-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC
March 18, 2013 | 35 comments
-
The Hottest Ticket in Town
March 14, 2013 | 28 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Showdown in Romneyland
Michigan faces a crucial choice in the 2012 campaign.
TROY, Michigan — The state’s top elected Republican officials took their turns on the stage of the Royal Oak Music Theatre: Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, Attorney General Bill Schuette and finally Gov. Rick Snyder, who introduced the man the crowd had come to see, Mitt Romney. Wearing jeans and a navy blazer, Romney spoke for about 12 minutes, giving a variation of his standard stump speech, quoting the lyrics of “America the Beautiful” and the Declaration of Independence.
“I happen to believe that if we want to have a strong economy and good private-sector jobs, it helps to have a president who’s had a private-sector job,” the former Massachusetts governor said, drawing cheers from more than 500 supporters in attendance in Royal Oak, a suburb of Detroit. Romney said his arguments for strengthening the economy are “the reason that I can defeat Barack Obama in Michigan in the fall.”
Before he can do that, of course, Romney must first show he can win Michigan in February and, on the eve of Tuesday’s GOP primary here, that proposition was still very much in doubt. While Romney has recovered from the slump that had him trailing by double digits in his native state two weeks ago, the latest polls show the longtime Republican frontrunner barely leading Rick Santorum. (One late poll even showed Santorum with a slight lead.) While Romney has outspent his Republican rival here and has deployed his professional campaign staff effectively, the intensity of the fight in Michigan has exceeded what anyone would have predicted a month ago. In 2008, Romney defeated John McCain here by an 80,000-vote margin, and Michigan was widely expected to be a “safe” state for Romney this time around.
Michigan isn’t safe because Santorum has appealed to the state’s blue-collar voters and religious conservatives, including his fellow Catholics who may account for as many as one-third of votes cast in Tuesday’s primary. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed column Monday, Santorum outlined his economic plan, which especially emphasizes the need to revive America’s manufacturing sector in industrial “Rust Belt” states like Michigan. Despite a widely criticized debate performance last week in Arizona, and despite a number of controversies that have generated national headlines, Santorum has stood up under the fire of Romney’s attack ads in Michigan in a way that Newt Gingrich was unable to do in Iowa or Florida. During a Monday appearance in Lansing, Santorum dismissed as a “joke” Romney’s ad campaign against him and told a crowd of about 200 supporters, “Michigan, you have an opportunity to stop that joke.”
On the eve of the primary, there was much talk of mischief in Michigan. Santorum’s campaign has repeatedly asserted that Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul have been strategically cooperating against him, a charge given credence by an analysis that found Paul had repeatedly attacked Romney’s rivals during debates, but never attacked Romney. Monday, the accusation of shenanigans was aimed at Santorum’s campaign, which used automated “robocalls” to target Democratic voters with anti-Romney messages. Michigan has an “open” primary law, meaning that independents and Democrats can vote in the Republican primary, and many Democrats have talked of crossing over to vote for Santorum, whom they consider an easier opponent for Obama than Romney.
Have the Democrats miscalculated? If the more moderate Romney is really a stronger candidate, why has he struggled to close the deal with voters of his own party here in his native Michigan? It hardly adds to Romney’s “electability” argument that — even with the backing of Michigan’s top Republican officials — he would consider himself fortunate to escape Tuesday with 40 percent of the vote and a narrow win over Santorum’s low-budget campaign. Even if Romney wins Michigan, one of Santorum’s top advisers told CNN Monday, “We have already won. No matter what the results are, we’ve won. This is Romney’s home state.… The Romney campaign is spending a fortune they never expected to spend in Michigan, and every dollar they spend in Michigan is a dollar they don’t have on Super Tuesday.”
The outcome of the primaries on Super Tuesday — a week from today, on March 6 — will likely be influenced by perceptions of today’s vote in Michigan. That is especially true of neighboring Ohio, where Santorum has already begun campaigning. But while it might be considered a symbolic victory for Santorum merely to come close to beating Romney in Michigan, an actual upset win for Santorum would be a major breakthrough for the 2012 campaign’s longtime underdog. Speaking to his supporters Monday in Lansing, Santorum made clear how high the stakes are.
