The American Spectator : Santorum's Second Surge

Text Size

Santorum's Second Surge

By Robert Stacy McCain on 2.13.12 @ 6:09AM

CPAC certifies candidate's status as Romney alternative.

Several reporters, photographers, and TV camera crews were crowded into a small conference room Friday afternoon at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington. Hundreds of people were lined up outside the room, waiting to enter the "Rick Santorum Meet & Greet" which the program of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) listed as scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. The appointed time slipped past and, like the crowd waiting in line, some in the media gang inside the room began to grow impatient at the delayed arrival of the candidate, who had given a well-received speech that morning in the hotel's main ballroom.

"We're a long way from Iowa," I remarked to Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley, recalling how few reporters had covered the underdog candidate during the long months he spent crisscrossing the Hawkeye State and speaking to small groups of Republican voters. A mere two months earlier, in mid-December, Santorum had been sixth in the Real Clear Politics average of Iowa polls, with less than six percent. He had somehow miraculously surged to a win in Iowa, then endured a month of disappointing finishes in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada, Now, fresh from triple victories last Tuesday in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, the former Pennsylvania senator was riding a wave of momentum, attracting the kind of crowds (and swarming media coverage) that follow a bona fide presidential contender.

At last, the candidate arrived, eliciting applause and cheers from his waiting supporters. Santorum answered a couple of questions from the press gaggle, then did a brief TV interview with Andrea Tantaros of Fox News, before the crowd outside was led in to get their "grip-and-grin" moments with the candidate. While the candidate shook hands and posed for photographs with the CPAC attendees, I walked over to talk with his campaign's finance director, Nadine Maenza, who confirmed previous reports that Santorum had been raking in online donations at a pace of $1 million a day since Tuesday's trifecta. In fact, Maenza said, she had been informed that the campaign had already collected a half-million dollars that morning, so that total donations to Santorum since Tuesday were already more than $3 million.

Such a windfall of campaign cash, like the crowds of supporters and the swarming media coverage, is further evidence of Santorum's status as the top rival to the Republican presidential field's longtime frontrunner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. And the sudden tsunami of contributions is another contrast to those long and often discouraging months that Santorum spent wooing voters in Iowa. His entire campaign operation in 2011 collected less than $2.2 million in donations, which was less than the amount he'd gotten in the 72 hours preceding the Friday afternoon "meet and greet" event at CPAC. Of course, Santorum's funds are still but a fraction of Romney's massive war chest, but the influx of contributions almost guaranteed that the 2012 GOP campaign's longtime underdog could keep up the fight through the March 6 "Super Tuesday" primaries and beyond.

Santorum's second surge, which evoked memories of the frenetic final week before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, gave credibility to his claim to be the "consistent conservative" alternative to Romney. While some pundits dismissed Santorum's strong showing last week as an inconsequential bump in the road for Romney, it helped Santorum establish at least a temporary ascendancy over Newt Gingrich as the top "Not Mitt" candidate in the Republican race. Santorum has now notched four wins against Romney, while Gingrich has been unable to replicate his lone victory, Jan. 21 in the South Carolina primary. Gingrich's stumbles in the past three weeks appear to have badly damaged the former House Speaker's chances. Few could argue with Gingrich's assertion that Romney won Florida's Jan. 31 primary mainly on the strength of "money power" that funded an overwhelming torrent of TV attack ads in the Sunshine State, but Gingrich's subsequent defeats looked a lot more like self-inflicted wounds.

The Gingrich campaign in Nevada was an ill-organized disaster, and he compounded his Feb. 4 defeat there with a petulant performance at a post-caucus press conference. Then came Tuesday's embarrassing wipeout. Gingrich hadn't even qualified for the ballot in Missouri, where Santorum scored a solid 55 to 25 percent win over Romney. Gingrich finished a weak third (13 percent) in the Colorado caucuses, where Santorum beat Romney 40 to 35 percent, and Gingrich placed a distant fourth (11 percent) in Minnesota, where Santorum got 45 percent to Romney's 27 percent and Texas Rep. Ron Paul's 17 percent. This string of February drubbings suggested an astonishingly swift meltdown for Gingrich, who in January had repeatedly claimed that he was the only Republican candidate capable of beating Romney, while occasionally suggesting that Santorum should quit the race. After Gingrich's recent three-week losing streak, it is unlikely Newt will be repeating those claims and suggestions again anytime soon. Indeed, several reports in the past week indicate that the Gingrich campaign is now facing a serious financial crunch, with Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson reportedly ending his contributions to a pro-Gingrich "super PAC."

The bad news for Newt continued at the three-day conservative conference in Washington, where CPAC attendees gave Gingrich just 15 percent of the vote in Saturday's straw poll. The media made much of Romney's victory in the CPAC straw poll -- 38 percent to Santorum's 31 percent -- but the fact that Santorum beat Gingrich by more than a 2-to-1 margin was arguably more significant. And while there was some sarcastic scoffing when Santorum first accused Romney of having "rigged" a victory Saturday, reports by the New York Times and Politico's Jonathan Martin confirmed that Santorum was factually correct: The Romney campaign paid for CPAC registrations and bused in supporters to ensure a win in the closely watched straw poll. Romney's win in Saturday's Maine caucus was untainted by any such suggestion of illegitimacy. Another fourth-place finish for Gingrich, who got just 6 percent of the Maine vote, added emphasis to the weeklong streak of evidence that Newt's campaign is fading while Santorum's is surging.

With more than two weeks to go before the next round of primaries (Feb. 28 in Arizona and Michigan), it is impossible to rule out another stunning upheaval in this year's turbulent Republican race. Already, the Romney campaign has begun re-targeting its brutal attack machine to take on Santorum, releasing negative "oppo" (opposition research) to the media, while the pro-Romney "super PAC" Restore Our Future buys Internet ads portraying Santorum as a proponent of pork-barrel spending. Being attacked by Team Mitt, however, could be seen as still more proof that Santorum's surge has made him the leading conservative opponent to Romney. And with Gingrich now evidently on the ropes, Santorum may be positioned to emerge as the last man standing against Romney. How long he can remain standing is a question that will be answered in the days and weeks ahead.

About the Author

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (157) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.13.12 @ 6:59AM

If Santorum had any real meaningful deep support, he'd have a lot more money to run his campaign.

That little bit of money shows that the deep pockets and even the rank and file do not take him seriously.

Why is he hanging around? Bored? Feels his vision is important?

Where was that vision while he was in the U.S. Congress?

He supported Medicare Part D which dwarfs Romneycare. Where are those conservative credentials he keeps talking about?

There aren't any. That's why there isn't any big money behind him.

Jack in Wi.| 2.13.12 @ 7:13AM

Santorum isn't even on the ballot in several states. He has little support among independents, young people, disaffected Democrats, and about half the Republicans. If by some miracle he would be the nominee, I expect he would lose by about the 20 points he did in Penn.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.13.12 @ 7:33AM

You're an optimist.

florin| 2.13.12 @ 9:33AM

Santorum could have surged ahead but after CPAC he started whining about how Romney had more of his people there to vote...if he continues whining like a baby - well, like gingrich really - he will lose the respect of those who support him. Romney didn't whine after it turned out he had lost Iowa to Santorum...

darcy| 2.14.12 @ 3:57AM

Whining?

The fact is that CPAC participation can be packed, that is, attendance slots can be bought up by groups, and that includes candidates; you remember, I'm sure, that the Paulbots attended in droves several CPAC's ago and Ron Paul won the straw poll. No surprise there. huh? I guess you didn't know that about CPAC, florin.

