed us last night debate.
Mitt is far from securing the GOP node.
Newt is wounded and bleeding. He will never recover damages done to his campaign.
Santorum, Bachmann, and Huntsman have no chances.
Ron Paul is a legend.
Therefore, only choice left is Rick Perry, and we are excited about him.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 2:53PM
Haha bill, I admire you're gusto, and you just might be right~ maybe it WILL be Rick Perry, you never know!
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 2:54PM
(Your not you're.)
bill| 12.16.11 @ 11:05AM
Ron Paul is a legend. It does not matter even he loses the GOP node.
He is a protege of "great" Barry Goldwater.
Ron Paul laid out the foundation of conservative movement based on fiscal policy, and that will remain a receipe for the next generation.
Ron Paul is a soldier; he is not a one man army, but a million followers.
I salute Ron Paul.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.16.11 @ 1:39PM
Ron Paul is a charlatan & an nut.
http://predicthistunpredictpas.....te-no.html
In a letter urging various loons, anti-Semites and bigots to subscribe to his newsletter Paul wrote:
"I''ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grover-perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."
- Ron Paul
Yes, folks, Iran with nukes? NO PROB! The Skull & Bones? OH MY G*D, THESE KIDS ARE OUT TO POISON US WITH SHARDS OF GERONIMO'S SKULL!!!
Ru Paul is as laughable as his supporters.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:19PM
Con: Happy Hanukkah, good sir! G-d Bless.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 2:58PM
bill,
He's a legend, but in his own mind!
And he didn't lay out any foundation of conservatism based on fiscal policy and in fact, Michele Bachmann can take more credit for the TEA party than just about anyone if I'm not mistaken.
And the "soldiers" of Ron Paul are a bunch of anti-war, anti-Israel, anti-American blame America Firsters like he is.. a bunch of losers with no place to go but Wall Street to protest BIG GOV.
John Giles| 12.16.11 @ 11:18AM
The SCOTUS made law in Minor v. Happersett that Jindal is not qualified to be POTUS. Respect the Founders generational firewall.
bill| 12.16.11 @ 11:47AM
Because of Gov. Jindal, we captured the state legislatore and all the statewide offices, for the first time since the reconstruction, and not to mention, six out of seven US Representatives are Republicans, and David Vitter is the lone GOP senator.
Democrats have abandoned LA because of Jindal Army.
RCV| 12.16.11 @ 10:14PM
That's nonsense. The SCOTUS in Minor expressly said that they need not, and did not, decide the issue of whether "natural born citizen" included any person born in the United States, whether or not their parents were citizens. Don't you understand how to read case law?
NeilBJ| 12.19.11 @ 10:21AM
Before the court could hear the case brought by Mrs. Minor, the court first had to establish that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. The court had to affirmatively show that she was a citizen. If she was not a citizen the case had to be dismissed.
From Minor v. Happersett:
"Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed. Notwithstanding this the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account. "
The court established Mrs. Minor’s citizenship by construing the definition of natural born citizen in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
From Minor v. Happersett:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
Mrs. Minor was a member of the class “citizen” because she was a natural born citizen. As the court said, it was never doubted that a person born in a country to citizen parents was a citizen. Indeed this person was a natural born citizen. Therefore it was established that the court had jurisdiction and her plea could be heard. Had either of her parents been foreign born there would have been doubt about her citizenship, but as the court said it was not necessary to resolve those doubts. She was a citizen by virtue of the definition of natural born citizen established by the court.
RCV| 12.19.11 @ 7:13PM
...which means that the Court never had to resolve, and did not resolve, the issue of whether a person born in the US whose parents were not citizens are indeed citizens. That's just what I said. Minor does NOT hold that such persons are not citizens.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:22PM
Query, RCV: does this mean that Congress could pass a law eliminating "birthright" citizenship (that is to say, eliminating citizenship being given to a child who was born in the US if neither of his parents are US citizens) and it would probably be ruled constitutional at this time?
Jane| 12.16.11 @ 11:19AM
I saw Huntsman in person, what a sexy dreamy man he is. He's my candidate. His daughters were very pretty and charming too.
