The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Streetcar Line

About Santorum, Pundits Pathetically Failed

By on 1.6.12 @ 6:09AM

They were dead wrong about him before Iowa, and now they’re dead wrong about his staying power.

Most pundits don’t understand politics. For that matter, many leading conservative activists don’t really understand politics. If they had, they would never have written off Rick Santorum as a presidential candidate — and they wouldn’t be rushing, right now, to say that he has no staying power.

In fact, it’s really pathetic to think back on how many times conventional wisdom, even conservative conventional wisdom, got things wrong.

Ronald Reagan was too old to be elected president. Then he was certainly too old even to run for, much less win, a second term. Bill Clinton destroyed himself as a national figure with his horrible 1988 Democratic National Convention speech. Republicans couldn’t possibly win Congress in 1994 (or ever). Republicans couldn’t possibly lose seats in 1998 because the non-presidential party always picks up seats in the sixth year of a president’s term. George W. Bush couldn’t win in 2000 unless he picked a running mate who was a moderate from a big swing state. Republicans couldn’t win the Senate in 2002 because president’s parties don’t win new congressional majorities in mid-term elections. Nobody really cares about restraining federal spending so Bush was politically right not to worry about it. Barack Obama couldn’t possibly beat Hillary Clinton in 2008 (nobody could beat Hillary in 2008). John McCain couldn’t possibly win the Republican nomination that year after his campaign team blew up early in 2007. The Tea Parties weren’t a real movement but merely Astroturf that would disappear. Rick Perry was a juggernaut who couldn’t be stopped this year. Then Newt Gingrich peaked at just the right time and had made this year’s campaign into a two-man race with Mitt Romney, with Gingrich the likely victor. Oh, yes: And Rick Santorum never had a chance.

Yeah, right. Tell me another one, Kojak.

As one who has nearly worn out my vocal chords trying to convince conservative leaders for a full year that Santorum had a real shot (and who accepted none of that “wisdom” in the paragraph above except, before the battle was really joined, the bit about Hillary being sure to beat Obama), it always astonishes me how seldom so many smart people actually pay attention to political fundamentals.

For instance: A) In Iowa and New Hampshire especially, personal voter contact matters. Actually, it matters everywhere, if given a chance to matter. Rick Santorum clearly was outworking everybody, and was building the finest grassroots organization in terms of both breadth and depth of actual political skills that has been seen in Iowa since Jimmy Carter put the state on the presidential map in 1976 — but pundits wrote him off anyway. B) Past performance matters. Rick Santorum has a history of winning races as an underdog, of attracting blue-collar workers, of peaking his election campaigns at just the right time (i.e., right around the day of the election), and of being an effective retail campaigner. C) Context matters in assessing past political performances. If somebody lost, did he lose by bigger or smaller margins than others of his party running in the same state or district at the same time? If somebody won, did he outperform others of his party, or just ride somebody’s coat-tails? If somebody lost in a nearly impossible year, does that make him more of a “loser” than somebody who chickened out of running for re-election in that same year? (Can you say “Mitt for Re-Election in Massachusetts? Oh, you mean there never was such a campaign? Gee, what a winner Romney must be!” Not exactly….) The fact is, Rick Santorum has one of the most impressive résumés that we’ve seen in a long, long time, in terms of being a vote-getter outperforming others similarly situated.

D) How well does somebody actually demonstrate a level of knowledge that will impress voters in the long run? Does he actually know the issues for the race he’s running (or is he all Texas hat but no federal cattle, which isn’t a character flaw but is a sign of insufficient experience)? Is he likely to be embarrassed by new revelations or reminders of past transgressions? If a candidate has low and/or correctable down-side risks — as the thoroughly knowledgeable Santorum does — but a big potential upside (again, Santorum appealing to Iowa’s large social-issues contingent and appealing to middle-class voters with his focus on blue-collar economic concerns), then, by golly, the candidate bears watching.

E) Is a candidate who has risen spectacularly in the polls somebody with obvious staying power? This was the question, in retrospect, that so many pundits obviously failed to ask when proclaiming first Perry, and then Gingrich, as the certain “conservative” finalist against Romney. How could they ignore Perry’s lack of national-issue experience or his lack of disciplined advance preparation on those subjects? How could they ignore the overwhelmingly obvious fact that nobody had thrown a single political punch at Gingrich in months and that he had a long history of being supremely vulnerable to political punches?

These are just some of the considerations that should always go into political analysis/prognostication. Now, obviously, with so many people writing off Santorum so consistently, his road was a tough one and it was not clear to anybody that he actually would pull off a surge. But it should have been clear that he had as good a chance, if not better, than anybody to do so and to do it at just the right time. It also should have been clear that if he didn’t do so, it was just as likely for a new entrant, a Candidate X such as Bobby Jindal or Paul Ryan, to catch fire as it was for either Perry or Gingrich to hold their earlier high positions despite their manifest weaknesses. The Perry and Gingrich stumbles, in short, were eminently foreseeable. The Santorum rise was not inevitable, but either it or a Candidate X should have been obviously at least as feasible, if not more so, than a Perry or Gingrich victory.

Likewise, pundits still write off Santorum in the long run. Are they still not paying attention? Have they not seen that he has diligently built solid organizational bones in New Hampshire and South Carolina even as he worked Iowa like an indefatigable trooper? Have they not seen how fast money flows to a candidate who seems on the rise? Did they not see how Obama and Carter and Dole and Kerry and G.W. Bush all used Iowa success as a springboard to their eventual nominations? Did they not see how Huckabee came within a Fred Thompson last-stand of doing the same thing in 2008? Why should all of these candidates have had staying power after Iowa success, but Rick Santorum not have it? Does he not have a long record of showing major political skills? Or was it just happenstance that he won four elections in a blue-tinged purple district and a blue-tinged purple state and then became the third-ranking Republican in the Senate?

As a purely analytical matter, what I wrote way back in July of 2010 – yes, a year and a half ago — remains true: “[C]onservatives do themselves and their cause a huge disservice if they don’t take a Rick Santorum candidacy seriously. It would be crazy not to acknowledge that the odds seem long. But he has beaten the odds, repeatedly, before, and he knows how to leverage public opinion for conservative ends. ‘I’m someone who moves the ball,’ he told me. ‘I get a lot of stuff done.’”

None of this means Santorum’s road to victory will be the slightest bit easy. It is, however, far more likely that he will traverse it successfully than most pundits, even now, will recognize.

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 (206) |

William R| 1.6.12 @ 6:17AM

And you're dead wrong to think Rick Santorum is any kind of conservative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'----Ronald Reagan

Hillyer, Santorum is the epitome of what's wrong with the Republian party.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 7:01AM

William: Boy are you right on that. Santorum has been a flunky and lobbyist, who made over 1.5 million in his last months, before running for the nomination. He is Rupert Murdoch's toady and has been his employee. Santorum in the unlikely event that he was nominated would get almost zero votes from the young, Independents, and disaffected Democrats. This chicken hawk warmonger and hate monger wants to strat an agressive war against Iran which violates every concept of International Law and Catholic Just War Doctrine. He is another Bush in a country that hates Bush and everything he stands for. I predicted the demiseof Bachman, Perry, cain, and Gingrich. Santorum is just another Talk Radio, Fox News puff up. He will sonn be gone and good riddence. He is as dumb as astump and as likeable as halitosis. One good thing about Santorum's rise is that the wars and endless aid to Israel will continue to be discussed in the debates. The public hates both and the more it is discussed the better. Hillyer here fails to mention that Ron Paul has a huge surge in New Hampshire. In the poll he quotes Ron had 24% of the vote to Romney's 38%. This poll was taken after Iowa. Santorum did get a nice boost to 11%. Independents can vote in the Republican primary in New Hampshire. Ricky and his warmongering, are anthelma to most Independents.

Doctor Right| 1.6.12 @ 8:01AM

More delusion from Jack.

It's funny, actually.

chuck| 1.6.12 @ 8:16AM

And kind of sad really. He seems so desperate now that "the Messiah" came in a disappointing 3rd.

chuck| 1.6.12 @ 8:50AM

Can we go back to discussing beer?

Patrick| 1.6.12 @ 4:00PM

Sure, lager or ale?

Blackwatch| 1.7.12 @ 11:19AM

Stout!

Derek Leaberry| 1.6.12 @ 9:59AM

Some of the more vociferous and subservient Ron Paul backers at this site do not seem to understand how they hurt Paul's cause with their puerile, barely readable posts. In the end, Paul has peaked at 21 % in Iowa and should return to asterisk status by Ash Wednesday.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 10:33AM

Derek. Santorum is going to be a lot of fun. From now on the wars will be a main focus of the debate. I will state right now. Ron Paul either wins New Hampshire or comes in a strong second. New Hampshire allows independents to vote. They won't vote for your pal Santorum. They gave a lot of votes to mavericks like Buchanan, McCarthy, and McCain. Ron Paul has alresady won. No prowar zoombie Republican like Santorum has any chance in a national election.

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 10:58AM

And what about the 'wars' going on currently in your supposedly home state of Wisconsin, with the labor union thugs threatening Scott Walker' life????????????????????????????????

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 1:32PM

I comment for Walker in the local fishwrap like I do here. In fact I was the first one to advocate for taking bargining power away from the unions, long before Walker came out with his proposal. I did it many times on the main political webbsite in this state where the governor or his aides were fighting with the union thugs like we do here. So I hope Walker wins. But the main battle to save this country is in the national elections. Another Bush will be the end of the Republican party and good riddence to it. It is Ron Paul or ruin. I will never vote for another liar and warmonger like Bush.

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 3:42PM

Right church, wrong pew! The critical problem has never, is not, nor will ever be Bush-like Republicans. IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS! Whatever the Republican choice is less the issue than that it be a REPUBLICAN, because if not, then this country is toast with a capital T. Your governor is a direct example of the national crisis which you site, since has been politically targeted by the Chicago community organizing street thugs that are now in charge of this country, and is under a huge nationally organized assault by labor unions under the direction of national Democrats in Washington DC and in Chicago. Walker's political problems are in no way/shape/form a local, statewide issue, and anyone believing same is [1] a fool and [2] stupid. Wisconsin and Oahio represent battlegrounds for labor unions due to Walker's and Kasish's union elimination activities in order to save their state governments from financial ruin. As Wisconsin and Ohio go, so goes the nation as November gets closer, and you can extrapolite what is happening in your state to this nation as a whole as this election nears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 7:14PM

"IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!"