How could Romney "whine" about losing to Santorum in Iowa? No one even knew about the Santorum win until at least a week later, a week in which everyone thought that Romney had won?

Where do we get these people who make such ridiculous comments?

Bobloblaw| 2.14.12 @ 6:43PM

waiting for Paul to win a state

skedaddle| 2.13.12 @ 8:22AM

And Santorum's win in Missouri, which is meaningless, was orchestrated by state Democrats. I had one call and offer to take me to the poll or babysit my kids so I could vote for Santorum. He's an empty suit that 0bama could win against easily.

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.13.12 @ 9:35AM

exactly. Just the latest non-Romney flavor of the week ala Perry, Cain, Gingrich. Forget about him

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:03PM

Romney himself is the non-Romney. Figuring out where he stands is like nailing Jello to the wall. I expect Reps will throw his lever this fall if he's the nominee, but it's going to be like it was with Dole and McShamnesty. They won't like it, and a lot of people are going to stay home.

Alas, Santorum is the best of a bad lot. At least i wouldn't have to hold my nose too tightly. With Mittens, I doubt I could get past the stench to get into the booth.

Bobloblaw| 2.14.12 @ 6:45PM

Your Romney can still be the candidate,l but he'll never be president. In order to become the candidate, he has to trash Santorum like he has Gingrich. That will be the end of what little good will he has in the conservative movement. The GOP-E thinks that the base hates Obama so much, they will rally behind Romney.....dont count on it

Mike Rogers| 2.13.12 @ 10:49AM

Actually, the money is coming in, and will very likely continue, especially of he does well against Mittens in Michigan.

Todd| 2.14.12 @ 2:10AM

Amazing all the Romney gang posting here. Rick Santorum will win Michigan which will probably be the end of Newt's campaign and will expose Romney as very weak. Santorum is beating Romney, Newt and Ron Paul who all have a lot more money. Rick has done this with peanuts. The money spent by Mitt and Newt is pretty staggering. I like Ron Paul but Rick is better positioned to become President.

Rick Santorum is very strong in the Midwest and can win the key states in November like MO,MI,PA,OH and FL to name a few.

Rick Santorum is attracting young people plus Evangelicals and Catholics. Rick was very popular with the young folks at CPAC. Obama has tee'd up a major gift with mandatory abortion for church insurance. This is very unpopular with all Christians. Rick Santorum will win the Catholic vote as well as all Christians in November and will be elected President.

Dai Alanye| 2.13.12 @ 11:17AM

Stalin is correct -- if Santorum had conservative credentials the "big money" would get behind him. Sure, because all the millionaires and billionaires I know simply love independent-thinking conservatives.

The little donations supporting Santorum are coming from little people who have no concept of either conservatism or what's good for them. Wall Street and Hollywood always support the conservative in a race -- right? Where, among Santorum's supporters, is Goldman Sachs? Where are the Las Vegas moguls? Where are the big-time lobbyists? Where are the dozens of filthy-rich men and women donating thousands and hundred-thousands -- the big bucks?

Instead, all Rick has is thousands and tens of thousands of nobodies donating their measly twenties and fifties. Let's face up to the facts -- if dollars counted instead of votes (as they rightly should) Santorum would be running dead last.

As for him claiming to be conservative -- what a laugh. All he has is ratings like these:
American Conservative Union -- 88%
National Right to Life Committee -- 100%
Americans for Tax Reform -- 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee -- 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- 88%
League of Private Property Voters -- 94%

Whereas our boy Romney has Wall Street, lobbyists, miilionaires, Obamneycare, Cap and Tax, a whole stack of waffles, and a closet full of flip-flops. Yea, Mitt!

Drunken Sailor| 2.13.12 @ 11:52AM

We really need a sarcasm font.

Dai Alanye| 2.13.12 @ 4:14PM

Right on, my man! Democracy is too big to be left to the little people. The puling masses have to be taught once again to take what they're given! It's time for America to learn to lose with dignity again!

richard mcenroe| 2.13.12 @ 4:15PM

Dude, sorry, didn't mean to jack your handle. My bad.

jstwndring| 2.13.12 @ 5:28PM

Plus, Mitt has backers like McCain, Dole, and Trump! I don't know what more proof you need. I know I need think no further. My betters have selected for me, and who am I to question their collective (yes) wisdom?

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 7:04PM

Excellent use of sarcasm!

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:06PM

You don't have to have conservative cred to get the bog money behind you. You have to have establishment cred. Many conservatives have discovered this fact to their chagrin.

We saw this in Ohio repeatedly. The establishment hated Ken Blackwell, and when it was his turn, Taft had already so damaged the GOP brand that Blackwell was just a sacrificial lamb. Ohio got Strickland instead and they now have Blackwell permanently out of the way.

Appleby| 2.13.12 @ 7:19AM

As long as Obama and his posse continue to try to dismantle the Catholic Church, Rick Santorum will continue to surge. He is not only a consistent Conservative, he's a consistant Catholic; indeed, to many of us who (having been Mormons, some of us) do not believe the LDS church is in fact Christian, he is the only consistent Christian. Believe it or not, this still matters to a very large group of people who are not out marching, chanting, waving signs, and Demanding; we are living lives of quiet desperation just trying to hang on until we can rid the government of Obama and his ilk in the good old fashioned legal way.

To some of us, deep pockets and loads of cash are not what makes the world go round. In fact, some of us find it hard to relate to Mitt Romney because we have values not preceded by dollar signs.

Jeremiah Smirking| 2.13.12 @ 7:55AM

Welll stated!

Tina B| 2.13.12 @ 8:53AM

Yes, very well stated.

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 4:58PM

In Minnesota, in my little precinct, which is predominantly white and middle to upper middle class, all owning their own land, Santorum won 56 votes to 18 for Paul to 8 for Romney to 2 for Gingrich.

I have a feeling that Conservatives may start to favor Santorum.

Todd| 2.14.12 @ 2:17AM

I know more than a few pray the rosary Catholics who insanely voted for Obama. They are old school: union and Kennedy Catholics.

I try to avoid them so I do not lose it. They will not be voting Obama this time and they like Rick Santorum. Obama's attacks on Catholics is finally getting these people to wake up. Obama won the Catholic vote in 2008. Rick Santorum will be the nominee and he will win the Catholic vote plus the evangelical vote plus other Christians who realize Obama is attacking Christianity. Hopefully more Catholics will remember The Battle of Lepanto.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.13.12 @ 7:37AM

This is amusing in that it is similar to the old adage of "don't interfere when your enemy is committing suicide."
Santorum simply shut up while Romney leveled a vicious attack on Newt, and Newt responded with venom. Besides being the beneficiary of his contenders ravaging each other, it takes the sting somewhat out of any attack Romney now directs toward him.
Romney has made it clear for all those with eyes to see that his strategy is to seek and destroy, not win on merit. Like Obama's class warfare, people turn off to it over time.

Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 9:40AM

I agree. Those conservatives who are banking on Santorum don't realize that the Romney smear machine hasn't gone into full swing against Santorum. Newt's momentum was blocked in Florida by Romney's money, which won over the Republican whores in Florida. Santorum is going to have the same problem when Romney spreads his money around in other states and launches incessant smears against Santorum.

Since Florida Newt has not been able to get back his earlier momentum. Remember, he was always down in the polls throughout much of the Republican debates, but surged at the last minute, only to have it undermined by the Romney attack machine in Iowa.

I think Newt's problem now is that he's listening to his advisers telling him he has to tone it down, be more presidential. He did that in the last two debates and it was a disaster.

Let Newt be Newt. He needs to be himself, and use the remaining debates to regain his momentum. He doesn't need to listen to "conservative" shills for Romney claiming that he is "petulant." He needs to ignore all the psychobabble.