Vern Crisler| 12.16.11 @ 11:25AM
Huntsman? Well, he's got about as much charisma as a fish, no matter how photogenic his daughters are. Way too late for him to surge into contender status.
bill| 12.16.11 @ 11:43AM
Huntsman worked for Barack Obama. He's a traiter.
bill| 12.16.11 @ 11:44AM
Huntsman is the Donald Trum, and only difference between them is, one is from NY, and the other is from UT.
fmm| 12.16.11 @ 12:01PM
Heaven help us if this is what people use as meaningful markers in presidential races.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 3:00PM
Jane probably admires the crease in his pants, too.
Dick Nome| 12.17.11 @ 5:21PM
Did you have your kneepads with you when you met him??
John Giles| 12.16.11 @ 11:48AM
"By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” -- From the 9/11 Commission Report, page 147, which describes the motivation of the purported 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
George S| 12.16.11 @ 12:03PM
That's why you seek out these animus-holes and kill them. Wherever they are. Iraq... Afghanistan...
Interested Conservative| 12.16.11 @ 11:54AM
Interesting comments - here are a few more.
1 - Santorum's loss in Pa is more than a stigma - it's a thumpin repudiation. He needed to run for Gov. or hold some other position. It's just too much of a final voter test to overcome.
2 - To a much less extent that's Mitt's problem also - too many losses vs. too few wins. Sure he has the 20% floor of the establishment, but also the 25% ceiling of the "next/best/guy-in-line".
3 - Why is Newt all over the place? Perhaps because he has the very best floor claims (clearly led retaking the house/balanced the budget) to 10% or more of anyone with a memory. What is his ceiling - the anti-Romney number less the effect of the baggage/attacks so far/attitude?
All said - Mitt wins if he keeps more than 2 opponents around him. He's in trouble in a 3 man race or less, unless Paul gains a lot and splits the non-Mitt vote.
Like Santorum, nobody else seems to approach Mitt's 20%, and doesn't seem likely to do so anywhere.
daboss| 12.16.11 @ 11:58AM
what about Gov. Jan Brewer of AZ?
Old Arizonan| 12.16.11 @ 2:28PM
Don't even go there, trust me on this. She let 1070 sit on her desk until the polls told her it was popular. She faced tough primary opposition from Conservatives, Buz Mills, and only 1070 saved her hide. It was a calculated move, not something done from conviction.
John Giles| 12.16.11 @ 12:01PM
Why Rick Santorum Has to Go Home
1. Going nowhere in national polls. Should be excluded from further debates.
2. Worst PA Senate loss in history. Think tank candidate for losers.
3. Zero chance of winning the IA Caucus... or anything anymore. Never ever gonna happen.
4. Endorsed Arlen Specter.
Summary of all of Santorum's debate performances: "I, I, me, ten-years-ago, let-me-get-back-in. Man on Dog! Polygamy!"
The guy is a loser who has already been consigned to the dustbin of history. Let him go.
George S| 12.16.11 @ 12:12PM
Show me any Senator and I'll show you someone who speaks a good conservative game and then falls in line with the Washington establishment when it comes time to put up.
Does John McCain's senate record reflect his 2010 reelection speeches and advertisements? Senators are not leaders. They are get along back scratching get things done compromisers. It's in their political DNA.
Who Knows?| 12.16.11 @ 1:03PM
The troubles with being a junkie of any sort are many and varied, and even “known” by some people, who think confessing that they ARE one means they AREN’T one.
Yesterday, I engaged in conversation with a 75 year old guy about his impending shoulder surgery, and soon enough the subject of medicinal marijuana came up. Before you could say, “Jack Robinson”, I was back in my grass junkie days, needing to explain to this dude---who had never smoked a joint---what it was all about.
It was like what is said to happen right before dying---the whole marijuana dance I’d chosen quickly rushed through my brain as I told him the ups AND downs of it all. After I’d been “clean” for a long enough period, say a year, the first hit was always quite the blissful jolt. And, this led to wanting to do it more and more often, until, of course, being stoned became the norm, and it took more and more to stay in that state. When the deleterious symptoms inevitably arrived, stopping cold turkey was always the remedy, which meant another “jolt”---this one a SOBER encounter with reality.
What does any of this have to do with being a political junkie, and in particular the current GOP primary race?