Thank ye once again, Oldefarte!

TimK| 1.8.12 @ 7:37AM

Oldfarte needs to catch up. It is the "Progressives and Conservatives" now. Every president since Reagan was a progressive. Democrat or Republican. It's what's causing MOST of our problems, less liberty - big government.

TrueBlue | 1.6.12 @ 12:24PM

The fact that independents can vote in Iowa and New Hampshire is the ONLY reason Paul polls well in those two states for the REPUBLICAN nomination. Paul's campaign will flouder as soon as they start hitting states that require you to actually be a registered Republican.

At least Rand has acknowledged that a third party candidacy for his father would be a bad idea. Too bad most of Dr. Paul's fanatics won't accept that.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 1:24PM

The Republicans are down to about 25% of the national vote. In order to win the Republicans much attract the votes of many independents, disaffected Democrats and the young voters. Ron Paul runs by far the best among those branches of the voting public. They will also have to keep the the libertarian and real conservatives who want Ron Paul. No pro-war Republican can be elected. If Mutt Romney is the nominee he will have to change tack fast and come out for peace. He will have a hell of a time doing that from the box the neocons have placed him in. Frankly if Ron isn't the nominee, I expect Obama will be re-elected by a large majority. He has the demographics on his side and the Republicans will be offering warmed over Bush and attacking Michelle Obama's big fat rear end. Not a winning platform.

TrueBlue | 1.6.12 @ 2:33PM

I believe in peace, "Peace through Superior Firepower." Practice Total War, not fighting to make friends. Someone attacks you, grind them into the ground until they beg for mercy. No matter how much you try the person that loses will always hate you, may as well get the point across. The Islamic fanatic groups have all declared war on the West, accept it. If we don't fight them on their shores we'll be fighting them on our own. Better for their factories and homes to be blown up than ours.

I figured I'd speak in soundbites for you.

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 3:47PM

Paul has no chance of either becoming the Republican nominee nor the next president. He has some excellent ideas monetarily/fiscally but his libertarian views are too extreme. Romney apparently is slowely headed toward beomcing the Republican nominee, and if so, if all semi-normal, intelligent voters do not support his candidacy over Obama [and Obama wins], this country will die within the next four years!!!!!!

Brubaker| 1.7.12 @ 7:07AM

According to Rasmussen, Jan 2, 2012: "During December, 35.4% of Americans considered themselves Republicans." "At the same time, just 32.7% of adults said they were Democrats, down from 34.9% in November."

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 6:27PM

I agree with Rand about a 3rd party run by his dad. He should run himself and take his dad along as vice president. The ticket of Paul and Paul on the Constitution Party Line could carry the election with 40% of the vote just like Lincoln did.

TrueBlue | 1.7.12 @ 11:21AM

Would be the same result, Obama re-election.

Oldefarte| 1.7.12 @ 12:01PM

Paul and Paul running as an independent party will result in Obama's re-election and more importantly THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THIS COUNTRY [and anyone so affiliated will have the blood of this nation squarely on their hands from same]!!!!!!!!

Patrick| 1.6.12 @ 4:06PM

Oh, I'm sure there is a substantial minority of Republicans that will go down swinging for Paul. I think that he will stabilize between 10-20%.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 8:16AM

Ricky Santorum Is A Big Government Statist.

His Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Hurts Him With We,Tea Party Patriots.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads Into The East Coast.

TrueBlue | 1.6.12 @ 1:22PM

Hey, guess what, that "Bridge to Nowhere" was from the Oct 2005 National Appropriations Bill. It was voted for 93-1, so nearly every Senator at the time voted for it. Also, the Bridge was removed from the final bill, so shouting that he voted for it means NOTHING.

Earmarks... Ron Paul votes for earmarks too you know. Heck, he even makes sure earmarks for his state are in bills he knows will pass that he then votes against, just so he can say he didn't vote for them. There is nothing wrong with earmarking funds for certain projects, the problem is when the earmarks are for additional funds not listed in the original funding for the bill ('pork barrel spending' is the term you're looking for), or when they are for projects/groups completely unrelated to the bill itself. All earmarking does is say, 'This part of the funding for the bill will go to XYZ project."

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03.....-earmarks/ from Paul's own website, his stance on earmarks. Guess what, that's how they usually work! Good on him for trying to make Congress unable to earmark funds for unrelated purposes though.

As for tariffs, GOOD! I'm tired of this bull with China getting to import stuff here for free while our stuff gets taxed all to hell. Tariffs are one of the few authorized ways for the government to get revenue, as per the CONSTITUTION you guys keep shouting that Dr. Paul supports so much. So why do you all hate tariffs so much, huh?

Not seeing the problem with trying to get the Democrat lobbyists replaced with Republicans honestly (K-Street Project). Better our corrupt people than corrupt, morally bankrupt, and destructive ones. Lobbyists will always exist, their existence being specifically mentioned by the Founders as a right of the people in the CONSTITUTION Ron Paul supposedly supports. You know, in the First Amendment where it says, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The real issue with lobbyists isn't that they exist, but in HOW they do their lobbying. Gifts (bribes), etc. is where the problem lies, and that's where the constituents need to actually pay attention to how their own representatives are voting, and look through the financial records that they are required by law to release on a regular basis (in my opinion should be required more frequently though). It is the responsibility of the people to keep tabs on their representatives though, not the responsibility of government to regulate lobbyists.

Medicare Plan-D is about the only part of that entire scheme that actually works right, not seeing the problem there.

No Child Left Behind; his heart was in the right place, but government has no reason to be involved in education. That's about the only area I agree with you on.

rhoetus| 1.7.12 @ 10:56AM

Rick Santorum's record:

http://paracom.paramountcommun.....E282F88A:r

TrueBlue | 1.7.12 @ 1:14PM

I'm sorry, an attack ad based on reports by the MEDIA (the same media that is trying to get Romney the nomination) is not a valid source. Thank you, please try again.

rhoetus| 1.7.12 @ 3:41PM

Look at his voting record. Santorum is a big government guy like McCain and Bush41 & 43.

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 11:00AM

And what about the 'wars' going on currently in your supposedly home state of Wisconsin, with the labor union thugs threatening Scott Walker' life????????????????????????????????

Mrs.Vito| 1.6.12 @ 9:23PM

Justify Ron Paul's shameful newsletter. If you can't, STFU.

KateS| 1.8.12 @ 10:02PM

I don't like or trust Santorum. I couldn't believe that he has actually spoken out against contraception...aren't there more important issues at this point in American history?

He is a big government, big spender, and took more pork back to PA than any true conservative would approve of. He is pandering to the tea party IMHO.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 7:13AM

Beat me to it. Santorum certainly wasn't a fiscal conservative. He is a busy-body "social conservative" statist who has never heard of the concept of "federalism."

He's Obama with a different social agenda.

Doctor Right| 1.6.12 @ 8:00AM

"He's Obama with a different social agenda"

That's patently absurd.

Ok, you don't like "social Conservatives", which is basically code for "people with deep religious conviction who exercise their principles in their politics...whatever, we get it.

But to compare Rick Santorum's principles and support of the Constiution to Obama is simply not logical.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 8:19AM

We're The Pennsylvania Gun & Bible Clutchin' Conservatives, Who Helped Throw Ricky's Ass Out Of The Senate, After He Stepped In The Last Weeks And Propped Up The RINO-CINO Poster Boy,Arlen Specter Against Our Republican Primary Guy, Pat Toomey.

Now, Ricky And Specter Have Been Chased Away And Our Tea Party Senator, Pat Toomey Is In.

If Ricky Comes Back To Pennsylvania,We'll Throw His Big Government Israel Firster Ass Out Again,

KennesawJack| 1.6.12 @ 10:41AM

Clint, you've been singing this tune forever and you still don't get the words. Santorum's support of Spector was rooted in the need to get constructionist justices on the Supreme Court. If anything, you owe him a debt of gratitude. There was no way in hell any Republican was going to win that seat in 2006 and, if Toomey had run and lost to Casey, he probably would not have been viable in 2010 amd we would have been denied his conservativism in the Senate. You need top get off the "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" boat. We NEED the Presidency this go 'round and neither Romney nor Paul has a snow ball's chance in Hell to win.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 12:55PM

Duuuuhhhhhh !

"If" Crap !
Pat Toomey Is Our Tea Party Senator.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Pennsylvania.

Vlady| 1.6.12 @ 6:37PM

And Toomey said that if he had been in the Senate in December 2010 he would have voted to allow open homosexuality in the military. And that is one of the things you harp on when you go on your RINO-CINO diatribe. So that proves no one is perfect.

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 3:49PM

Hell, who want to live in your [trailer park] neighborhood anyway???????

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 11:08PM

You may clutch a Bible, but you don't live by it.
You're a Pope worshipping liar.
I think the Bible you must carry says NEO-NAZI on the cover.

Vlady| 1.7.12 @ 3:20PM

I still find it ironic you cast anti-Catholic slurs and yet you support a Catholic candidate: Santorum. You can't have it both ways, babycakes. If that religion is as vile as you say it is and as full of lies as you say it is, then not one person here should vote for Santorum.

While I am not of the same religion as Santorum, I can see how those religious views he holds dear have shaped him. And I trust him the more because of it. And I am Jewish.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 6:14PM

"I still find it ironic you cast anti-Catholic slurs and yet you support a Catholic candidate: Santorum."

You keep repeating yourself, Troll.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 6:16PM

Oh, and I'll keep repeating myself:

We're not voting for a Pope. This isn't a theocracy.

And I don't care what you're Religion is.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 2:56PM

"I still find it ironic you cast anti-Catholic slurs."

The Catholic Religion IS a slur.

What I speak is TRUTH. Biblical TRUTH.
TROLL.

Oldefarte| 1.7.12 @ 12:04PM

Wait Clit, yesterday you said that we CATHOLIC CONSERVATIVES threw out Santorum. Why did you change your robo-copy/pasting to the above? Can't justify Ronnie's polition on homosexuality with that of the Catholic Church?????????

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 9:21AM

How has Santorum supported the Constitution?

He voted to massively expand Medicare with the drug benefit. I must have missed the healthcare section of the Constitution.

I have deep religious convictions too, but I can read. The Constitution is silient on marriage, gays, abortion, etc... Then I get to the Ninth and Tenth Amendment and realize that it just isn't the business of the Federal Government.