We want the Newt of the South Carolina debates, not the Newt of the Florida debates. Are you listening, Gingrich campaign? Let Newt be Newt.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.13.12 @ 10:32AM

Santorum will work to repeal ObamaCare because it is his moral commitment. Newt will work to repeal ObamaCare because he is insightful and wants to find an elevated place in history. Romney just wants to be President and redeem his father.

This is why I can be excited about either Newt or Rick Santorum, but will hold my nose if I must vote for Mitt.

Old Soldier| 2.13.12 @ 11:21AM

I wish Rick had been morally opposed to Medicare Drugs. If he had, he might still be a U.S. Senator.

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 4:59PM

Well, I think the boy is capable of learning. Remember, Medicare D was a mainstream Republican position at the time.

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 7:09PM

It also works pretty well compared to the rest of the Medicare system. Costs a lot less at least.

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 8:21AM

I remember - that's when they stopped getting my money.

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:11PM

In my opinion, Santorum would have lost his senate seat regardless. Bush had seriously damaged the GOP brand, and we paid for it in Congress in 2006 and 2008. Santorum wasn't the only one to go down.

If anything weighed the man, other than the GOp brand, it was endorsing Snarlin' Arlen instead of Toomey. Santorum has regretted that saying it wasn't a smart move on his part. He might have done it to be decent to Specter who had helped him, but there are things that decency would require of you that go beyond helping someone that helped you. Specter got his eventually, but Santorum paid a high price for doing something rather stupid.

Todd| 2.14.12 @ 2:23AM

Bush and Rove also supported Specter. Rick was not thrilled about supporting Specter either. I loathed Specter and donated to Toomey even though I am not in PA.

What was wonderful "conservative" Pat Toomey's first vote? To repeal Do Ask, Don't Tell. Pat Toomey is a RINO traitor of the highest magnitude. Rick Santorum would have voted against the repeal.

RINO-MA Scott Brown also voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Hey Pat and Scott - send my donation money back to me.

Bobloblaw| 2.14.12 @ 6:49PM

You dont seriously think that Santorum lost PA, a state with the second largest numb er of seniors in the country, because he voted for Bush's medicare bill ??? He lost because he become 2006 was a bad year and he became too associated with social issues. In 1994 and 2000, Santorum carried the PHL suburbs. In 2006 he lost them by more than 20 points.

Wayne| 2.15.12 @ 11:39AM

Nobody in Pa can beat the name Robert Casey. It is holy: especially among the older, Roman Catholic, conservative Democrats. These are the voters Republicans MUST win in order to be elected. Santorum could not beat the name.

richard mcenroe| 2.13.12 @ 4:16PM

Mitt Romney is the spiritual heir of Meg Whitman, not Ronald Reagan, and the voters will reject him as they rejected her.

martin j smith| 2.13.12 @ 7:44AM

It is now time to attack Obama full throttle. Santorun must get beyond Romney and do so.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.13.12 @ 7:45AM

Anybody but obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave Williams| 2.13.12 @ 12:55PM

Right behind you, brother.

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:12PM

OMG = Obama Must Go!

Stammon| 2.13.12 @ 7:57PM

Obama delenda est!

Stammon| 2.13.12 @ 7:57PM

Obama delenda est!

Tim the Enchanter| 2.14.12 @ 9:02AM

Carthage, too!

Adjoran| 2.13.12 @ 8:05AM

Santorum can certainly raise the money now, if current trends continue, to fund him for the next month or two at least. His bigger problem may be building organizations in the upcoming states where he has little or no presence yet.

Gingrich's steep fall wasn't "astonishing" to me or anyone who has followed him through his career. He always self-destructs, often over minor things his overblown ego just can't let go.

It seems almost certain at this point to become a two-man race for the nomination between Santorum and Romney, with Paul getting some share of delegates along the way.

At least this means we will have a nominee of unassailable personal character. That certainly doesn't guarantee a win, but at least one sure line of attack is blocked.

calvin| 2.13.12 @ 9:27AM

My wife tried to send Santorum a donation on line last week and all the lines were jammed. He must be doing something right.
Eagerly waiting for the show to come to the Wolverine state. We have to start digging out of our hole sometime.

Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 9:43AM

How has Newt self-destructed? He simply doesn't have the money to respond to all the Romney smears.

scotchieguy| 2.13.12 @ 11:00AM

He looked ridiculous going after Romney's career as "a job killer." Who does he work for, Obama?

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:02PM

Actually I think Gingrich made a valid point you just haven't thought things through.

Think about Obama's campaign tactics of class warfare, Gingrich was pointing out why Obama wants Romney to be the Republican nominee.

Mtncougar| 2.14.12 @ 1:23AM

Romney's Bain Capital IS a job killer. That's not from Newt ... that is said by a Reagan conservative venture capitalist. (see link below)

Romney is the prototypical country club wall street corporate rich Republican, and Bain is his achilles heel. Romney needs to be vetteed on Bain (you can bet the MSM will), and if left alone Newt would have helped.

Here's the interview with the Reagan conservative venture capitalist on Bain (below). It is easy to understand and very sobering. Romney will get crushed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be

Dai Alanye| 2.13.12 @ 11:24AM

Newt made two huge mistakes early on -- claiming he had the nomination in the bag before Iowa voted, and publicizing his desire to go after appeals judges.

The third big mistake was to respond to Romney's attacks in kind rather than rise above them. Newt beats Newt.

Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 11:57AM

In Iowa Newt did exactly what you suggest: he tried to stay above Romney's smears. Look what it got him. He realized that negative ads work. He just doesn't have the money to match Romney's.

I don't remember Newt saying he had the nomination in the bag. His comments about bringing judges before Congress were simply expressions of the same frustration that most of us have regarding arrogant, out-of-control judges.

Newt's attack on Romney's Bain capital should have been more focused on Romney rather than leave the impression he was attacking capitalism. But he backed away from it after criticism, asking his SuperPac to pull a Romney-type ad that naturally wasn't true.

So most of these criticisms of Newt are just the same old tired charges that NR and AmSpec have been leveling at Newt, since these publications are, after all, just shills for Romney.

Mimi| 2.13.12 @ 12:18PM

I think Newt is quiet now analyzing and dissecting the playing field....At least Romney and his money is off his back!
If and when he sees a real rise in support of Santorum he will do the HONORABLE thing and get out and support him.
He needs time, events , debates and POLLS...I think after super Tuesday, early March we'll see!
I watched Newt's speech at CPAC he did the best job! He looked like the logical person, his Ideas surperb...Why he didn't convince that crowd was disapointing.....Time will tell, Newt a basically GOOD & DECENT man loves his country, and will do what is right! That I am convinced of!

Todd| 2.14.12 @ 2:28AM

Newt is a CFR member like Bill Clinton. They both have a habit of self destruction and narcissism. Gingrich cannot manage his personal life so his falling apart was expected. I have no interest in anyone who supported Dede Scazzofava in NY state, global warming with Pelosi and a Newt on video talking about GW with John Kerry or a Newt who feeds at the Fannie/Freddie trough.

Rick Santorum or Ron Paul for me and Rick gets the edge. I don't like Mitt but he does seem like a good family man.

Rick Santorum/Rand Paul 2012

Truth| 2.13.12 @ 8:22AM

You make at least one factual error: Mitt Romney lost to Ron Paul in Minnesota: Ron Paul was the second place finisher with 27%.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 9:03AM

" LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Congressman and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Obama Administration’s announcement that religious organizations must pay for contraception and sterilization under the national health care law:

“Forcing private religious institutions to pay for contraception and sterilization as part of their health care plans is a direct assault on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. On my first day as President, I will reverse this policy. Repealing the unconstitutional monstrosity known as ObamaCare is a major part of my Plan to Restore America.