First off, in a most basic way, we are ALL already political junkies, in that we must get along with other people, so “retail” politicking is ever going on. Those who pay the most attention at the “wholesale” level, indeed all levels, seem to me to juggling at least two “balls”—to begin with, what do they, THEMSELVES, think about the situation, with the necessary focus always on each single candidate, one by one. Now, in our hyper-informational noosphere, the most dominant “ball” is the concern with what the majority of OTHER people will think about the various candidates.
So, we’re all trying to understand the whole game, by taking into account all the out-there “truth” and “facts” about each person---what do I then believe, AND what do I believe OTHER people will believe? I believe it’s the second of these “believe” queries that is in most people’s minds, and is epitomized by the regnant punditry of the top dogs, who have a large audience.
Well---Christopher Hitchens has passed away. Like all atheists, he is meeting his God. However, all of us who are still alive and politically kicking with our “junk”, what do we get to spend our time and attention on---IOWA! Yes, let all of us junkies take a deep breath and recollect our earliest memories about presidential elections, focusing on the Hawkeye state.
For me, it’s the IRRELEVANCE of the Iowa caucuses that arises to mind. Paying so much close attention on them seems to me to be like what sports junkies do, when they get all hot and bothered by, say, NFL draft day, or follow the DAILY goings on of their hometown team and its players and owners, etc.
I’ve only seen one debate, the one before last nights. But, I’ve read a whole lot of live blogging of them all, and many other pundit’s junkie opinions and relayed facts—especially the indispensable Jennifer Rubin---and it sure seems to me that Santorum is destined to be at best a second place finisher. Gingrich is toast, as I long ago proclaimed.
As far as someone else entering the fray, in patriotic disgust at the possible outcome from the currently composed field being a disaster like Newt---maybe, but I highly doubt it. Who knows, though. Maybe, just as a long time overarching consideration of Iowa relegates its caucuses to the minor blip they deserve, the same thing could be so regarding a lot of the other early primaries, because the game isn’t over until it’s over.
For Gingrich, though---the fat lady is NOW singing!
I predict that in the aftermath of the 2012 GOP primaries, future historians will marvel that Newt even managed to stay in the race, let alone temporarily rise to the top of the polling that recently came about. A realist, NOT a cynic, would have to conclude that the majority of Americans is INDEED easily fooled.
Hey, the fools put their foolish champion in the Whitehouse, after all.
edward cropper | 12.16.11 @ 1:36PM
Santorum's only gaff is being himself. He is always angry, always telling us how he did this or that when most politically knowledgeable readers know he supported Specter over Toomey, and lost big in his last race. Knowledgeable yes, but mechanical about it. He inspires absolutely no one.
Mike Hawk| 12.17.11 @ 8:52AM
You have no idea what was going on here in PA at that time. You are very wrong in your assumptions.
Ron| 12.16.11 @ 2:12PM
Sorry to burst the Dr. Paul bubble, I mean besides him being drafted, as previously pointed out...he was a physician in the Air Force. generally, most MDs enter the Air Force or Army (yes, I was in at one point, so I am not a "chickenhawk") as a Captain, maybe even a Major depending on specialty. So, Dr. paul entered at the lower grade, and did not receive a promotion. Also, he more than likely was not in actual command structure, only by virtue of his rank being obeyed. He did not "command" a unit. to me, that shows he did not have what it takes to command a military unit.
Mike Hawk| 12.17.11 @ 8:56AM
I am one of those who pointed that out, having been an Army Medical Specialist. Unless you are a career Military Doc, you go in a Capt and go out a Capt.
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 1:00PM
Dr. Ron Paul Took His Residency In An Air Force Program And Was Promoted To Captain Upon Completion.
" Dr.Ron Paul served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, spending time on the ground in countries like Ethiopia, Iran, Pakistan, South Korea, and Turkey. He also sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:24PM
Wait---he took his OB/GYN residency in an Air Force program? In the 1970s? How busy was that?
David| 12.16.11 @ 2:34PM
Thank you Quin, I have been singing Santorum's praises for more than a year. About the only negative he has other than losing big in his Senate re-election race is his endorsement of Arlan Specter. Nevertheless, I believe he more than adequately explained his decision to do that.
Santorum IS a very good debater, is knowledgeable on both domestic and foreign policy, has zero negative baggage or skeltons in the closet, and has been a consistent, principled conservative throughout his political life. He know what he believes, why he believes it, and can articulate it in a very understandable way to the average voter.