Rick comes to a totally different conclusion and thinks it's all the business of the feds. In my opinion, that makes him a STATIST - someone willing to inappropriately use the power of the federal government.

He spends too much and he wants to use the federal government to further his social agenda. I stand by what I said - Obama with a different social agenda.

Ted| 1.6.12 @ 10:22AM

So Old Soldier, you will be voting for Obama then, if it comes down to Santorum v. Obama? Because if it comes down to Romney v. Obama, that's basically saying Obama v. Obama.

Patrick| 1.6.12 @ 4:09PM

Well, Romney is more like mini-Obama. If you want a full Obama vs Obama ticket, you need to insert Gingrich.

Dai Alanye | 1.6.12 @ 10:31AM

Let's admit that Santorum, along with most Republicans during the flush days of "early Bush 43," spent our money too freely. Beyond that, however, he's stronger than any of the other candidates.

Conservatives are desperate to find a rock-solid candidate to oppose Obama. Why else would Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Perry -- all candidates with gaping weaknesses -- ever have peaked in the first place? Why else would Ann Coulter, by virtue of a mistaken analysis, be backing Romney?

Santorum appealed to a large slice of the electorate from the beginning. Only the canard that he was unelectable due to his big Pennsylvania loss (following four impressive victories!) held him in low digits. As soon as he began to look like a possible winner the Iowa electorate jumped on his bandwagon, and given another day to campaign he would most likely would have swamped Romney.

I would like to see more specifics from him on the need to cut government spending, although five trillion bucks is a good start. I'd also like to hear him offer a mea culpa on earmarks. Aside from those, his combination of conservatism and populism, the same general stands that were so popular with Sarah Palin, bode well to keep him in the race.

TrueBlue | 1.6.12 @ 1:26PM

Hey, guess what, you're right. The Constitution is silent on marriages, gays, and abortion... so why is it so many of you pro-choice wheenies refuse to allow the States the ability to make laws that define them in that State? The federal Supreme Court certainly has no jurisdiction to tell a state what is and isn't allowed in those cases, nor does the States' own Supreme Court in most cases if you read each State's constitution.

NoBlahBlah| 1.7.12 @ 8:57AM

Art IV. Sect. 2. Clause 1.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

TrueBlue | 1.7.12 @ 12:51PM

Means one State has to acknowledge and accept the laws of another state. Already issued Marriage Licenses, Concealed Carry, etc. Does NOT mean that the State has to allow gay marriage to occur in their State. Also, marriage is a RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. Gay/Lesbian couples can already get civil unions in just about every state, the attack on marriage is an attack on religious beliefs.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 7:23AM

Actually, William (Can I call you Bill?) you are NOT right on that. I know this to be true, because Jackass in Wi. agrees with you. And, if he likes you, and thinks you're RIGHT? Then, I don't. And you must be Wrong.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 9:22AM

We might want to think a little deeper in our selection of a Republican nomination.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 10:15AM

Specify.

KennesawJack| 1.6.12 @ 10:44AM

Timothy, that was one of the most beautiful logical progressions I've ever heard. Hear! Hear!

johnfromjersey| 1.6.12 @ 10:13PM

Ah, Mr. Pennell, the more I hear you speak, the more I like to listen.
HEY FOLKS
It really doesn't matter who the Republican choice is. Anyone, even nutjob Paul is better than the traitor in chief now.
The president will not be the problem, it's the career politicians in DC that have screwed this great country up, or at the very least, allowed America to get into the mess we're in. Until we kick EVERY career politician out, and demand an end to the lobby, America will never be the great, shining light on the hill that God intended her to be.
just sayin

Purp| 1.6.12 @ 6:12PM

And, yet, Ronnie increased the size of the government, increased the tax burden, increased the military budget ... how? Not by paying for it all - he started the largest deficits in history - and you call him a conservative?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.6.12 @ 7:23AM

The Party appears to need McCain II. Someone who looks and sounds good but is unelectable.

loulou| 1.6.12 @ 10:39AM

Romney is McCain II.

Marco2| 1.6.12 @ 7:52AM

A few thousand holy joe's in dogpatch voting Neanderthal gives that candidate staying power?You must be joking. Even in the short run, Santorum goes nowhere. It looks like this is all over by Florida. Hail Emperor Mitt, conqueror of all who suspect that the Earth wasn't created in 6 days.

martin j smith| 1.6.12 @ 7:54AM

Many pundits including in this web site are either delusional,in denial, or ignorant or currupt. That about covers it. They do not get that voters are angry. They do not get that they are really pissed at the Republican Leadershit just as much as at Obama and his fellow travelers. I have stated and I will here that the two parties are in collusion against the people. Let me say this if Republican Establishment believe that McCain ( the loser ) endorisng Romney is a great idea --well they are really in need of brain surgery. McCain LOST IN 2008 --He ran what can be best described as an inept campaign at worst he was payed off to lose--and that my friends is very nauty.So I will say this one more time( and more to come ) ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT FOR PAUL,HUNTSMAN OR ROMNEY NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!! I SINCERELY HOPE PUNDITS HERE GIT IT.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 8:23AM

Santorum Is The RINO-CINO " Watch My Hand" Attention Diversion.

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges , Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us 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 On The East Coast

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 3:51PM

Don't you ever get tired of posting this excrement repeatively and STUPIDLY???????

Indy| 1.6.12 @ 8:06AM

Quin - is this story true, see link below? There are quite a few issues listed that should be vetted. http://chestnuthill.patch.com/.....torum-iowa

Every candidate has flaws, I get that but if the isses raised in that article are correct, it doesn't look good. I had enough concerns about Santorum before I read about his residency / tax issues.

Appleby| 1.6.12 @ 8:06AM

Only one candidate in recent times went on from an Iowa victory to become President. That was George H.W. Bush. Iowa is the first quarter and it's really no use paying attention to anything that happens until the 4th quarter, (or if you are Canadian, the third period of the hockey game) as some teams who are leading in the last segment are already doing a victory lap when the other team is still playing. (I actually saw a young race driver who thought he had won pull over to congratulate his team for the victory, when the second place guy noticed that the finish line was still ahead and not only passed him for the race, but for the championship.) Iowa is a harbinger of nothing except for the bottom two or three candidates. It is way too soon to be picking winners.l

Dai Alanye | 1.6.12 @ 10:40AM

So if Romney becomes President you can in the future write, "Only two candidates in recent times went on from an Iowa victory to become President."

That is the sum total value of this type of statistic.

Appleby| 1.6.12 @ 12:43PM

The true value of this kind of statistic is to point out that nothing that happens in the first quarter can be taken as a harbinger of anything, least of all as evidence of inevitable coronation just because the media desperately hopes this will happen.

Jabber3| 1.6.12 @ 8:07AM

Let's see if I have this right. Support an ex-Senator who was overwhelmingly defeated by a center right Democrat and who has a record of supporting big government spending, has no government management or leadership experience, with some funky ideas about social issues and is, kindly speaking ,a "lightweight" with no national political organization and no money.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 9:26AM

That's the plan.

Or, a failed speaker of the House who is also a big government guy.

Or a former governor of a liberal state who has a state imposed healthcare system named after him.

Or the crazy guy. Or the frat boy who can't debate.

talkradio200| 1.6.12 @ 3:45PM

Right, as opposed to a lawless statist who thumbs his eye to the U.S. Constitution?

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 3:52PM

No thanks

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.12 @ 8:10AM

Quin,
just out of curiosity, I wonder how many voting women have been cheated on in this country. Well Gingrich can scratch off those votes can't he?

At least Perry and Santorum have been chaste in their families.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 7:27PM

So, in your base mind, women who have been cheated on won't vote for Newt?
WRONG.
Women Will vote for the Republican nominee if they are in their right minds, no matter what.

Also, you are a VILE man who has repeatedly and continuously libeled me here.

You have accused me of wanting to cheat on my husband and claimed you had the e mails to "prove it." and after my repeated telling you to post them, you have not.

WHY? Because you are a liar, which makes you NO Christian man, but a REPROBATE.

I would love to have a conversation with Linda personally and tell her what you are doing here.

WHY? Because I have the e mails to prove and to defend my own character and to show her your posts here and what an utter liar and disgrace you are.

Talk about "chaste" you flaming hypocrite!

"He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit." Prov. 12:17.

teflon93| 1.6.12 @ 8:17AM

They wrote him off because homosexuals can't stand him. Those of us who don't live in tony liberal enclaves dominated by "Queer Eye" fans aren't nearly as sensitive to such disdain.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 8:20AM

Who do you people want? We have a bag of Doughnuts. You can select one of the Doughnuts. You CANNOT get a Steak, or a Chicken, or a Lobster Dinner. And, no, you can't have a Ronald Reagan. None of those things are in the bag. Only Doughnuts.

Now. What would you like from the bag?

We have what we have. I wish that Paul Ryan was running. You like "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"? Well, he's the closest thing we have, to that. Unfortunately, he's not in the bag, either.

There's nobody PERFECT running. But, to paraphrase William Buckley: "I would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston Phone Book, than by what we have in Washington". It's the same, now. Only, we're talking about the Black Guy in the White House.

You don't like Santorum? Okay. You don't like Santorum. You don't like Gingrich? That's okay, too. You don't like Romney? Fine. You don't like Romney. You like Ron Paul? You need to lie down and elevate your feet. And, you're probably not getting invited to too many parties, unless the Party is at whichever State Run Facility's Rubber Room, you currently reside in. And, remember: JESUS was a JEW.

We have to FOCUS. We have an Enemy of the State, in the Oval Office. A man with Marxism and Communism in his DNA. He is on a Biblical Mission to destroy everything we hold dear. Freedom. Liberty. Self Reliance. Personal Responsibility.

He seeks a "Brave New World", same as the old one. He wants a Country where HE sets the parameters, and TO HELL with the Constitution. HE will see to our every need. HIM, and his Ivory Tower/Ivy League/Far Left Progressive, Fellow Travelers. And, all it will cost, is your Immortal Soul.

He is doing everything in his power, to ensure Israel's Destruction, and with it, the whole Judeo-Christian belief. With his help, two new Islamist Regimes have been established, which weren't there, before. Two more Enemies of the Holy Land, within Striking Distance.

It doesn't matter which Doughnut we end up with. We have to keep playing hard. We can't take our Ball, and go home.

Everything is at stake.

EVERYTHING.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.12 @ 9:11AM

Timothy,
well spoken. It looks like South Carolina will be the "winnower".