“I am the only GOP presidential candidate who has consistently opposed the federal promotion, funding, and mandating of contraception and abortion. Unlike Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, I never voted to provide taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. And unlike Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health care plan contained a contraceptive mandate similar to the one contained in ObamaCare, I have never supported any government health care mandates."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 5:00PM

That's nice. You know, Paul could be advocating a bill in the House right now, but I don't see it. He did find time to advocate for one for Marijuana legalization, but not for this.

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:14PM

Have you heard of anyone else introducing such a bill Occam? I think Clint is a twit, but sometimes you come across as an idiot.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 7:40PM

I'm Not A Twit, I'm A Tea Party Patriot.

Lookin' For A Problem Quartermaster ?

Actually, You're Sounding Like A Twit Yourself, Quartermaster.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 7:19PM

"In 2005, 2007, 2009, and again in 2011, Dr.Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level."

You're The Israel Firster,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

Interesting That You Hide BehindThe Moniker Of A Catholic Heretic, Israel Firster Smear Bund Scum, Tool Job.

Silver Bullet| 2.13.12 @ 9:41AM

"While some pundits dismissed Santorum's strong showing last week as an inconsequential bump in the road for Romney, it helped Santorum establish at least a temporary ascendancy over Newt Gingrich as the top "Not Mitt" candidate in the Republican race."

Although "Spectator" most likely has not knowingly propagandized for Mitt Romney, the above quote reflects the not-so-subtle underlying biased narrative that has undergirded almost all "reporting" on the nomination contest.

It is time for the Editors at Spectator to launch a new narrative: "Santorum appears to be surging towards the nomination!!" Or, "Santorum finally gets discovered!" Or, "Santorum emerges on top, triumphing against all odds!" Or, "Romney has met his match!!"

Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 9:45AM

Not going to happen. AmSpec has chosen "electability" as its standard, conservative values be damned.

loulou| 2.13.12 @ 9:51AM

Except that Romney's "electability" is a manufactured myth. Nobody likes Romney except the GOP elites.

scotchieguy| 2.13.12 @ 11:02AM

George Will said on his ABC show that nothing is more unreliable than saying someone is "inevitable" or "electable." They have been saying that for months about Romney, and he is still around 25-30%.

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 7:13PM

It's kind of like saying that Man-made Global Warming is "settled science," right? :)

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:15PM

What? You mean it's not? Have you told Albore?

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 7:27PM

You Owe Me An Apology.

This Phoney Post By The Israel Firster Smear Bund Poseur Punk Poster, Over At "Bishops Reject Obama's 'Accommodation'
By G. Tracy Mehan, III",
Wasn't My Post.

" Clint| 2.13.12 @ 11:19AM
Jesus Was Catholic, Who Was Killed By The Joooooos1"

These Smear Bund Scum Poseur Punk Post Under Other's Names In An Attempt To Smear Up, Marginalize And Mock Anyone,Who Doesn't Ass Kiss Their Agenda.

Watch Yourself Around Them.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 8:01PM

Note to self;

Shut up!

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 8:29PM

The Gutless Israel Firster Coward Has To Poseur Punk Post Under My Name Because You Ain't Man Enough To Take Me On Man Up, Under Your Own Name.

You Israel Firster Gutless Cowards Got A Bad Habit Of Hiding Behind Others When The Fightin' Starts.

Old Soldier| 2.13.12 @ 11:23AM

There is a conservative running? Who?

Silver Bullet| 2.13.12 @ 9:52AM

One additional point that I wish the Editors would address: If Romney has been "with the program" of conservatism for at least four years now, and if he has had so much $$$$, then tell us this: where was Romney in 2008? Was he spending millions of dollars to attack Obama?

Why didn't Romney unleash his "brutal attack machine" in 2008 against Obama? Why didn't he lend a helping hand to McCain? Could it be that Romney didn't want McCain to be President, and already had in mind his run in 2012 against Obama? What does his passivity in 2008 after McCain was nominated tell us about who he really is and why he is really running?

I can't help but thinking that Romney is "in the game" the way some corporate leaders run businesses -- for themselves and themselves alone. Not for money, but for the sheer thrill of the prestige and the power of "being President."

I believe it was the (late) CBS-TV commentator Eric Sevareid who once said: “The difference between the men and the boys in politics is, and always has been, that the boys want to be something, while the men want to do something.” Romney, like GHWBush #41, has always been a "boy" in politics. Someone whose ego is at stake.

Santorum, by comparison, has always worked to DO something in politics. That is why he staked his career on standing down the liberals at every turn. He did not back down from femi-nazi Boxer when he stared her down on partial birth abortion. He showed courage and tenacity in his efforts to save Terry Schiavo, whose parents wanted her to live and whose husband wanted her to die. He showed courage when he stood by his principles in 2006, standing by George Bush despite the latter's unpopularity. He has repeatedly shown integrity in the way he lives his personal life -- not just talking the talk of pro-life but walking the walk.

Again I ask: If Romney had truly wanted McCain in 2008, where was his "brutal attack machine" then? Why, it was put into mothballs, with Romney secretly hoping that Obama would win and give him his "chance" in 2012. How else to explain his "sin of omission" of not spending a couple of tens of millions on ads to help McCain then? He is worth hundreds of millions, after all, and it would have been "pocket change," or "walking around $$$" to him.

Dai Alanye| 2.13.12 @ 11:27AM

Excellent points.

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:17PM

I dislike Romney intensely, but in fairness I have to say that McShamnesty didn't want attack ads running against the OneWhoWun. No, no, he wanted to be civil and take the high road, and tell us we had nothing to worry about if Obama won.

obadiah| 2.13.12 @ 7:31PM

Terry Schiavo will be alive, healthy and happy when Rick Santorum becomes President.

Anthony| 2.13.12 @ 10:14AM

As long as Romney needs a teleprompter to speak conservative, Santorum will continue to rise as the alternative to moderate Mitt.
Romney is nasty and vicious, I just hope, if he does get the nomination, that he keeps this up on Obozo, and doesn't run another campaign like that loser McCain did.

Silver Bullet| 2.13.12 @ 2:57PM

See my comment, just two above yours: Where was Romney's "attack machine" in 2008? It isn't as if Romney is lacking for $$$ to have run, easily, $40-million to $50-million of ads against Obama! No -- Romney sat out 2008, hoping McCain would lose so he would have his "chance" in 2012. How else to explain his sitting on the sidelines in 2008? At the least, he is guilty of the "sin of omission" of NOT spending at least, say, $10-million in ads against Obama.

Al Adab| 2.13.12 @ 10:14AM

Simply put, the thing is, a Romney nomination will once again lead the GOP to defeat. Time and again we follow these candidates from Dewey on and time and again the GOP loses. To quote the old song, "When will they ever learn?"

Even when on rare occasion we won with such, we have been disappointed in the result. Government growth, deficit spending, increased regulation and fail policies. There is no substance here.

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 7:15PM

Insanity it doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

David| 2.13.12 @ 10:47AM

Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.

Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.

They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.

They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.

They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.

They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.

Santorum is of the opinion that ILLEGAL immigrants have not broken ONE law (by crossing the border) as many claim, but that they have continually been breaking America's laws by working here, driving here, etc., and should NOT be rewarded for doing so.

Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.

Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.

Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him at the time.

Santorum is a fighter for what he believes and has always been the underdog in heavily democratic and union PA, and except for once, he has always been a winner. He has been able to convince democratic voters to stick with him for the very reason that he stuck by his conservatives principles.