Please folks, take a good look at him. Don't let him fall by the wayside like Fred Thompson did. I am still convinced that Thompson never got "the fire in the belly" because he was not FINANCIALLY supported by those who claimed to want him to be the Repub nominee. Nothing can fire up a candidate like money flowing in and not having to worry about funding. I have seen the passion with which Santorum can debate and he seemed to missing some of that in the first and only debate I saw last night.
I think I will send him a little something - even if it is 5 or 10 dollars.
Santorum IS the only (maybe other than the short political life of Bachmann) consistent, and principled conservative in the race, and he has proven that over more than 20 years in public life.
He is no Gingrich or Romney. We know exactly how he will govern. He is a thoughtful, intelligent, well-studied candidate for President, and he is a very likeable candidate.
To everyone who likes him (not necessarily supports him at this time), he is worth spending 5 bucks on to keep his serious-minded solutions to problems out front throughout the republican primaries.
Thanks again, Quin.
Resist We Much! | 12.16.11 @ 2:49PM
Ron Paul: See No Newsletters. Write No Newsletters. Read No Newsletters.
http://predicthistunpredictpas.....te-no.html
Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign
http://predicthistunpredictpas.....ation.html
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 4:59PM
Asked & Answered In The 2008 Election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Resist We Much! | 12.16.11 @ 5:50PM
Nope. Besides, if you think those newsletters wouldn't kill Paul in the general, then you are as nuts as he is.
I am a libertarian and he embarrasses the hell out of me.
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 12:55PM
There Are At Least 10 types of Libertarians And Shades In Between, Including You Neo-Libertarians,Who Got An Israel Firster Agenda, Sport.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
David| 12.16.11 @ 2:53PM
Santorum has always been an underdog in PA and won all of his races until 2006, when the entire country (especially conservatives) were furious at the Republican controlled Congress. Remember how we all felt they squandered the great opportunity they had to lead and properly govern. You can blame Santorum's Senate loss as much on the entire Repub Congress as much as on Santorum himself.
I would like to see the minutes that each candidate had to speak at last night's debate. Seems to me that Santorum got short-changed. I could be wrong, but it seemed that Gingrich and Romney had far more speaking time than the other candidates. And I don't think the rule is that the frontrunners get more time than those running behind.
Oldefarte| 12.16.11 @ 3:07PM
Again, Santorum will neither be the Republican nominee nor the next president. His whole sticht is social conservatism [abortion prevention] which will never fly with the general electorate; and additionally he whines too much. Due to his recent political history in Pennsylvania, he should simply pull a '''''KENNEDY'''''' and establish residency in say a southern state and sell his social conservatism bonofides for state office there!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 12.16.11 @ 3:09PM
I mostly go with Rush who is predicting a four candidate contest....Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann [good candidates all]!!!!!
Liberal Soup n Crackers| 12.16.11 @ 3:19PM
You are clearly clueless in these endeavors. The ONLY way Santorum has ANY chance is if he can win Iowa and then take SC and/or FL. How do you propose he do that?
TommyFrisco| 12.16.11 @ 4:02PM
What is very clear to me from watching these GOP debates is that Michelle Bachman is Mitt Romney's attack dog. She has never attacked Romney, but has gone after every other candidate that has risen in the polls and threatened Romney's nomination. It is clear that she is not the "serious candidate" she claims to be. I think her goal all along has been to be Romney's VP and probably worked that out with Romney before she entered the race. I consider her to be a traitor to the Tea Party and to the other GOP candidates.
Dixie Pixie| 12.16.11 @ 4:16PM
Is there any physical evidence that Mittens Romney is “Electable”?
His base in the Republican Party is around 20% and the Republicans are are around one half of the total electoral population.
As a result Romney can count on only 10% of the electoral population to vote for him where as the Democrats can count on around 40% of the electoral population.
Where is the “Electability” in starting with a 30% deficit to Obama?
MikeG| 12.16.11 @ 7:40PM
Dixie
You are one dense Dix. What do you mean by physical evidence? You think this is CSI? The only "physical" evidence is the vote tally on election day. Until then we have polls. Romney beats Obama consistently in the national polls as does Newt. So because Romney gets 20% in the primary polls you think he can "count" on only 10% in the election. By you logic Newt and every other Republican is in the same box as Romney because they can only count on half of their current primary poll number.