Boar Hunter| 1.6.12 @ 2:30PM

Good! Especially since SC polling data shows Ron "the Nut" Paul is in fourth place with 11%.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 9:31AM

And why the bag of stale donuts?

Because the RNC is run by old, stale, big government donuts.

I'm old enough to remember how much they HATED Reagan and opposed him for all they were worth in '76. In '80 they realized they couldn't resist him. As soon as he left, they got another RINO and helped the Democrats undo it all.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 10:30AM

So, what do you wanna do, tough guy. The bag of doughnuts was an analogy. Maybe if I used a Bag of Beers, and a Jack Mag, you might have comprehended better?

You're right. They Hated Reagan, and they fought him every step of the way. But, remember what I said: "There's no Ronald Reagan in the bag." And, there ain't gonna be.

Stop worrying about "THEM", and start thinking about US. We're at a Diner, with a Limited Menu, and we're Starving. If we don't pick someone, and push him over the Finish Line? We'll never eat, again. We'll never have another Beer. We'll never get another Jack Mag. Understand?

Stop complaining about the situation, and make the best of it.

The alternative is 4 More Years of Obamas' Marxism, followed by the End of America, as a great power.

Even YOU must know that.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 10:53AM

I'm not happy about it. I hope nobody wins the nomination and the convention picks a conservative.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 11:23AM

Wow. You are old.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 12:36PM

And desperate for a decent conservative candidate.

Boar Hunter| 1.6.12 @ 4:45PM

Timothy, I loved your donut analogy.

But I also understand Old Soldiers feeling on the subject.

I don't know the solution either, but can you seriously blame the man for wishing that someone would provide him with an actual conservative prospect to vote for?

Seriously how depressing is it that we find ourselves in the position were in?

How do we rid ourselves of "the Republican establishment?"

To play on your donut analogy a little,

There are two restaurants in your town, one of them serves borsch (maybe they're not so secretly communists) the sign tells you they serve borsch and all the people who patronize the establishment in their little red jackets are happy to have borsch and have been for years.

The sign on the other restaurant advertises good ol' American hamburgers. However, every time you enter the establishment the owner is only serving doughnuts. He tells you the donuts are hamburger flavored, but they seem to taste more like borsch to you. You are starting to believe he is doing this to appeal to the borsch patrons from the other restaurant.

You have complained to the owner that you would like a hamburger, a real hamburger, not a donut he says tastes like a hamburger. You have reminded him repeatedly that he advertises them for sale and though he has repeatedly assured you he will have one "next time." He never does.

Those who can stomach the hamburger flavored donut should not fault the Old Soldier who remembers the taste and flavor of a real American hamburger.

He is disgusted, not just by the pale reflection of the actual meal, but by those who claim they serve hamburgers, but only provide donuts for sale.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.8.12 @ 9:14AM

I understand. He WISHES we had a better field of Candidates. I get it. Who doesn't?

But, we have, what we have. There's no Cavalry coming to our rescue.

As for Old Soldier, and, apparently, You? I'll leave you with this: If Wishes were Fishes?

Capiche?

Patrick| 1.6.12 @ 4:17PM

Perhaps we can hope that the nominee enters riding a unicorn, as that is as likely a scenario.

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 3:56PM

The Republicans hated Reagan? Didn't Reagan leave the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party? You only have two alternatives/choices, a D or a R, and some of us are mentally aware that there is realistically only one choice if this country is to survive!!!!!!!!!

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 6:24PM

They hated his guts. Look up the '76 election.

The establishment wanted Ford the appointed Rino and were furious that a Goldwater conservative had the gall to challenge him.

Oldefarte| 1.7.12 @ 12:08PM

Yes/true, but again, he later was nominated/elected president AS A MEMBER/NOMINEE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY [NOT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY], and that is my point.....IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VonMisesJr| 1.6.12 @ 9:32AM

Spot on Timothy. Santorum may not appeal to the DC inside the beltway boys, but that is more the reason SC, FL, and the rest of the middle of the country will love him.

And we must keep this in perspective. The conservatives are picking from a bag of donuts. The liberals gave us a bag of turd and a Constitutional Crises:
http://cnsnews.com/blog/patric.....nal-crisis

DRed| 1.6.12 @ 11:29AM

It takes two to tango, VMj. If your friends in the senate would stop refusing to consider ANY appointments there would be no crisis. We could have a straight up and down vote. But you guys don't want that, do you. God forbid the congress worked in accordance with the will of the electorate. Appointing a director to an executive agency two years after it was created in response to a minority of the senate's unconstitutional attempt to nullify laws they don't like isn't quite the actions of tyrant. You don't like the president making recess appointments? Fine-let his appointments face a vote in the Senate.

George S| 1.6.12 @ 12:10PM

Remember back about ten years ago when George Bush created a constitutional crisis by attempting to place conservatives on the Circuit 4 Appeals Court? Good thing we had the Democrats led by Chuck Schumer to defend the Constitution by filibustering the nominations! That was the will of the people talking, right?

Now, what would have happened if Bush got together with Tom Delay and said hey, call the Senate and tell them we are in recess. Then I can exercise my Article II Section 3 power and adjourn the Congress because of the disagreement and recess appoint Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown. You would, by your argument, have to agree that was above board, no?

DRed| 1.6.12 @ 12:39PM

Yup. I think the Senate, in general, should approve executive officials unless they are either clearly unqualified or unwilling to do their job (for example, appointing Ron Paul to head the Federal Reserve). With judges, I think the Senate should be slightly more active (because judges are serving for life), but again, in general, unless a judge is a Harriet Miers I think the Senate should approve them. For example, I don't like anything about John Roberts, but he's clearly a qualified judge, and if I had been a Senator I would have voted to confirm him. The Senate has been over politicizing appointment battles for a long time, and now it's gone way too far. Obama is getting a historically low level of judges confirmed. We're seeing qualified executive officials who can't get confirmed for essentially no reason at all. And now a minority of one house of congress is attempting to nullify laws it doesn't like by starving the executive branch of the people it needs to work. What's Obama supposed to do? Congress is saying they'll refuse to even consider his appointments.

VonMisesJr| 1.6.12 @ 12:55PM

Is your question rhetorical?
It seems you answered your own question the same as Obama. Declare the Constitution void and create a banana republic.

BTW, you should really get to the point and keep it short. It becomes increasingly difficult to read and understand gibberish, especially as it drones on and on.

rhoetus| 1.7.12 @ 3:50PM

They just keep ignoring the Constitution and regulate, tax and spend. Forget about the Bill of Rights or your livelihood. Everything is by the State, through the State and with the State. Ron Paul is the only candidate that's not a Progressive.

George S| 1.6.12 @ 1:09PM

Why is this an issue? The CFPB is an unconstitutional entity because it is beyond the oversight of the Congress, meaning the people. And you are asking the Congress to consent to this? What would be the point? It is like a politburo rubber stamp. Besides, the Democrats have the senate majority to pass this, so why is this a Republican problem?

VonMisesJr| 1.6.12 @ 2:10PM

George,
Kudos. You make the bigger point.
It is a constitutional crises due to Obama's abuse of power overall. It is a pattern. This is one example of many such issues we are in for in 2012. "I can't wait for the Congress" raises a red flag to me!

But there are also several other pertinent questions such as: can one congress legally commit future congressional funds? Can the Executive/Bureaucratic branch take 12% of the funds without congressional approval each year? Or can the congress relegate all future oversight?

Many good and important Constitutional issues. But none of them seem to come from the trolls. Only rationalizations and justifications.

Thanks for your comment.
VMJr.

DRed| 1.6.12 @ 3:23PM

George, am I asking Congress to consent to the CFPB? No, I'm not. Congress consented to the CFPB when they created it. That's pretty obvious. If this Congress thinks the law is unconstitutional, they can either pass a new law, or wait for the supreme court to rule on the current law. A minority of one house of Congress shouldn't get to decide which laws gets executed.

DRed| 1.6.12 @ 3:27PM

And, obviously, it's a republican problem because they have vowed to fillibuster any appointment Obama makes, and the republican controlled house won't allow the Senate to go on recess. If the Republicans would agree to allow Obama's nominee to face a vote, or if the allowed the Senate to go on recess, then we'd have no problem.

George S| 1.6.12 @ 4:26PM

It matters not what Congress writes into law; all that matters is whether the law is constitutional. Republicans objected to the law and the bureau, now they are doing their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution after the Democrats trashed it.

It is very simple: where does the Congress get the constitutional authority to create an agency that duplicates the FTC without its congruent oversight? How can they create an agency that is not funded by the appropriations process and instead gives the director the power to set its own budget? Or to install a director that cannot be fired by the people (Congress) either directly or indirectly through elections? Or deny standing to anyone to take the agency to court if a ruling harms them? How does the agency regulate interstate commerce prior to any commerce taking place (it is assigned the task of determining risks)? Where in the Constitution does Congress have police powers and then delegate such non-power to an independent agency? Where does the Constitution give the authority to Congress to duplicate laws that are on the books at the state level (EVERY state has consumer protection laws)?

Just because Congress writes a law doesn't mean it is de facto constitutional.

DRed| 1.6.12 @ 4:43PM

No, it doesn't. But the way for Congress to change a law is to amend it through further legislation.

VonMisesJr| 1.7.12 @ 8:28AM

George,
You are wasting your time arguing with a troll. They have not and will not accept that our Constitution of seventeen Enumerated Powers plus the ability to tax limit the government to these defined and limited powers.
RedBull has been brainwashed that the last SCOTUS ruling and latest law are the current constitution. So if he was alive during Dred Scott, he would think slavery is great. And ironically, for thirty pieces of silver (I figure Soros trolls must make 30 since OWS got approximately 20 or $600), RedBull is selling himself and his family into slavery, or more appropriatley serfdom. People l ike RedBull need a master or a Lord of the Estate to care for them since they are voluntarily helpless.
VMJr.

DRed| 1.7.12 @ 11:00AM

Where in the constitution does it say that a minority of one house of congress can nullify laws by having a guy bang a gavel on a desk every 3 or 4 days? I can't find that part. Try looking at this in a non-partisan fashion. If the Democrats were doing this you'd be howling about how they're violating the constitution.

VonMisesJr| 1.7.12 @ 11:51AM

Have you ever taken a logic class? Apparently not!

If a bill does not pass both Houses and signed by the president, it is not a law.