It is clear that Santorum has been the adult in this race. His criticisms have been on the other candidates' records and he does not distort or misrepresent their records as they do to one another.

It is also clear that he has been the true, principled, consistent conservative his entire politcal career.

scotchieguy| 2.13.12 @ 11:13AM

I agree with much of what you say. But for me, Santorum seems like a perfect VP candidate.

We are missing the real candidate. This is like watching the backing band warm up until the star shows up. Romney is NOT that star. He is so glib, plastic, phony, etc. I literally can't watch him speak anymore than I can watch Obama speak. Will Americans really fall for Romney's BS if he becomes the nominee? I think Obama wins big if that is the case. The only thing we can hope for is someone like Jeb Bush, Ryan, Rubio, etc comes in to save the day.

Todd| 2.14.12 @ 2:34AM

Oh Please. No Jeb and non open-borders Rubio lecturing us on how we should love illegals. Rubio is amnesty Mel Martinez 2. Paul Ryan - h*ll yeah! No brokered conventions.

Rick Santorum will win Michigan and it will be over for Newt and Romney will look incredibly weak. The GOP establishment will start pushing Jeb or some other pipe dream.

I could see Santorum/Ryan or Santorum/Rand Paul.

Old Soldier| 2.13.12 @ 11:26AM

Santorum spent like a drunken Rino while in the Senate on Medicare Drugs among many other things.

Most of your list are positions he took after losing his re-election campaign by 19 points.

Dai Alanye| 2.13.12 @ 11:30AM

Too much exaggeration! Soldier is beginning to sound like O'Stalin.

Old Soldier| 2.13.12 @ 12:24PM

Details?
I know most of us have tried to block out the Bill Frist / Denny Hastert Congress, but I never heard a peep out of Santorum when he was running with that crowd.

Silver Bullet| 2.13.12 @ 6:32PM

So, Old Soldier, if it's Obama vs. Santorum, does it matter?

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 8:23AM

Not much - one authoritarian against another.

I also doubt Santorum has any ability to appeal to independents.

Todd| 2.14.12 @ 2:41AM

Time to do the honorable thing old soldier and fall on your sword. I think you are the same old soldier over at FR bashing Rick. Newt is done. He cannot handle his personal life let alone a campaign or governing. His problems are way to long. Romney? No thanks. Romney and Newt have spent a ton of money campaigning while Rick barely had gas money. Santorum also did not have GOP support and was being ignored by the media.

Your lot demonized Ron Paul even though his foreign policy sounds more like Ike than anyone else. And Ron Paul is correct on The (private) Federal Reserve (corporation).

Rick Santorum is winning evangelicals and Catholics plus he is attracting more and more young people. At CPAC - younger voters were charged up about Santorum. Rick is also youthful and a better looking candidate than the rest of the field including The Looter in Chief who is bankrupting America.

Obama carried the Catholic vote in 2008 but Santorum will win it in 2012 and be elected.

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:05PM

I've had enough of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDutBRMsXw

Watch it all the way through.

martin j smith| 2.13.12 @ 10:48AM

I think the reason that Romney is not a shoo in right now is because he has no message that resonates while Santorum does. People are tired of the same old same old and I refer you to the 2010 elections. In fact the more Romney continues negative campaigning the more he will lose support. The only way Romney can get on a national basis more than 40% in fact go to 50+% will be to say that he messed up on Romney Care, he gets the message and is ready to lead a new direction and realizes its a new day. He will not do this, but if he did I would need a pill.No Romney continue attacking his fellow competitors and avoid the real target--Obama.

Mike Rogers| 2.13.12 @ 10:52AM

Actually, the Romney wipeout in MN was worse than Stacy wrote:
Santorum 45
Paul 27
Mittens 17

scotchieguy| 2.13.12 @ 10:55AM

All this shows is the base is hungry for a real conservative, nothing more. Newt appeared to have something a month ago, but as is typical, shot himself in the foot with his mouth.

Santorum is a social conservative. The public doesn't care for that, I think they would rather see some more openness on social issues, and a fiscal conservative. At least that would attract some independents. Santorum seem strong on social issues, a war hawk (when people are saying back off), and more liberal fiscally, kind of like Huckabee.

Old Soldier| 2.13.12 @ 11:29AM

Yep. Ron Paul (I'm not a big supporter) is the only fiscal conservative in the bunch. Newt, Mitt, and Rick all have records of massive wasteful spending. Yelling "I'm a conservative" really loud doesn't make it go away.

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 5:03PM

Yeah. If only Paul didn't support legalization of heroin and gay marriage...

darcy| 2.14.12 @ 5:29AM

What attracts independents keeps the base at home.

If independents want to live in an immoral cesspool then why don't they just go all the way and vote Democrat?

Quelle horreur that a candidate for U.S. president should espouse anything that hints of traditional morality. Meanwhile, Newt is dragged through the coals for his notorious private life.

Let's face it. The Media Matters designed MSM intends to crucify our candidate, whatever his "social" credentials.

David| 2.13.12 @ 11:43AM

Every representative and senator vote for earmarks for his/her district, including the not-so-honest Ron Paul. Even he proposed earmarks for his district, then when they came up for a vote, knowing they would pass, Paul voted against them. Why? So he could stand before an uninformed electorate and say that he never voted for an earmark for his district.

Now, that is not a LITTLE BIT DISENGENUOUS - IT IS A WHOLE LOT DISHONEST - in my opinion.

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 7:26PM

There is nothing wrong with earmarking. The problem is with pork barrel spending.

Earmarking = putting lines in the legislation that takes funds allotted for that bill and gives it to a specific business/region/state for use on the projects written into the bill

Pork Barrel= putting lines in the legislation that takes funds allotted for that bill, or adding additional funds, and giving it to a business/region/state for use on projects NOT related to the bill.

Look at Santorum's record, he voted for earmarks, yes, but every one that I have gone through (I won't try to say I've read them all) has been for projects directly related to the purpose of the bill.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 12:00PM

I would love to see the truly honest commenters come back here after MI primaries and assure us all how wretched the primary voters think Santorum is versus Mitt/Paul/Newt.
When someone like Rick comes in, stays in, carefully manages money, shakes little peoples' hands, and jumps through all the stupid hoops, and beats the RINO Machine pre-ordained liberal Dead Elephant candidate, that demonstrates ALL of the characteristics desirable in the guy who has to beat not only the illegal alien who is presently dictator, but the MSM propaganda machine as well.
When Rick sweeps into office with the next wave of Republicans in Nov to back him up, we might actually (manic moment here!) see some positive change.

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 7:28PM

Seriously, the way Santorum has run his campaign should be proof enough for people that he can effectively manage money. He has spent less than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 12:02PM

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 12:04PM

Whoops, double-click enthusiasm alert! Mia culpa

Roger| 2.13.12 @ 12:33PM

It is really hard for me to decide who is worse,Romney or Santorum. Romney has Romneycare,the assault weapons ban,wanting to index the minimum wage to inflation,a weak limpwristed tax policy. Santorum is a right to work and strker replacement opposing,social issues obsessed nanny stater.

Bill| 2.13.12 @ 12:47PM

Santorum's record:
1. voted for raising debt ceiling 8 times, adding to the national debt $3 trillion because PA was a blue state
2. voted against "Right-to-Work" law because PA is a pro-union state
3. voted for the Medicare Part D because PA has a large population of retirees
Time and time, santorum surrendered to his liberal constituents and failed to stand up with the majority of people of PA, and that is why he lost his senate bid by 18 points to a "silly" liberal Bob Casey in 2006.
wanne be the President? You wish!