I hope you are not a math teacher. Or maybe you are a public school math teacher.
Dixie Pixie| 12.16.11 @ 11:53PM
Greetings MikeG
Considered your chain pulled.
None of the numbers generated by the MSM make any true sense.
All the “Polls” so far are subject to mathematical manipulation through question selection and the over-usage of weighting factors.
My point is until actual voters go to the polls there is no real evidence that any candidate has any support.
To state that that any candidate has a lock on “Electability” based on such dubious polling is a Psychic projection at best and a PSYOP operation at worst.
The above post was a mathematical demonstration that at best Mittens Romney has at best a 10% chance at winning the Presidential contest.
That is nowhere a lock on “Electability”.
In short any electoral mathematical formula is speculation at best and a joke until proved otherwise.
MikeG....enjoy the madness while it lasts as the political system is so diddled no one really knows what is going on.
Dixie Pixie| 12.17.11 @ 12:19AM
Oops...Sorry...Make that 10% chance into a 10% electoral base for winning the Presidential contest.
You have my humble apologies for the error.
MikeG| 12.18.11 @ 10:13AM
Dixie Pixie
Why are you interested in chain pulling. A southern belle, naughty naughty.
Your math is way off. Try again. Polls are not 100% accurate but they are a good predictor. If they weren't why would the candidates spend so much money on internal polling? Companies use polling and surveys to test products and services. Some pollsters are better than others because they use larger samples and test probable voters instead of all registered voters.
We will know by March or April how accurate these polls are.
Dixie Pixie| 12.16.11 @ 4:17PM
Is there any physical evidence that Mittens Romney can draw enough votes get over 50% of the Presidential vote.
He has a perfect Ruling Class background and resume but will enough of the population actuality vote for someone of the same class of people who got us in this mess in the first place?
In a vote with real voters the winners were Bachmann, Ron Paul and Cain not Romney.
Mittens Romney has always been the nice guy with a gold-plated resume who only the RINO faction cares about to vote for him.
Mr Electoral Excitement he is not and never will be, as there is no hint of passion in him.
Dixie Pixie| 12.16.11 @ 4:20PM
Mittens Romney is the person the RNC, Obama and the MSM all want to run in the general election.
The fix is so obvious that it begs the question, why does the Ruling Class and Washingtonian Elite want a Romney-Obama contest?
Could it be the Ruling Class considers a Romney administration a continuation of the Obama Regime.
Or could it be Obama and the Democrats feel confident that Mittens Romney can be easily beaten.
Why else would the Democrats try to fix the Republican Primaries if it not to insure Obama's reelection.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 5:32PM
Dixie:
Thank you for finally joining in. Your posts above make sense, as always.
Dixie Pixie| 12.17.11 @ 12:33AM
Greetings Al
It is always a pleasure to hear from you.
Any ideas on my above questions?
Why is the Ruling Class doing its best to fix a Romney-Obama Presidential contest?
The only reason I can come up with is the Ruling Class loves the current looting of the populace by the Federal Government as it spends all that looted money on itself !!!!!
Thus the idea that Romney would be a Obama second term without Obama.
Any other ideas?
Feel free to speculate.
This is The American Speculator after all.
Al Adab| 12.17.11 @ 12:13PM
Sure Dixie,
You actually hit it on the head. Obama v Romney is a distinction without a difference. Only the degree of centralization and tyranny differs. Even were Romney to win, his administration would not undo but simply moderate the worst excesses of Obama.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 12:39PM
If you can say this about Romney~ then consider RON PAUL vs OBAMA!
Al Adab| 12.17.11 @ 1:16PM
That matchup would be terrifying as well as pointless Margie.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:05PM
Pointless for sure. So pointless that I will not vote at all if that is the case.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:26PM
Margie, dear---you need to vote for your Congressman and Senator, if available---you can't skip the vote. Paul vs Obama would make me vote for you or your husband as a write in.