You are really embarrassing yourself. You should do yourself a favor and shut up. Or at least go to MoveOn where people think as uncritically as you do. But then trolls do help convince the intelligent people such as those that read this site how right they are and how rudderless liberal are.

DRed| 1.7.12 @ 12:03PM

Thank you for the civics lesson, VMj. Dodd-Frank, which established the CFPB, was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the president. As of now, it is a valid law. What Congress is trying to do is to prevent Obama from executing the law. If Congress has a problem with a law, the constitutionally appropriate way for Congress to deal with that is to pass a law modifying or repealing the law it dislikes.

VonMisesJr| 1.8.12 @ 9:55AM

I guess you must have last word to collect your weekly paycheck from MoveOn.

I would give you a civics lesson, but it is apparent you are uneducable. You never answered George's questions. Never can, never will.
Check the MoveOn handbook, they don't have a legitimate answer either.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.8.12 @ 9:55AM

They ALREADY did it, you Stupid, Ignorant, F**K.

Obviously, he's not worth having a conversation with.

I hereby announce my intention of NEVER replying to DRedouchebag, again.

Like they told us when we took the IOWA TESTS (Remember them?): "If you're stuck on a Problem, don't waste time. Move on to the next one".

Don't waste time with Dumb*ss.

"If the Democrats were doing this......."

It's not even funny, anymore. It's why we're losing our Country.

VonMisesJr| 1.8.12 @ 12:13PM

Timothy,
Not so. We will only win the country back by educating people.
You are correct that arguing with RedBully is not going to enlighten Mr. Bully. But there are serious questions we must communicate about the absurdity of someone like "the Bull."
The irony that you correctly point out is that if RedBully is a collectivist, then by definition he cannot think for himself. Others should be aware of this so they understand how to defeat a liberal, not just RedBully. If the Bully wishes to contribute, he should have his boss Obama respond.
VMJr.

Crawler| 1.6.12 @ 10:15AM

Agreed, sir.

I don't care if the "Rs" put their mark on Ronald McDonald's clown suit and run him. I'll be voting for Ronald.

Whatever it takes to remove the usurping ideologue from the Oval Office is the mission at hand in 305 days.

Well, that, and stacking the senate for an immediate repeal of Obama Care, too...

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 11:20AM

That's a good one.

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 3:58PM

A complete/total elimination of the Democratic Party would be nice, but i guess that's too much to ask/hope for, huh?????????

TommyFrisco| 1.6.12 @ 11:27AM

Timothy, the bag of doughnuts is a great analogy. I think why it's been so hard to decide which one to choose is because we have a great field to choose from. Any of them would be better than Obama. Any of them would be better than some of the other GOP choices that I've heard being suggested.

Yes, we must choose and choose quickly. I've made my decidsion and did so by considering what I want our next POTUS to accomplish. I want a robust economy, more jobs, balanced budgets, a simplified tax code offering lower corporate and individual tax rates, lower business costs by reducing regulations which will will result in lower consumer prices, energy independence by more nuclear energy and more oil/gas drilling, entitlement reform, control of our borders, and enforcement of our immigration laws. I want a candidate who is articulate and persuasive, one who is considered to be the smartest man in the room, even by his enemies. I want someone who wants to be in the middle of every debate because he is confident that he can win the debate and advance conservatism. Since campaign promises are easier to make than they are to keep, I want a candidate who has a proven track record of being able to work with both sides of the aisle in Congress to achieve the agenda listed above.

If anyone is still undecided, I believe that list of requirements will narrow the field a little bit for you.

TimK| 1.8.12 @ 8:09AM

And if you want the above, learn what a "Progressive" is and you will end up pulling the lever for Ron Paul.

Bob Grant| 1.6.12 @ 12:23PM

Mitt Romney, Day Old Glazed - Slightly soggy on the outside, stale on the inside. Uninteresting. You'd only eat one if you just had to have a doughnut.

Ron Paul, Apple Fritter - Interesting flavors on the outside but FLAKES and BECOMES STALE quickly.

Newt Gingrich, Cream-Filled Powdered - Full of flavor both inside and out. Substantial and rich, but messy. Not worth the trouble of cleaning up after eating one.

Rick Perry, Cake - Dull, uninteresting.

John Huntsman, Cheese Danish - A true doughnut lover would never eat one. You wonder how it got in the bag in the first place.

Rick Santorum, Chocolate Eclair - Tasty both inside and out. Often overlooked, but yet, always a crowd favorite.

Carpenter| 1.6.12 @ 2:53PM

Interesting analysis. What was Michelle Bachman? Sarah Palin?

chuck| 1.7.12 @ 8:51AM

Sarah is your favorite donut, the one that makes you get out of the house in a damned blizzard, just to hit the donut shop.

TrueBlue | 1.6.12 @ 1:34PM

Obama's new "recess" appointee has already stated he's going after the non-banks (ie credit unions) next. Yay further financial takeovers!

Best to pick the guy who has a chance of winning, and Romney, Perry, Huntsman, nor Gingrich are on that list. Santorum is NOT perfect, Reagan wasn't perfect either you know, but he's pretty dang good, and is the best of the lot. I would have preferred Cain, but he was taken down by a slew of bull$%^* allegations (which all mysteriously got dropped as soon as he suspended his campaign btw).

johnfromjersey| 1.6.12 @ 10:17PM

Again Mr. Pennell, BRAVO!

Ward Bond| 1.6.12 @ 8:30AM

Just a question for you Paul supporters-who are you gonna vote for in November? Paul will not be there.Period. You don't like any of the other Republicans. Do you think obama will make you happy? Of course he doesn't seem to like Israel much if that helps.

Sean| 1.6.12 @ 8:49AM

Paul has a chance to win the nomination. If he doesn't you better hope that a conservative gets the nomination. I can tell you that Mitt, Newt and Santorum are not conservatives. That means a lot of people will be forced to look at the Constitution Party nominee.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 9:09AM

Right On Sean,

" An interesting article at Business Insider notes that Paul may have actually won Iowa after the caucuses were over:

That's because Paul's massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates — the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.

That's because Iowa's Republican caucuses are non-binding — they are technically just a straw poll, so once selected, delegates are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.

"Part of what we've been training the Ron Paul people to do is not to leave after the vote," Dan Godzich, a senior campaign advisor, told BI. "Stay and get elected to the conventions and get us those delegates."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Now On The East Coast.

JKS| 1.6.12 @ 9:19AM

Yay! the antisemitic cheer squad! I won't vote for ron paul for two reasons: he's weird and YOU!

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 9:37AM

You're An Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar.

We Don't Need Your Israel Firster Smear Bund Vote.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 9:37AM

As some point there has to be a reconciliation.

Yes, Clint is an idiot and should know when to shut-up because his continued commenting does more harm than good to his cause.

But the old-school Republicans who support Romney and the other Rinos better be ready to compromise too.

The majority of under-thirty Republicans lean libertarian and support Paul. If you just disparage and dismiss them, they will leave for good and the GOP will slowly die.

TimK| 1.8.12 @ 8:14AM

If you vote for anyone OTHER than Ron Paul, you will be getting more of the same. If Santorum gets the nomination I will have my passport in hand and my bags packed.

Marco2| 1.6.12 @ 9:12AM

By "Paul has a chance to win the nomination," you surely don't mean that seedy, old racist bigot who embarrasses himself on the debate stage winning the Republican Party nomination, do you? The Constitution Party is exactly where 9/11 truthers belong.

Sean| 1.6.12 @ 9:41AM

"you surely don't mean that seedy, old racist bigot"

Perfect example of a leftist. Focused on the superficial. Needing a young good looking candidate. Also focused on being racial hucksters claiming racism around every corner.

The Constitution party had Chuck Baldwin as a candidate last time. Baldwin was a million times better than McCain. You liberals keep voting your fellow liberals as the Republican nominee and I will keep voting for the Conservative Party. After Bush I refuse to vote for Tweedledums anymore.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 9:45AM

Yep - If you can't debate the facts, attack the man.

I remember the same attacks on Reagan. The more I hear those attacks, the more my undecided mind instinctively thinks more of RP.

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 4:00PM

Constitution Party, WTF is that? Maybe Ron. Rand and Clit in Lake Jackson perhaps??????

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 9:33AM

I'm on the fence with Paul and will probably vote for the GOP nominee - Paul or otherwise. I don't think Paul is going third party this time.

Perry is the only other fiscal conservative left. Are you happy about it?

Slacker| 1.6.12 @ 12:12PM

No I sure am not happy on the fiscal side. Even worse, Paul and Perry are the only liberty candidates. People may not like Paul but at least he is right on personal liberty and freedom.

Santorum is a busy body social conservative jerk. Would I hold my nose and vote for him? No, I don’t think I so. What would be the satisfaction of trading a democrat statist asshole for a republican statist asshole?

Obviously I’m not a social conservative but, I usually at least understand their viewpoint. But, in this case I don’t get it. Enthusiasm for Santorum has me mystified. So what if they like his social positions when everything else about him sucks?

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 12:39PM

On the bright side, Santorum has 30,000 votes so far. The last baseball game I attended had far more people.

Mainecore| 1.6.12 @ 8:44AM

The thrust of Mr Hillyer's piece is the constant inability of "pundits'" understanding the ingredients of political analysis not that he is touting Santorum for President...I have long admired Mr Hillyer's analytical skills, seldom disagreeing with only a notable exception being the conclusion he arrived at in his Manning vs Brady article !! Co Pats.....

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 9:06AM

We Tea Party Supporters Of Dr.Ron Paul Are About Taking Down Big Government Statists.

Tangentially, Ward Bond says, "Of course he doesn't seem to like Israel much if that helps."

But The Polls Say:
" Polls show Obama, who won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, according to exit polls, retains strong support among American Jews, even if his standing has slipped compared to where it was four years ago."

Apparently, They They Like Obama.

squalis| 1.6.12 @ 9:28AM

http://www.politico.com/news/s.....63632.html

KennesawJack| 1.6.12 @ 11:10AM

And I don't understand why. It can't simply be chalked up to self-loathing.