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 1:23PM

Yeah, Bill and Roger, we get that you are concern trolls deeply anxious about how we'll turn into a socialist country if the stupid readers of AmSpec should be such gullible fools as to demonstrate how ignorant they by voting for for Rick over the the much more desirable choices offered to them.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 1:28PM

A vote for Rick Santorum is a vote for fascism and big government...right? We absolutely CANNOT have someone trying to raise the moral fiber of our social discourse in America! Yikes! The ACLU ought to continue to be in charge of that... Snort.
I don't believe Rick voted for TARP, did he? Mitt was for it and so was Newt. Hmmmmmm

Mike Rogers| 2.13.12 @ 1:28PM

But wait, there's more...
We couldn't figure the conundrum whereby CPAC voters wanted principles over 'electability' by a big margin, and then chose Mittens over Santorum by a small margin. THEN I read the Politico article Stacy referenced, and my eyes had not deceived me - there were a LOT of youngsters in Romney 'uniform', and now we know they were bused in and paid for.
Hey, Mittens, money can buy you people, but it can't buy you love - that is why you have no base.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 2:27PM

I respectfully differ... He was able to purchase the GOP, Coulter, Christine O'Donnell, Pawlenty, Chris Christie, LDS, the Bush Dynasty, Rove, Fox News, and for awhile, National Reveiw ("purchase" may only be synonymous with the respect accrued by the wealthy, and with "electability", but that is enough, just like the rich always having an endless line of credit because they ARE rich). The rich are never "friend"-less, it just comes down to what the definition of "friend" really is, and what use those friends ultimately are to you.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 1:37PM

I find it interesting that the "CPAC Edition" of the last HotAir poll, an audience that overlaps the AmSpec audience, has Rick stomping all over his rivals. PPP and ARG polls have Rick WAY ahead of his rivals in MI right now.

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:06PM

Everyone that is going off on Gingrich on Cap & Tax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDutBRMsXw

Watch it all the way through, I did.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 2:29PM

Sitting on the love seat with Pelousy DOOMED Newt with me forever.

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:07PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDutBRMsXw

I think Newt made up for that mistake if you watch it through to the end, he really rips Henry Waxman (D) a new one.

Jabber3| 2.13.12 @ 3:04PM

I have known Rick Santorum for over 15 years on a personal basis. He is a fine gentleman and an advocate for conservative causes but believe me when I say he is not presidential material. Vice President maybe?

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:08PM

I have no problem with that, I would have no problem voting for Santorum in the General either, as long as Romney is not on the ticket.

Drunken Sailor| 2.13.12 @ 4:05PM

Just how do you come up with a man being a good VP but not the president, when the VP's main function is to step into the presidency?

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:23PM

That would be fine if we had someone that was of Presidential timbre running along with him, but no one else in the race is even close.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 3:11PM

Oh we REEEEEALLY believe you concern troll Jabber3. Thanks for the info, you kept me from making a terrible voting mistake, as I have implicit faith in your goodwill toward both primary voting conservatives and your good buddy Rick Santorum. It's so nice to know someone will sacrifice his personal acquaintances' efforts for the good of the AmSpec comment tread readers. Such altruism is so seldom seen...Heh.

Zious| 2.13.12 @ 3:18PM

Santorum seems to be the ultimate likely nominee of the GOP. After all the crushing and grinding is done, he might end up the only one able to stand up on one feet to take on Obama. Sadly the GOP failed to find a single viable candidate, someone special like a Ronald Reagan. www.sci-burr.com. However hard these last 4 contenders fight the battle for the nomination we obviously have lost part of the war already. A tired, bruised, hurt soldier can only hold fort for so long before he falls.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 3:38PM

Pew Poll just out: Santorum 30%, Romney 20, Newt 17, Paul 12%.

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:49PM

Just wait for Romney's smear machine to get going, then we'll see.

Roger| 2.13.12 @ 3:55PM

Catholicism,especially Santorum's pre Vatican 2 variety is plenty weird too.

David Brock| 2.13.12 @ 4:09PM

We have a place for you in my org. Roger ;)

David Brock| 2.13.12 @ 4:11PM

In fact, now that I think about it, we do have a 'turfers budget, and I think I remember signing a check w/ your name on it...good work, and keep it up!

J Robert Giles| 2.13.12 @ 4:15PM

We're perilously close to the edge of the cliff. Jerk the wheel back to the right before we Sheen ourselves! Please read & share the following article. Silence is tyranny.

http://jrobertgiles.blogspot.c.....wheel.html

David| 2.13.12 @ 4:43PM

Jabber 3, if Santorum is not qualified to be prez, then WHY in the world would you want to see him as prez.? Pleeeease get a clue.

Roger| 2.13.12 @ 5:04PM

When will Rick show us his tax returns?

libertypatriot| 2.13.12 @ 5:14PM

At least Santorum is a consistent Neo-Conservative. America cannot afford Neo-Conservative policy any more and it will be the GOP's death knell.

D. Brock| 2.13.12 @ 5:19PM

Yes, let's vote for the RINO Paul, as his is not duplicity at all. Oh, wait, it's alright to lie if good comes from it in the end. If I go out and get elected calling myself a Democrat and then govern like a conservative Republican, it's O.K. 'cause I meant to do good by my lying weasel words.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 5:36PM

Ron Paul is a Libertarian and used to run under that label. To call himself a Republican is a lie. To say he is not a racist is also a lie. To say he never supported (different than saying he voted for them) that is a lie.
Running a plank in his platform like anti-national security is also bad form. Ron Paul is NEVER going to get within a hundred miles of POTUS.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 6:51PM

"never supported earmarks" that should be

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:26PM

un-PC yes. Racist? Bunk! I've read the columns and they are not racist, just realistic. Of course, in this PC addled world being realistic is the same as being racist, particularly to the loony left.

Brian| 2.13.12 @ 5:15PM

Mark my words. CPAC was nothing more then a memorial service for the Republican party. The party is divided in two. Any social conservative that votes republican is deluding himself.

D. Brock| 2.13.12 @ 5:22PM

Dude, come to work for me!

Brian| 2.13.12 @ 5:46PM

No thanks. Brock works for the Repub establishment. Just who do you think votes for multi--billion dollar tax breaks for big leftist media? Republicans!

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 5:59PM

I guess you haven't visited Wiki on who Brock is yet, huh? He once wrote for this paper and then he flipped his wig, and lost his sanity. He created Media Matters which was originally to cover Hillary's sins(for power in her presidency) and now he works for Soros and the Obamunists slanting the American Pravda media further towards communism and our commie overlords.

D. Brock| 2.13.12 @ 5:15PM

Atta boy, Rog! My kind o' guy! Maybe I'll introduce you to Hillary one of these days.

D. Brock| 2.13.12 @ 5:21PM

Secular humanism is my religion, and its moral relativity and situational ethics my guide. I am god, and what I say is right is therefore right(as long as I mean well by it).

David| 2.13.12 @ 5:45PM

So you know, out of the 7 candidates who WERE left in the race, Santorum was second to the BOTTOM as far as net worth.

Roger| 2.13.12 @ 6:07PM

I am sorry. Forget we can'r criticize Santorum on here. He is the sacred cow. Long live the Virgin Mary!

Silver Bullet| 2.13.12 @ 6:47PM

Your post, earlier:
Roger| 2.13.12 @ 3:55PM

"Catholicism,especially Santorum's pre Vatican 2 variety is plenty weird too."

Actually, as a faithful Catholic who believes all that the Church teaches, I think that I agree with you. In fact, I have considered writing a book whose title would be something on the order of "Catholicism is Preposterous."