Oldefarte| 12.17.11 @ 4:24PM
With all due respect to ALL, if the hope & desire [no change!] is a stabilization of this country's economy and its survival, I would hope & pray [again no change!] that sane, semi-intelligent, rational, capitalistic-oriented taxpayers-voters will overwhelmingly crawl to the polls on 11/4/12 and defeat the incombent socialist-in-chief. Otherwise, THERE WILL SIMPLY BE NO COUNTRY LEFT AFTER FOR MORE YEARS OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. If anyone fails to understand this [and which is precisely the reason why 11/4/08 occurred, and why we no are in the deplorable economic conditions from the last three years], then there is simply NO HOPE. As bad as 'mittens Romney' might possibly be, at least he is a semi-normal CAPITALIST. I am certainly not promoting his candidacy over the other Republicans, but if it somehow becomes a choice of Romney or Obama, there will be no choice as far as I'm concerned [since I don't wish to see this country turned into Cuba North in the following four years]!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 8:24PM
"At least he's a semi-normal CAPITALIST."
We got it. Of course Romney would get my vote. A part-time Capitalist all together preferable to a full time Socialist, not to mention an unrepentant one!
Besides, we could prevail upon Romney and if enough conservatives make a fuss and say, call him up at home (the White House), well, he's more persuadable than ANY Socialist.
Look at Obama & the Dems~ they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the Keystone deal.
Why??
Because there's no government fingers in this pie.
Unlike Soylandra.
TommyFrisco| 12.16.11 @ 4:36PM
Because Romney is able to get a near constant 25% of the polling (votes), he will be helped in the primaries because of the proportional voting until April 1. It will be difficult for any other candidate to do consistently well in every state especially while the conservative votes are spread between multiple candidates. Thus, by April 1, Romney will have an unsurmountalbe lead. He will get his much sought after Christian votes in the general election when he announces Michelle Bachman as his VP. I think that deal was made before she entered the race.
The only way to avoid the above scenario is by consolidating the conservative votes towards one of the other candidates.
Mary Beth| 12.16.11 @ 4:40PM
I'm a catholic school girl from Philly and I'm voting for Rick Santorum. I'm pro-life and heterosexual amd plan to have a large family. Vote Santorum for President.
West Houston| 12.16.11 @ 5:22PM
I would be interested to learn when the last "drafted" candidate participated in a presidential election.
Al Adab| 12.16.11 @ 5:30PM
1964
steven s| 12.16.11 @ 7:05PM
Q Hillyer is either asleep and dreaming-- or into some serious drugs!
Absolutely NO CHANCE of a 'draft someone else' movement at the GOP conventiion...
Dixie Pixie| 12.17.11 @ 12:58AM
Here is a funny thought.
How about a “Draft Harrison Ford” movement.
Al Adab| 12.17.11 @ 12:18PM
Harrison Ford? Isn't her name Calista also?
Dixie Pixie| 12.17.11 @ 4:13PM
Al....You must know something about the Ruling Class women that is not common knowledge.
Callista Gingrich can not be as bad as Her Imperial Majesty, High Queen Michelle Obama.
David| 12.16.11 @ 7:59PM
Sorry Oldfarte, but you don't know Santorum if you think all he is about is social conservatism. The guy is well-studied and has practical, serious solutions to a bunch of problems both domestic and foreign. He just happens to be the one in the race who is the most vocal on social issues, and that may bother you and some others, but at least he is consistent and explain why he believes what he believes. Come now, how many elections did he win in a heavily democratic state? Again, he lost his Senate race because the entire mood of the country (including conservatives) were riled-up at the Republican controlled Congress. How soon people forget history. And that is another reason why Bam Bam has a good chance to be re-elected no matter who the repub candidate is.
Oldefarte| 12.17.11 @ 4:41PM
David, with all due respect, Santorum is not nor ever will become the solution. He is the epitome of the Washington insider, career congressional politician [although a Republican and a conservative]. Similar to many others, he has spent his whole professional life incased in the halls of congress VOTING YEA OR NEA. He has never run/managed/administered a business, a state, a governmental entity, etc; and has no practical experience doing so. The office of presidency is what's known as the ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, as in managerial abilities required. That is precisely why this country is now on auto-pilot, because El Chosen One's only professional abilities are in voting for legislative bills, and his only desire is to perpetually campaign for office with his H&C bullexcrement of propaganda that effectively brainwashes a certain segment of the ignorant population into voting for him. What's needed is a president who knows how to sit behind the desk in the oval office of 1600, listen to advisors to obtain information, and thereafter to solely make informed decisions [popular of not] as to what is best for the overall benefit of the country's welfare. All presidents [past and present] who sole professional abilities came from governmental legislative careers have been failures and whose polices slowely destroyed this country. The most beneficial presidents have been former state governors with inclusions of private industry professional experience. Again, Rick is great beating the drums of anti-abortion, but sadly that issue is only solvable by the moral improvement of the populace from their inner religious committments of right and wrong [and will never be rectified by government policies]!!!!!!