Carpenter| 1.6.12 @ 3:01PM

Jewish support for Obama is a perfect example of our intrinsic waywardness. The Hebrews following Moses had God in front of them day and night, were fed and watered by Him continually, witnessed miracle after miracle, yet still came up with the golden calf - one of the first Really Bad Ideas of Judeo-Christian history. I think it explains a lot.

obadiah| 1.6.12 @ 7:55PM

Since the advent of Limbaugh, the Republican party has gorged on abuse. Jews are wary of abuse. Abusive politicians find Jews make good targets.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.12 @ 9:14AM

Folks,
If we can't win in November without the paul-bots, we deserve to lose our freedom...and several cities....
http://www.americanthinker.com.....zuela.html

Anthony| 1.6.12 @ 9:30AM

Ken, Sadly, you are spot on. Between the Marxist left and the Paulbots, America is in deep peril.
Some days the glass isn't even half empty, it's bone dry.
It may take the death of the Phoenix only to have America re-emerge from the ashes.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 9:41AM

Replace "Paul-Bots" with "Fiscal Conservatives" and "Libertarian-Leaning Republicans". Still feeling strong?

Stop the leftist-style smears. The libertarians are the future of your party (if it has a future).

chuck| 1.7.12 @ 9:05AM

We all like the libertarian philosophy here. But, liberty must be defended, and a lot of us are just scared to death of Paul's foreign policy. I could take Paul if he would somehow take a position half-way between where he is now, and where the more hawkish candidates are. Wanted to reduce our foreign presence? Fine. Start with Europe, Japan, and Korea. They are capable of defending themselves, hell they are rich enough that we can sell them the weapons they need. Pull out all of our troops that are in Africa, because, who cares anyway? Have a strong naval presence around Somalia, and kill the damned pirates, once and for all. Even if you got to shell the shoreline. The "Big Mo" with her 16" guns would work just fine.

But we have real interests in the Middle East. Israel is an important ally, and needs to be supported. Iran scares the hell out of me, with that nutcase and the Mullahs.

Paul is just absolutely wrong on his foreign policy, dangerously wrong.

And a lot of us can not support him.

Ward Bond| 1.6.12 @ 9:17AM

I'm not a Jew but I stand with Israel-Hell or high water. More than I can say about a lot of American Jews.

Anthony| 1.6.12 @ 9:19AM

Pundit's opinions are like rear ends;, they all have them, and they all stink!!
No self respecting conservative, especially those of us who are not part of the media bubble, pays the least bit attention to these self serving preening peacocks.
I always follow the wisdom of the the old addage, "follow the money". With the punditry class and professional pols, I follow the addage "figure out their agenda".

William Z| 1.6.12 @ 9:25AM

If Santorum is leading or a close second when he comes to PA, I will vote for him. I know he respects the Constitution.

NoBlahBlah| 1.6.12 @ 9:46AM

Thanks Quin, I wasn't going to leave a comment until I saw how infested this site is with paul-bots and progressives. Keep preaching brother,
Unless someone else steps in, Santorum is the only conservative left standing. Nice piece

NoBlahBlah| 1.6.12 @ 9:50AM

I encourage Ron Paul to run honestly as a Libertarian so that all his supporters can vote their conscience. If he is who you want to vote for, fine. Just don't try to tell me he is something he is not, and I won't try to relieve you of your prejudices against Israel and the belief that we can somehow retreat to a pre WWI stance in the world.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 9:53AM

George Bush won IA and lost to Reagan his GOP nod in 1980.
Huckabee won IA, and McCain secured the GOP nod in 2008.
IA has a caucus, not a primary. Party activists determine the outcome in the IA Caucus, while voters decide the fate of the candidates in NH, SC, and FL.
Reagan won NH in 1980.
McCain won NH in 2008.
With an exception in 2000, NH and SC correctly determined the GOP nominee.
It's NOT OVER YET.
Romney will grab NH, while Rick Perry will revive, rebound, and win in SC and FL, because Perry has the southern heritage and conservative credentials, and has resources and organization to compete in big states like, SC and FL.
Rick Perry will be the GOP nominee.

NoBlahBlah| 1.6.12 @ 10:14AM

There is a Long way to go, irrespective of mcLame's 'wish' to just anoint romneycare. Primaries are For Voters to vote their conscience, not to try to imagine the world eleven months from now and pick the 'winner'. I encourage all voters to do exactly that, vote your conscience

ml| 1.6.12 @ 10:37AM

GOP will lose the election this November if Romney or Santorum are the nominee. They are not conservative and will not get my vote.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 11:03AM

ml, I feel your pain, brother. We need to support Rick Perry, who has southern heritage and conservative credentials, unlike Romney or Huntsman.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 11:01AM

Bad news for Romney lovers:

Vote counters said typo gave Romney extra 20 votes.
That means Santorum won the IA Caucus by just 12 votes over "alleged" winner Romney.
Romney got away with that. He may win in NH, but he will collapse in SC and FL.
Evangelic Christian conservative voters will stop Romney and Obama, by all means.
Rick Perry will win in SC and FL.

Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 11:11AM

In politics, 'never say never' is biblical. The most outlandished/asinine occurrance was upon 11/4/08, so anything is possible [especially when political corruption is factored into the equation]. The universal problem in politics is the Gumpiness of the taxpayer-voters acting/voting STUPIDLY, and IF same do not collectively get their heads out of their anul cavities between now and 11/4/12, this country is toast politically, economically, financially, morally, internationally, domestically, etc. Santorum is NOT THE ANSWER, period [although a good guy no doubt]. Maybe a Romney, Ginguich or a Paul [or maybe a Trump] is [though they haven't demonstated the scorched-earth toughness to date IMHO to take down the domestic terrorists now occupying this country and to completely turn same around, but maybe tomorrow]!!!!!!!!

Vern Crisler| 1.6.12 @ 11:26AM

Despite Quin's boosting, Santorum (like McCain) has had no more leadership experience than Mr. Obama. At least Romney, Newt, Perry, and Huntsman are experienced leaders. Santorum still looks like a boy whose mother just cleaned behind his ears, fixed his bow tie, and shuffled him off to school.

Anthony| 1.6.12 @ 12:02PM

Send me your address Vern so I can renew your subscription to the Boston Globe, seeing that you and the Boston brahmins agree on Huntsman.

Vern Crisler| 1.6.12 @ 3:07PM

Need to read a book on logical fallacies.

Nite| 1.6.12 @ 9:38PM

I agree with you. However, Newt is a little lacking too. Governors make the best Presidents. Santorum does not have the money or organization for a national campaign. Perry is the best conservative candidate. Santorum is a big Government Republican and so is Newt. Romney is not a conservative at all but a liberal.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 12:38PM

The Obama administration and his big labor allies unleased a barrage of smear campaign the so-called "recalled election" against WI governor Scott walker, who reformed the public sector reforming and making it more efficient and transparance, fixing the state budget and creating thousands of jobs, we can no longer stay in the side line, it's time to stand up against Obama's tyranny and poer grab, help defend Gov. Scott Walker, donate his election campaign against big labor's multi million dollar smear campaign to oust him.
RGA must help Gov. Walker hold on to his office.
Do not let Obama and his big labor win this battle.
We must act now.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.12 @ 12:46PM

Santorum has not gotten the anal exam just yet.... but here it comes.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 1:00PM

Obama is a Muslim, he needs to convert to Christianity.

Anthony| 1.6.12 @ 1:48PM

Why, so far the Muslim Marxist has gotten away with it, what's changed?

bill| 1.6.12 @ 2:58PM

Because those big labor unions, blacks and Latinos helped Obama steal the election from McCain, and the MSM keeps lying about GOP and the America's economy.

Mike Hawk| 1.6.12 @ 1:09PM

For the benefit of the uninformed and the terminally stupid, Arlen Specter in 2004 was the Senior Senator from PA running for a 5th term. He had overwhelming clout as a 4 term incumbent. In a Senate Majority status he became the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and that was the primary focus of his re-election. We who supported Pat Toomey came close to dumping old Snarlin’ Arlen in the primary that year. Bush campaigned for Specter as well and he had the full support of the PA GOP powers that be. Personally I think Pat Toomey would have beaten the inept Democrat Liberal Joe Hoeffel, but the establishment was firmly behind incumbent Specter as was the Republican Senate Campaign Committee (RSCC). Rick Santorum as Junior Senator was not in a position to buck the status quo (he resisted any endorsement for quite awhile) and made what was more or less the right decision. Neither was his support significant in Specter winning the primary challenge as Snarlin’ Arlen would likely have won without it. His support for Specter was tepid and based on Specter’s pledge to support Rick in ’06.
The Republicans squandered their mandate in ’04 and people became disgusted. Rick Santorum was a high priority target (probably #1) of the Democrats and PA Democrats lead by Fast Eddy Spendell put up a recognized name, Bob Casey, as their candidate. He was confused with his popular former governor father, the late Bob Casey Sr. and the campaign made no effort to clarify that difference. Casey got everywhere he went in politics on his name only and he had a remarkably undistinguished record as well as was rarely seen in Harrisburg. Fast Eddy and his puppet Casey seemed to be everywhere. Specter never liked Santorum (and neither did McCain) and basically stabbed him in the back with little support. The RSCC gave more support to Lincoln Chaffee (who lost), the uber RINO from RI and so did GW Bush. The RSCC also pulled the rug out from George Allen and Jim Talent, both solid conservatives. Establishment Republicans screwed three of their best.

Rick Santorum was one of the most hard working conservatives in the Senate and an honest, decent and honorable man. Had Rick Santorum won in ’06 he would likely be the GOP leader in the Senate and not Mitch McConnell. Rick was the #3 guy after ’04. Frist was the Senate Majority leader and an inept spineless clone of ‘Chester the Cheerleader’ Lott.
All you Paulbot Santorum haters may not like this, but TS, that’s the essential truth. I don’t give a damn what you think because you don't do it very often.

Perusha| 1.6.12 @ 1:14PM

Time keeps on slippin’, slippin’, into the future.

Can it ALREADY be 2012? Why, it seems like only yesterday it was 1992, when Bruce Babbitt was one of the seven dwarves, who fought it out for the jackass nomination for president, that yielded the penultimate game changer, slick Willie.

Remember Brucie? I challenge any normal voter to name the other contenders, and to even know what happened to them, after their time in the spotlight. What a paradoxical spectacle, America is, as she inexorably thrusts up mediocrities as leader, given that she is the exceptional country.

Observe, understand, AND transcend whatever is arising. When it comes to choosing a president, as well as all the other ranking lawmakers and enforcers, this is existentially required. So, really, how much of this is going on?

For practically everyone, there’s not a whole lot of observing going on---obviously: consider past percentages of voter participation, and right NOW, how many people are paying ANY attention. Who is this Santorum dude, any how?