Indeed, in John's Gospel, chapter 6, there is the only recorded instance of Jesus's followers no longer believing in Him (which is different from the cowardice shown by the Apostles' panicky denial of Him when he was being interrogated before his execution). These soon-to-be ex-disciples couldn't accept Jesus's teaching that in order to have eternal life, one must literally "gnaw" on His flesh and drink His blood -- the Greek words are repeated, and become more and more emphatic as the scene progresses. Indeed, if Jesus had intended His words to be metaphorical or symbolic, He would have called these disciples back: "Oh, wait!! I don't mean these words literally!!" Why would Jesus let these disciples go away from the path to salvation if He believed that they were simply misunderstanding Him? Wouldn't such a view accuse Jesus of deliberately allowing these disciples to be mistaken, and therefore to go to their (potentially) perdition?

The Pharisees and Sadduccees also thought that Jesus was "weird," to use your term, or "preposterous," to use my own term. Indeed, they executed Him, overtly, for the crime of blasphemy. How "WEIRD" or "PREPOSTEROUS" of Him to claim Himself to be the equal of God, to be ONE with the Father!! Again, I agree with Roger that all of Christianity is "weird" about this -- claiming a God who became a real human being!!

Catholicism of the 21st century is proven to have descended almost unchanged back to the very first century. Just read the Church Fathers -- for example, Ignatius of Antioch. Read any one of a number of modern authors if you don't believe me: for example, Jimmy Akin (a convert); or Mike Aquilina. Or, go to the website for the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, founded by Scott Hahn (another convert): http://www.salvationhistory.com/

In any event, Roger, your sneering remarks harbor a kernel of truth. You just need to learn about "the rest of the story": namely, that -- yes, Catholicism is "weird"; but so is ALL of Christianity. But you know what? It is also TRUE!!!

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 7:24PM

Calling Catholicism the "one true church" is gonna take you and a lot of other people to a place we really don't want to go on a political blog, perhaps? According to James ALL religion is vain. If we follow a human-instituted religion, based on man's vain attempts to please God (impossible) by our own religiosity we will all fail. Jesus said in John 14:6 "I Am the way, I Am the truth, I Am the life no man cometh unto the Father but by/through me" (there was no mention of a denominational affiliation), and He also said (Matt 3:29)"Call no man your "Father" on earth, for one is your father which is in Heaven". St Paul says in Romans 1:17 that "the just shall live by faith" and in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are we saved, through faith, and that not of (in)ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast". Paul says in Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us..." Acts 2:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NO OTHER NAME, under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved" Those who let other sinful humans read and interpret the Bible for them will be led astray. Paul says of Christ's followers in 1 Peter 2:9 "But you are...a royal priesthood..." I do not need a priest to go to God for me, Christ "sits at the right hand of the Father ever making intercession..." for me. No where in the Bible is a denominational affiliation necessary, and in fact the criminal on the cross next to Christ was let into Heaven merely by professing his faith in who Christ was and asking Him to save him. No pope, nor priest, nor father, nor reverend, nor baptism, nor anything else was necessary but faith in Christ alone, admission of guilt and request for salvation, period. The same goes for EVERYONE, right now this very moment. There is no knowing how many seconds one has left, best call on His help now.

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:30PM

Funny that when he said "this is my body," and "this is my blood" it was he that handed the disciples to bread and wine. People ridicule red neck Baptists for being silly in their literalism, yet people are supposed to leave Roman Catholics alone when the picture is completely different from what they claim it was? Not even the Roman Catholic bible translations agree with the RCC stance on the bread and wine being his literal body and blood.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 8:06PM

You Seem To Have A Catholic Problem, Ass Clown, Quartermaster.

" Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood."

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 7:31PM

Don't wait until next Sunday to confess (1 John 1:9), The whole book of Hebrews is VERY clear as to whom is our high priest now that Christ has taken that spot by His self-sacrifice on our behalves.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 7:52PM

Acts 4:12 There is no other name...whereby salvation...

Silver Bullet| 2.13.12 @ 9:26PM

If we were all Catholic, there would BE no "denominations," would there now? We would all be one, just as Jesus prayed for.

Silver Bullet| 2.13.12 @ 9:57PM

I don't intend to "sling Bible verses" with you. I would encourage you to try to understand the Catholic claim to the "fullness of truth," of which portions remain in other Christian denominations, and of which glimpses are given to all people of good will.

Begin with our Catechism -- it is shot through with references to Scripture.

For your edification, I would recommend that you read some of the wonderful apologia written over the last century or so. A few worthy authors: Scott Hahn; Jimmy Akin; Mark Shea; Patrick Madrid; Bruce Sullivan; Karl Keating; Dietrich von Hildebrand; G. K. Chesterton; John Henry Cardinal Newman. Go to these websites (I can't "hotlink" them all due to restrictions on this site -- just type in www. before and .com after these names): Catholic for answers to your questions; catholicapologetics; scripturecatholic. There are many others.

Please consider: when it's just you and the Bible, doesn't that make you your own "pope"? Why are there so many Protestant denominations? Because there are so many disagreements -- a violation of Christ's prayer that we would all be one (John's Gospel 17:21).

Besides, who do you think gave you the Bible? Why would it be that God could guarantee the infallibility of the Bible but somehow would not guarantee the infallibility of the teaching office that codified that same Bible? Jesus didn't say, "Go to the whole world passing out Bibles"; He said, "Go forth and teach all nations" -- of necessity, the concept of "teach" inherently includes authority, an authority which must be visible and concrete in its demands to mean anything worthwhile. (Otherwise, you end up believing whatever you want, claiming it to be straight out of the Bible. "Every man a pope; every man a pope; but no one wears a crown!!")

Go learn the early Church -- it was quite Catholic, from the beginning. Jimmy Akin and Mike Aquilina particularly are good at explicating the Catholic-ness of the Catholic Church by quoting directly from the Church Fathers, going all the way back to the year 100 or so, when Ignatius of Antioch wrote his epistles en route to Rome and martyrdom.

As for your assertion about needing a priest, remember that Jesus said to the Apostles "whose sins you forgive are forgiven; whose sins you hold bound are held bound." It is tautological that in order to hold a sin bound, the priest must know what that sin is, and the attitude of the sinner confessing it. Aural confession is a necessity for the priest to carry out this command (John 20:22-23).

Finally, consider visiting the Coming Home Network, instrumental in assisting many Protestants to the "fullness of truth": www.chnetwork.org

Peace, brother.... My peace I give to you.

David| 2.13.12 @ 6:42PM

Old Soldier, Santorum was NOT "running with that crowd" as you put it. Santorum many times was going against the grain of repub leadership. He was pushing for SS and entitlement reforms when everyone was telling him to drop them as issues. I have watched him too long, and watched too much C-SPAN for years, to let you distort Santorum and his solid conservative positions on almost every issue.

People have posted here, ad nauseum, his conservative ratings from various conservative groups.

Who do you know who scores as consistently high with those groups as Santorum. Even Fred Thompson, who was the conservative choice last time around, didn't come close to Santorum's conservative ratings by those groups.

Silver Bullet| 2.13.12 @ 6:52PM

Thank you, David. I get tired of the hysterical postings accusing Santorum of being everything from a virtual socialist to a "papist-theocrat." People who accuse him of these things are propagandizing, and "in their hearts, they know that he (Santorum) is right" to borrow Goldwater's campaign slogan......

These posters usually, in my opinion, harbor anti-Catholic animus -- yes, bigots..... But they are smart enough to know to hide it behind these bogus "issues." The worst of these is "he can't get elected." Well, YES HE CAN!!!