Bob| 12.16.11 @ 8:12PM
Tricki Nikki backs Willard the Rat. Naughty-Naughty bad little Carolina girl. The GOPuke right-wing is steaming now. Farewell to the Speaker of the Blouse and his gem of a wife. He looked and sounded stupid, stupid is as stupid does.
Dan| 12.16.11 @ 9:51PM
Please, Santorum is a guy who couldn't win re-election in his own state and was just kicking around with nothing to do. What a great reason to vote for him for president.
Mike Hawk| 12.17.11 @ 8:11AM
He was elected twice here in PA. '06 was a Dem year with Fast Eddy Spendell as Mayor of PA and a bland cabdidate with nothing but his father's name running against him. The Republican Senate Camapaign Committee pulled the rug out from under Rick Santorum, George Allen and Jim Talent, all excellent men yet supported the uber-RINO Lincoln Chaffee. The establishment Republicans went down in flames and we lost a superb Senator to a gray gossamer weenie Bob(with one 'o') Casey. Snarlin; Arlen Specter also stabbed him in the back. Rick Santorum is a fine candidate as are many of them.
Bob K.| 12.16.11 @ 10:05PM
If Jindal has prepared himself to run he could have a chance. A good chance. If he's not prepared he should stay out. He is still young enough to be a viable candidate in the next 2 elections.
Anders13| 12.16.11 @ 11:34PM
Mr. Hillyer, we agree. Santorum will win Iowa. Newt will be second. Either Huntsman or Bachmann will be third. The rest don't matter.
POST American| 12.17.11 @ 1:03AM
----Great piece!
BTW ----ONCE AGAIN-----
"Notice, as the campaign season approaches,
the REAL issues are withdrawn, if indeed,
they were ever even mentioned in the first
place."
AS Congress passes, and the President is
about to make law, the destruction of
posse commintatus ---and the authorized
'disappearance' of American citizens here
and abroad (---North Korea being the ONLY
other state in history to openly carry such
a law on the books) -----UH------ it might
be refreshing for some of the AS staff to
fearlessly bring a CLUE to the table.
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
Mike Hawk| 12.17.11 @ 8:19AM
The term 'electable' is downright stupid. It is meaningless. Obama was 'unelectable' , Capt McQueeg was the only one 'electable' who could beat Hildebeast, the presumed Dem noninee in '08. None of it held true. It was all horse hockey.
Oldefarte| 12.17.11 @ 4:48PM
If Obama was 'unelectable', then SHAZAM, WTF happened? Answer, THE COLLECTIVE STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER-VOTERS in allowing him to beome ELECTED [and the same damned thing will occur on 11/4/12 if understand that IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!
David| 12.17.11 @ 10:58AM
Mike, both are good comments.
Proud Mormon| 12.17.11 @ 12:00PM
Mitt has made a mistake. He's courting the Tea Party. Forget it the Tea Party is the opposition worst then the Democrats. You can win both the nomination and the election without these right-wing zealots.
Al Adab| 12.17.11 @ 12:21PM
Pride commeth before the fall. You do make the point however, that a Romney administration - centralizing, big government, liberal - would differ only in degree from the policies of the current administration. Slow death by tyranny (statism) is death just the same.
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 4:16PM
" CHARLESTON, S.C. – Mitt Romney made a direct appeal today for support from the Tea Party here, and said outright that chief rival Newt Gingrich does not represent the views of a movement that has craved outsiders who will change the culture of Washington.
“I recognize that the speaker has a big lead here,” Romney told reporters after a town hall meeting. “But I think as people take a closer and closer look, they’ll recognize that I reflect more effectively the positions which they hold on key issues.”