And, how about understanding? There ought to be an organization modeled on Alcoholics Anonymous, for voters. That is, instead of a poll tax, in order to be eligible to vote, one must attend AND graduate from “Voters Anonymous”, a “school” that teaches one to observe, understand, and transcend the whole affair. Maybe then, we’d finally have an electorate immune from demagogues like Obama---and even self-serving pols like Gingrich.

As it now stands, however, we are destined to continue down the road toward, at best, middling mediocrity. As Mark Steyn continually says, sans Michelle Bachman, the GOP contenders don’t get the URGENCY of our economic situation. Ergo, America will necessarily muddle along, experiencing the lack of observation, understanding and transcendence of the political dance.

Humming and strumming along---maybe a string theory-like analogy will apply: to make an appropriate wave when plucked, a string must be neither too taut nor too loose. If the latter---no wavering. If the first, one pluck could break it.

I think America is foolishly tightening the “string”, more and more---leftists want everything for NOTHING! It won’t be long before a broken “string” will snap people into irreversible awareness of what they have done, in their lack of observation, understanding and transcendence.

Reality will not be mocked forever.

So, we’re expected to ride the white-horsed Rick Santorum to the rescue?

Ah, the Universe is eternally bubbling up with jokes!

Trinacria| 1.6.12 @ 2:24PM

Folks,
We can argue all day about Santorum's conservative bona fides, but the reality is it's completely irrelevant. He doesn't have the single most important asset in presidential politics: CASH. Without that, he could be Ronaldus Magnus (re)incarnate and it wouldn't matter a damn bit. Don't believe it? Look at what CASH (Romney) did to NO CASH (Gingrich) in Iowa in 3 short weeks. Santorum won't have 9 months to knock on every door in every county in every other state like he did in Iowa, and a campaign war chest of less than half a million dollars doesn't last long when fending off attacks from a competitor who can buy up virtually all the available air time in the weeks leading up to each state's primary. His time at the top, therefore - like his bank account - is limited.

David| 1.6.12 @ 2:39PM

Thanks Quinn, I have been promoting Santorum as as prez or VP candidate for about 8 years now.

Just what will an anal exam of Santorum? To all of you who suspect he has skeletons in his closet - go ahead and speculate as to what they are. I think you will have a hard time coming up with anything concrete. We already know Santorum's negatives - supporting Specter, etc.

If you feel he may be a good candidate in the general election, then send him 5 bucks. If every conservative will do that, his money probs will be solved over night. Again, I sincerely believe that lack of financial support is why Fred Thompson left the race and never got fire in the belly.

David| 1.6.12 @ 2:50PM

Old Soldier, the Constitution doesn't mention anything about homosexuals, marriage, and abortion because never in the 1700's did the founders think a day would come when homosexuals would demand that we and our children proclaim their behavior as normal. The founders could never have anticipated that anyone would attemt to say marriage is defined in any way other than between one man and one woman. And they certainly never could have envisioned that one day a child in utero would be considered simply a glob of cells that could be put to death at its mother's will.

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 3:58PM

They also never envisioned Federal regulators showing up in every town and city. Telling the locals what swamp we can't drain and who can't get married.

Purp| 1.7.12 @ 12:07AM

And, yet you do what the government to control who can marry, who can live here, what a woman can do with her own body ... hardly small government, is it?

Old Soldier| 1.7.12 @ 8:47PM

Are you replying to me?
1. No
2. Immigration control is a function of the Federal Government.
3. Not the feds.

Dan| 1.6.12 @ 2:53PM

Some of you folks are down to this logical argument:

1. We don't want Obama and will vote for anyone else.
2. None of our candidates are any good.
3. Therefore, a bad candidate will beat Obama

The POTUS is not elected from the subscription abse of the Spec or NRO. If the GOP sends up Mitt the Magnificent or Google's favorite inside joke, it's four more years for POTUS and we're sitting around here talking about conspiracy theories and whether Jeb or Chris runs in 2016.

The fact the RNC failed to cultivate a group of more electable candidates and didn't twist Ryan's arm off to run plays right into the incumbent's hands.

The party needs two words: brokered convention.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 3:00PM

Obama will be defeated by one of the three GOP candidates: Rick Perry or Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 3:05PM

After Nov 4, 2012, Obama is going back to Kenya while Huntsman is fleeing back to China, as refugees, and Mitt Romney is going back to his old job-Wall Street.
Rick Perry will be at the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for his new job.

Ken Royall| 1.6.12 @ 3:36PM

Santorum has no chance. He is busily going about destroying his candidacy at every campaign stop. When he equated being a politician with serving in the military his idiocy was on full display. YOU don't know anything about politics bud.

Dan| 1.6.12 @ 3:42PM

Ron Paul cannot win a general election. Period.
Rick Santorum cannot win a general election if he loses the moderate/indy vote.
Mitt the Magnificent cannot win a general election if conservatives lose faith in the Second Massachusetts Miracle.

Then what?

Mike Hawk| 1.7.12 @ 10:56AM

So you are telling me the 'moderate/indy vote' is essentailly Liberal. Stick that notion where the sun doesn't shine.

Slacker| 1.6.12 @ 3:49PM

I figured it out…

The pundits assumed republicans, actually wanting to beat Obama, would vote for a candidate that can attract independents.

The pundits, observing the rise of the Tea Party, figured an ear marking career politician blow hard like Santorum would not get any traction.

The pundits saw the libertarian wing of the republicans party gain strength in 2010 and correctly recognized Santorum as the natural enemy of libertarians.

The pundits, understanding younger conservatives distance themselves from social conservatives on issues like drug legalization and abortion, figured a busy body like Santorum was an obsolete.

The pundits could not imagine Iowa republicans would be so stupid as to support a jackass like Santorum.

The pundits were wrong.

Joe D.| 1.6.12 @ 4:20PM

Did you get a chance to read your, agnostic college Ross's collumn yesterday about Rick. I would like you to answer some of his rude comments about Rick not staying. He raked him over the coals personally and past spending abuses. I like Rick and would love to see someone answer those problems written.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 4:46PM

A Conservative Manifesto:

To help win the 2012 election and defeat Obama, I propose my 18 points plan:

1. Ban abortion in all 50 states
2. Ban same sex marriage in all 50 states
3. Legalize guns in all 50 states
4. Pass the BBA
5. Abolish Dept. of Education, Energy. Interior, Commerce, EPA, and HUD
6. Abolish the public sector unions (SEIU, teachers' union)
7. No more aid to Pakistan, Palestine, Egypt
8. Increase cooperation with Israel
10. No more cuts in the defense budget
11. Help build the military industrial complex
12. De-fund the planned parenthood
13. Repeal ObamaCare and the Dodd-frank Bill
14. Give waiver to all 50 states on NCLB
15. Mandate a term limit on lawmakers (in the senate and House of Representative)
16. Deport all illegals
17. Mandate the E-Verify system in all 50 states
18. Prohibit hiring and harboring illegals in all 50 states.

I hope all conservative voters will embrace my plan and help America save from liberals.

A.C.Guard| 1.6.12 @ 5:14PM

Santorum is nothing more than a failed, defeated Pennsylvania Senator, and a Catholic who wears his religion on his sleeve and wants his beliefs to be yours as when he tried, without being asked, to interfere in the case of Terri Shiavo.

Wayne| 1.6.12 @ 7:14PM

So you are fine with starving a fellow human?

David| 1.6.12 @ 6:25PM

To AC Guard and all others who continue to bring up Santorum's Senate defeat: Jeffrey Lord, others who write for American Spectator, and many posters here have thoroughly explained what happened in 2006. Are you folks braindead? You haven't answered of the given reasons for his defeat. Like morons (12 year olds) you just keep repeating "he lost he lost he lost". What morons.

Wayne| 1.6.12 @ 7:16PM

Ignoring that Paul has lost every single primary he has run in.

Wayne| 1.6.12 @ 7:18PM

These Paulite trolls are getting more obnoxious with time. They are not doing Ron Paul any good and insisting on hijacking every thread just ruins this site. Let it go gentlemen. You are getting boring.

obadiah| 1.6.12 @ 7:43PM

Does Little Ricky have a line of palaver that can knock down the Bainatron? Can he blame the gays for the economic downturn? Is the Compassionate Conservative due for a return? Will George W endorse him during the primaries? What lies and smears will they cook up at monthly planning meeting of Obama, Axelrod and the liberal media elite?

TommyFrisco| 1.6.12 @ 7:51PM

"In fact, it's really pathetic to think back on how many times conventional wisdom, even conservative conventional wisdom, got things wrong."

Therein lies the problem, Quin. For reporters, pundits, and analysts to consider their thoughts as "conventional wisdom" is ridiculous. Most of them just repeat what is being said by their colleagues. Most of these 'experts' have their own undisclosed agendas or preferences which corrupts their legitimacy.

Case in point: Romney was presented as the moderate alternative who could help the GOP win the moderate and independent voters. Those same 'experts' later claimed that Gingrich was not a true conservative and Romney is the most conservative candidate in the race. How can we possibly reconcile the contradiction? I, for one, look at the facts. Romney did nothing, while in office, to promote conservatism. Gingrich, on the other hand, has a proven record of promoting conservatism while in office. I want balanced budgets. Who should I rely on...what is distorted by people in your occupation...or should I rely on the facts?

TommyFrisco| 1.6.12 @ 8:16PM

Quin, please allow me to be more clear. we can't rely on what we are told by people in your profession. Below are the facts:
1. Santorum did nothing, while in office to achieve balanced budgets, less spending, entitlement reform, or debt reduction. Almost everything he has supported has led to more government intrusion into our lives.
2. Romney did nothing to advance any of the things he is promising now.
3. Ron Paul sponsored 435 bills while in office, but only one was passed. How can we expect him to achieve any of the things he has promised?
4. Perry's first national primary campaign has been an embarrassing, collosal failure. How can we expect different results in the general election?
5. Huntsman has run a bizarre campaign where he thumbs his nose at conservatives.
6. Gingrich has a proven track record, while in office. Compare his record to the GOP Speakers that followed him. No one has been able to promote the conservative agenda more during my lifetime with the exception of Ronald Reagan.

Who should I support? Why am I asking you?

Mike Hawk| 1.7.12 @ 10:51AM

So vote for the Oborg again you dumbazz.

rhoetus| 1.7.12 @ 8:10PM

Dearest Tommy: Ron Paul is the only candidate that is not a "Progressive". Every other candidate except for Bachmann only gives lip service to the conservative prime directive of following our Constitution and restoring a limited government.