David| 2.13.12 @ 7:29PM

SIlver Bullet, you may be on to something there about his Catholicism. I guess I give posters on this site (most of them anyway) too much credit and think they would not let Catholicism get in the way of voting the most conservative. candidate. But wait, Newt is also a Catholic, albeit a recent convert. And people should realize that many of our favorite conservatives over the years have been Catholic: Bill Bennett and William Buckley to name only two.

Quartermaster| 2.13.12 @ 7:33PM

Frankly, Santorum's Catholicism doesn't bother me. If he had the intention of trying to repeal the 1st amendment and make Roman Catholicism the state religion it would be different.

OTOH, the overall morality of the RCC, as they teach it, but not as the Hierarchy lives it (they are a bunch socialists and are now getting burned by the Obummer whose Obamacare they supported). The hierarchy has as yet to face the rot in their ranks.

Your Inner Voice| 2.13.12 @ 7:43PM

The Dead Elephant Party is a zombie party now, and Santorum may have a temporary positive impact (especially by carrying in more TEA Partiers with him in Nov), but only radical change of leadership and attitudes in upper management of the Gay Old Party (a bunch of soft socialists) is going to change the direction of the country, or at least give it a parachute.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 7:48PM

Do Your Homework.

" In 1984, it was reported that a meeting occurred between Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the CELAM bishops, during which a rift developed between Ratzinger and some of the bishops.[20] As mentioned above, Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) issued official condemnations of certain elements of liberation theology in 1984 and 1986.

After this, and throughout the 1990s, Ratzinger, as prefect of the CDF, continued to condemn these elements in liberation theology, and prohibited dissident priests from teaching such doctrines in the Catholic Church's name. Leonardo Boff was suspended and others were censured. Tissa Balasuriya, in Sri Lanka, was excommunicated. Sebastian Kappen, an Indian theologian, was also censured for his book Jesus and Freedom.Under Cardinal Ratzinger's influence, theological formation schools were forbidden from using the Catholic Church's organization and grounds to teach liberation theology in the sense of theology using unacceptable Marxist ideas, not in the broader sense."

Nick099| 2.14.12 @ 12:15AM

Yep....Gingrich is wiped out cause of CPAC...I mean after all....the vote is so predictive of future events... Ron Paul and Romney have won them several times in recent past...so factually CPAC straw vote means nothing. Santorum won in states with less than 10% voter turnout ( as did Romney) and no delegates awarded, so except for momentum in the Media...how does this matter at all???? The answer is; it does not matter. But Media outlets are trying to make it matter.

They know Santorum has a big mouth and when he gets hot under the collar he comes across as very small and unimpressive...annoying in fact. The establishment types want Santorum because it means an ultimate Romney victory...and I like Santorum. I just do not think he has the tools Gingrich has.

The paragraph about the press conference calling Gingrich "petulant" is nothing more than a smear and a lie. i watched the whole event live. He was neither "petulant" or "whiny" or" zany." He answered all questions in a direct matter of fact manner. It was refreshing. The new media and its' establishment handlers are making a huge mistake: betting all on Romney by bolstering Santorum is dangerous. Romney is weak, despite all the millions propping him up. When he ran on issues Gingrich destroyed him. Santorum was no where to be found. When Romney attacked with $20 million in sleazy adds, he pulled out a win in Florida. Nevada was a very low turnout of 7.5% in a state that is 26% Mormon. Santorum's victories while nice, where also equally low in turnout and awarded no delegates. yet the chucklebutts continue to post delegate results as if they were awarded. Even Florida will have to be divided up per RNC rules so Romney did not get the whole 50. He gets a percentage...so after all the money he spent, to destroy Gingrich, Romney ends up with 6-8 more delegates???? That does not sound like a great investmnet of capital to me especially coming from a guy whose only claim to fame is that he was some type of gifted investment manager. The whole coverage is disgusting. Try reporting the news instead of your freakin opinion. From the looks of it, this writer would be far better off. He does not have the intellectual capacity necessary for proper analysis.

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:32PM

If Gingrich was really as unelectible as people are claiming, those same people wouldn't be expending all this effort to sabotage his campaign.

POST American| 2.14.12 @ 12:21AM

--------------------FINAL WORD------------------------

"Notice, once again, s the REAL campaign
approaches, the REAL issues 'disappear'."

---The Globalist RED China handover

-----The TAX FREE, seditious 'benny violent'
EUGENICS and TREASON foundations

-------The ILLEGAL, and beyond criminal,
PRIVATE, USURY driven, debt serf generating,
traitorous, EUGENICS mongering 'FED'

--------NAFTA/ GATT

----------'Banker Bailouts'

----------NDAA 1021

-------------PELOSI calling for further
police state surveillance while visiting the
GENOCIDE capitol of the world --RED China

----------------GINZBURG dissing the Constitution

--------------------the PRIVATE EUGENICS borg
---the TAX FREE, and NOW tax collecting UN

----------------------the FUKISHIMA world depop op and cover up.

Just --some-- of the REAL issues.

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 1:16AM

Santorum's emphatic dogma only appeals to a very short 1/4 of the country, most of whom are afraid their neighbors scorn of them for their REAL beliefs is too expensive a price to pay for speaking the truth.

his ultra Sterile Christian Fascism with it's moral dictates and faulty supposition that GOD actually exists, has laws that were NOT written in sand by men and insists on discrimination against women, the poor, non whites and the needy, helpless and handicapped of our society will hand Obama a Johnson/Reagan size landslide win.

The UNUM should NEVER rule the PLURIBUS, and unstammering deception as to who is coercing who makes the third most corrupt Senator of his term a poor choice even for those that believe his schlep.

Silver Bullet| 2.14.12 @ 8:04PM

It never ceases to amaze me, "fckewe" (scatological name, likely owned by a scatological person), that when people start making accusations such as you have, that you (seemingly) fail to realize that the person being excoriated surely does not believe himself to be the things you say.

Do you honestly believe that Santorum considers himself to be guilty of "discrimination against women, the poor, non whites and the needy, helpless and handicapped...."?

If not, then why not?

Are you, "fckewe," capable of analyzing Santorum's thought processes as to why he does NOT believe himself to be the things you accuse him of? I doubt it. You strike me as being incapable of considering the possibility that your rhetorical, supposed opponent (Santorum) might have a brain and actual reasons for his views, and that he might -- just might -- fail to see himself the way you do.

Is your intellect, "fckewe," so blindingly brilliant that you cannot deign to stoop to explain answers to my two questions above??? Hmmm?

I am waiting a reply.

Sincerely,

"Silver Bullet"

Lynn Otting| 2.14.12 @ 5:16PM

Unfortunely for both candidates, Newt is not out of this race. Let's not vote for the candidate that has the only workable tax and energy plans. Let's not vote for the candidate that can actually beat President O'bama. Let's not vote for the candidate that has set and achieved goals for the advancement of conservatism. Newt has done more to advance the cause of conservatism than anyone in the presidential race. He not only ended 40 years of Democratic control in the House, he ended Democratic control of southern states like Georgia too. Republicans forget how much Newt has done for conservatism. Regardless of how he did it and whether he made a few mistakes along the way, he accomplished his goals. For example, he didn't quit until Republicans controlled the house. It took him over 12 years to achieve this goal. (Funny, how people are so quick to conclude that Newt quit the speakership because he was scared he didn't have the votes to win. How difficult is it to understand that he would rather step down than risk the Republicans losing control of the house.) Unfortunately, people just don’t get that the one and only reason Newt has ever done and will ever do anything is for conservatism, not individualism.

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:33PM

I will go a step further and point out that the Obama media wouldn't be trying to sabotage Gingrich's campaign like this if Obama wasn't genuinely afraid to face Gingrich in an election.