“I line up pretty darn well with Tea Partiers,” he added."
We Tea Party Patriots Are Fallin' For RINO-CINO Frontman,Mittens Romney's Shuck & Jive Aboit RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
RCV| 12.17.11 @ 2:29PM
As a Democrat observing the ever-changing GOP primary landscape with fascination, let me offer my take on the situation as it appears to me now:
To the horror of traditional conservatives, Ron Paul appears poised to win Iowa. Gingrich has absolutely no ground organization; for the Iowa caucuses, such an organization is essential to a victory, as I've learned from on-the-ground-in Iowa experience. It's why Hilary lost in 2008. Paul has the best organization, and the troops are zealous. Gingrich's toxicity is also becoming evident to growing numbers of Republicans. The only question is whether enough of his defectors will go to Romney to edge out Paul.
After Iowa, Gingrich will plummet precipitously, and Romney will win decisively in New Hampshire.
The big question, then, will be whether most Republicans will reconcile themselves to Romney as Tea Party favorite Gov. Haley of South Carolina has done, or whether they will coalesce around Gov. Perry or a new hope, as Quinn postulates. Any of these three scenarios are plausible at this point, although I think the latter is less plausible than Quinn believes, given the lateness of such an entry. Probably only Palin could generate the enthusiasm necessary to overcome a lack of organization in place.
Interesting months ahead to be sure.
RCV| 12.17.11 @ 3:56PM
Sorry for the misspelling of your name, Quin.
Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:27PM
RCV: Paul will lose Iowa.
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 4:19PM
" The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17 "
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Salt Lake Ken| 12.17.11 @ 6:04PM
Romney is pulling away in Iowa, leading big in NH and closing in Fla. With Nikki Haley's endorsement we have a chance to win SC. 3 out of 4 for sure and it could be a clean sweep for Mitt. Primary campaign over by February. On a side note Newt was a disaster in his last two debates effectively ending his campaign.
Jacob R| 12.18.11 @ 8:08AM
Did Gingrich insult you? A lot of these RINOs seem bitter about some personal grudge with Newt and then they throw everything up on the board and hope something pisses people off enough to not vote for him.
You're really telling us that one of his main weaknesses is the fact that he eats pastries? You sound like a bitter insecure schoolboy, gleeful that his sparring partner is fat and thus gives him an easy insult to level.
"What do you mean why is he a loser?!?!? HE'S FAT!!"
You look a little pudgy yourself, and dorky. I think you support Romney because both of you guys look like dorks.
There..now I've given expert political analysis and I want to know when AmSpec is going to hire me!
Ken Royall| 12.19.11 @ 1:25AM
Jindal is not getting in the race and Santorum's campaign is all but dead. This article is absurd. Romney will be the nominee and the next president.
thesquareglobe| 12.19.11 @ 5:54AM
Money quote from the article:
"Lord forbid, Jeb "it's my birthright" Bush."
Does the mainstream media actually believe that republicans throughout the country want yet another another Bush?
This isn't a monarchy yet...
Anyway, Jindal blew himself in the foot with his disastrous response to the State of the Union a few years back.
On a separate note, and I find completely dumbfounding; Gingrich should fire his campaign manager tomorrow.
Gingrich didn't climb in the polls from his advice, he climbed because he was loud, mean and old angry Gingrich in those debates.
Who isn't pisse* off these days?
Now they have him smiling and fawning at every question, a huge mistake.
Silly...
Jerry| 12.19.11 @ 7:34PM
I believe Mr. Hillyer is fully aware that Ron Paul does not "blame" America for the 9/11 terrorist attack. He knows that Ron Paul's statements about Islamic terrorism is intended to explain to an unaware public a primary reason for the attack from the perspective of the attackers. The massive disinformation campaign by Mr. Hillyer and others (Mark Levin, David Frum, etc.) against Ron Paul is intended to discredit and him. If they really believed Ron Paul has no chance to win the nomination, why devote so much effort to attacking him. Why do they repeatedly call him a "nut" and spread so many falsehoods and lies? What these fools fail to realize (but will someday grasp) is that whoever wins the Republican nomination will probably need the Ron Paul wing of the party in order to win the general election. At that time they will regret their current efforts that essentially insult both Ron Paul and his supporters.