Silver Bullet| 1.6.12 @ 8:23PM

Santorum is a man of great integrity and courage, who stands up for the unborn & the weak and helpless (like Terry Schiavo). I'd say that he is a GREATER MAN THAN REAGAN -- yes, I mean that!

Santorum has more courage than Reagan did, because -- as good as Reagan was -- Reagan did not do enough for the unborn and for the right to life generally; he could have and should have done more -- for example, his choice of Sandra O'Connor was a cave-in to his pro-abortion spouse, who was buddy-buddy with friends in Phoenix who knew O'Connor as a "safe" pro-choice Republican.

George H.W.Bush was no friend of the unborn that I can tell either. Just look at the disaster Souter was on the Court. At the least, Bush#41 did not do his "due diligence" and was tricked into nominating Souter, although I think that the truth is more likely that GHWB actually knew that Souter could be counted on to uphold the country-club Republican pro-choice views on the Court.

Bush #43 did some very good things for the pro-life cause, including his defense of Terry Schiavo; and his re-institution of the Reagan's Mexico City policy. But, again, there are "sins of omission" to consider. Like Reagan, Bush #43 should have been front and center, LEADING the national discussion on the unborn as deserving the protection of the Constitution.

How about a President Santorum holding a nationally televised speech, complete with graphic photographs, to educate the willfully stupid American public about the reality of abortion? Why didn't Reagan do this? Why didn't Bush #43?

Why do televisions and newspapers routinely REFUSE to publish the TRUTH of abortion? Why do liberals REFUSE to allow fully "INFORMED CONSENT" when a woman wants and abortion but cannot be shown an ultrasound that would show her the horror of what she says she wants done to her baby?

Could abortion stand for long? When the TRUTH about abortion is told, the reality of our nation's complicity in the murder of 53-million unborn babies will HORRIFY the general public, who will DEMAND a right-to-life amendment to the Constitution!

I foresee a President Santorum going to the mat for the defense of a culture of life. That -- dear fellow bloggers -- is the BEST reason to support Santorum. He truly IS pro-life. He does not just give the pro-life cause lip service and an annual AUDIO message to the March for Life on Washington, D.C. (Notice that supposedly pro-life Presidents have never ATTENDED these rallies, nor have they even given a VIDEO message that is GRAPHIC in supporting this cause.)

You bloggers arguing about whether Santorum is a conservative -- YES HE IS!! THE litmus test of our lifetime is the right to life. Because Senator Santorum is RIGHT about THE pre-eminent issue that will destroy or redeem our society -- the RIGHT TO LIFE!!

If you're DEAD, it doesn't matter if there are jobs to be had.

And I would argue that the REAL reason that there are not enough jobs in Europe is that there aren't enough people left..... CHILDREN are what truly DRIVE SOCIETY, and CREATE JOBS!! Just THINK of theMILLIONS of JOBS this country could have created if we hadn't systematically MURDERED 53-million babies in 40 years!!

Instead, we've IMPORTED THE BABIES WE ABORTED -- immigration has been roughly 50-million people these last 40 years. This almost exactly equals how many babies' lives have been salt-poisoned, cut up, and suctioned to death.

SHAME on AMERICA if we DON'T elect Rick Santorum to be our 45th PRESIDENT......

rhoetus| 1.7.12 @ 8:13PM

How many babies did Santorum deliver?

Silver Bullet| 1.7.12 @ 8:31PM

@rhoetus: Non-sequitur.

David| 1.6.12 @ 8:33PM

Silver Bullet, excellent defense of Santorum regarding abortion. There is much more to prove that he is the consistent, principled conservative in the race.

Having always been the underdog, the man knows how to fight. He will be sure to take his gun to the gunfight Bam Bam and his followers have in store for him. And, if we have any huevos, we will be there by his side - not running away every time the media bring up and blow out of all proportion some thing he said or did, like taking his dead child home to grieve with his family.

David| 1.6.12 @ 8:46PM

If facts matter to Santorum's critics who claim he has accomplished nothing, please Google "Rick Santorum's Curriculum Vitae" and choose the link to mamagrizzly.com. It gives a good description of what he has done personally and as a public servant.

Michael S from PA| 1.6.12 @ 8:50PM

Another home run Quin! Your political analysis of Santorum has been and is spot on.

BTW, Santorum makes me proud to be a conservative, a Catholic Christian, a Pennsylvanian and an American.

His advocacy of Life, Family, and the Dignity of Work not only reflects his Christian values but also reflects his belief that we must abide by the Constitution and maintain the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The two, hand in hand, make us who we are: Americans!

POST American| 1.6.12 @ 9:06PM

----Gosh, can't wait for the 'big showdown'
between CFR vetted, sworn, 'on board'
CFR Republicans ---and Rockefeller
pick of the litter, CIA mother, former
Kissinger aide, and, we'll bet, Averill
Harrimann blood-linked ---Obama!

GOSH ---this is really gonna' be something!

----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------

BEYOND ----------------------------GOLLY GEE!

------------------------You can bet your life on it. . .

rhoetus| 1.7.12 @ 8:18PM

Willard "Ritchie Rich" Mittens Romney (a Mass Liberal) vs. Barack "Tom Sawyer" Hussein Obama (vetted by the SDS Weathermen). America needs to be put on suicide watch.

johnfromjersey| 1.6.12 @ 11:05PM

My big question is this;
When did we, as Americans, become so uninvolved in our government that we the people now allow the minority,(sometimes less than 1%) to dictate what the rest of Americans can eat, drink, smoke, or where they can go, what they can or can't do with their own property, what God given rights we are entitled to, etc. etc.
We the people, the silent majority had better wake up, STOP bickering amongst ourselves, and take America back from the thieves and liars, who steal our money and demand a cut of all the action, (tax money spent). The same people we send to be our proxies, our voices in Washington DC, only worry about their next election and are rarely seen except election time.
We sit here and bitch and moan about right, vrs left and that's exactly what the career politicians want us to do. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, and EVERY taxpayer, every voter, everyone who knows that as bad as America may be at times, and we do make mistakes, America is still so far ahead of #2 that it's not even a fare comparison.
To my liberal thinking Americans, ask yourself this question.
Do you believe that Congress has your best interest at heart?
Do you believe they're reflecting your opinions, or more so, their own?
To my conservative Americans.
Do you understand that Congress was never meant to be a career?
Further, do you believe that the framers intent was for Congress to be elected from a cross section of Americans?
To all here who refer to themselves as centrists, moderates, independents.
Do you believe that the Congress of the United States of America was meant to be filled with mostly lawyers?
(no disrespect to the lawyers here)
To ALL Americans, no matter how wacky your political views.
The reason America is so messed up is because we the people, America, the Constitution, is nothing more than one big legal case to most of our members of Congress. Some giant tort that needs sorting out by all the lawyers involved.
In short, America will NEVER be the great gift from God to the world until we remake OUR Congress into the model that was handed down to us from a bunch of really great men and women, the founders. That model is for America to have citizen government. Men and women from all walks of life, SERVING in Congress for a term or two, then returning to their homes and families.

Think about it?
PLEASE!

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 11:13PM

EXCELLENT if I may say so myself.
~Margie, a former New Jerseyian.

rhoetus| 1.7.12 @ 7:31PM

Yes I agree and:
The "Progressives" have replaced our limited government with one that is ruled by the technocrats. First they created a tax system that is absolute- we are all tax slaves- the Income Tax is designed to tax the livelihood of everyone and confiscate any accumulated wealth.
Second they now control through regulations how everything is manufactured, how products are designed and what may be sold. Third the individual is completely controlled by law and regulations.

Dan| 1.7.12 @ 12:02AM

Every incumbent Congresmen should be voted out. I don't care if that means getting rid of Boehner, Pelosi and everyone in between. The Congress has failed the US miserably on the debt and general inaction on any economic policy. They all need to be replaced, both D's and R's.

David| 1.7.12 @ 10:52AM

jerseyjohn, don't apologize for offending lawyers. I spent 14 years managing restaurants. Then spent 22 years working with lawyers as a trial paralegal. It took me a whole 2 weeks in the legal business to categorically state "now I know why the country is screwed up; it is run by lawyers and they can't manage worth beans".

Chef Schnauzer| 1.7.12 @ 2:55PM

None of the elected has cut the number of paper pushers. None of the elected has cut the number of useless staff members. The fat kid has been in charge of the cookie jar far too long. These federal state and local unionized thieves will not are not going to wake up some morning and say, "I serve no legitimate purpose, my very job is theft from the real free market job creators......" The lawyers/politicians are not useful to society, in fact, THEY CREATED THE PROBLEM.

WM| 1.7.12 @ 5:13PM

Quin, ever hear the expression, "The wisdom of crowds?" If Santorum can't get traction in the polls after a year, maybe it's not the other pundits who are wrong. See the first post by William R if you want to know the basic reason.

David| 1.7.12 @ 9:49PM

WM, Santorum did not get any coverage, and people do not pay close attention to politics. The only ones who supported him early on were people like me, who have CLOSELY followed politics for more than 20 years. His supporters have been watching him and wishing him success for many years. He is no RINO.

Now, while for the entire year he was way down in the polls, he almost won Iowa, is running a tough second in NH, and will probably place second in SC.

POST American| 1.8.12 @ 10:22PM

-------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------

"----This country is SO GONE.
It is SO taken over by foreign banks."
-ALEX JONES
(two days ago)

"The Federal Reserve has pumped
so many BILLIONS into (--NAZI--)
Germany that they dare NOT name
the total."
-REP. Charles McFadden
1935

"Understand folks, UNACCOUNTABLE,
psychopathic, INTER-national USURY,
Globalism, 'Free Trade', TREASON and
EUGENICS are ALWAYS intertwined.
--------------------ALWAYS---------------------."

------------------- ALWAYS----------------------

---------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012----------------

Seac| 1.27.12 @ 11:40PM

Last night I knew without a doubt he's helping Romney get elected.

More Articles by Quin Hillyer

More Articles From Streetcar Line

Military Might, Out of the Wilderness

May 8, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good

April 30, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Perez Abomination Grows

April 23, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Tea Partiers for Freedom

April 16, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Make Room for a New Master

April 9, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/06/about-santorum-pundits-patheti

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|82 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|94 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|23 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|28 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|30 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|87 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.