“Tomorrow’s the big day. It could be a game-changing day,” Santorum told the audience, remarking that Michigan has in recent years tried to move its primary to earlier in the presidential campaign schedule. “Well, you’ve moved to the right place this time. You have a chance to be the inflection point in this race. Don’t miss the opportunity to stand up, and don’t pay attention to those who say, ‘Oh, we can’t elect someone who’s too conservative. We need to appeal to moderate voters.’ They said the same thing about Ronald Reagan. … It’s no wonder why all the Democrats and all the political experts are saying, ‘Oh, you can’t nominate Santorum, he’ll be a disaster. Ha ha ha.’” Santorum paused, then said, “He who laughs last, laughs best.”
Whether Santorum or Romney will be laughing Tuesday night is a decision that now rests, not with experts, pundits or pollsters, but with the voters of Michigan.
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 (67) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/28/showdown-in-romneyland
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Phil| 2.28.12 @ 6:21AM
Heading to the polls in Michigan today to support the best Republican candidate in a long time--SANTORUM. Great on all 3 pillars...National Security, Fiscal, and Social Conservatism...and can actually articulate them. We are going to stop the phony democrat Romney.
PL| 2.28.12 @ 6:28AM
Phil, I am with you. Next week my turn to vote. I will be voting for Rick Santorum. For the very same reasons you articulate.
Looking forward to seeing a real good Michigan results tonight.
Let's continue to let the real patriots in our country voice their opinions, the true conservatives -- at the ballot box. All the liberal punditry here (to include TAS leanings) is what hurts, erodes, and destroys our country.
Politicians, pundits, journalists, media...all tend very insanely liberal. Why? Because they really don't work in the real world.
So I hope that TAS readers are not cowed or slowed down by the TAS editorial staff biases.
Today, once more, we'll hear the real people speaking. At the ballot box -- the only time we can speak freely in this country. (with, yes, always about 5% pure voter fraud -- that the politicians never want to address or fix)
Cpm| 2.28.12 @ 11:00AM
How can any self respecting conservative vote for a candidate who is at this moment desperately prostituting himself to Michigan Democrats? Pleading on his knees with democrats to help him defeat a Republican candidate is nothing but betrayal and will put an end to Santorum even if he manages to squeak out a victory in Michigan with his treachery.
Ted| 2.28.12 @ 12:12PM
Ronald Reagan reached out to Democrats in primaries just as Santorum is doing now.
TrueBlue | 2.28.12 @ 1:57PM
Heck, Reagan WAS a Democrat at one point.
Cpm| 2.29.12 @ 2:59AM
Reagan was trying to appeal to blue collar democrats to come over to the Republican side, which he did in the millions. Santorum just wants them to come in and punk Romney.
spike59| 2.29.12 @ 6:22AM
THANK YOU!
TrueBlue | 2.28.12 @ 1:59PM
So wait, let me get this straight... we need to go with Mitt because he can appeal to moderate voters, but talking to Democrat voters (who may or may not actually be moderates that just tend to traditionally vote Democrat) makes Santorum a traitor?
Willard Romneyfeller| 2.28.12 @ 2:41PM
I was happy to have D votes in NH
TrueBlue | 2.28.12 @ 3:14PM
Lol, exactly. It's only okay when Romney does it apparently.
Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 5:20PM
Do you think that ANY GOP-nominee can win the Presidency WITHOUT the votes of disaffected Democrats???
Let's get real, folks.
Santorum's outreach to Dem-voters is SMART.
He's asking them to support HIS platform...NOT the other way around.
Occam's Tool| 2.28.12 @ 7:57PM
Why should he be telling them NOT to vote for him? I mean, Paul takes money from Nazis, so why shouldn't Santorum get Dems to vote for him? We want a guy who can appeal to Conservatives of all parties.
Cpm| 2.29.12 @ 3:00AM
Horseshit. No democrat is going to support Santorum's policies.
spike59| 2.29.12 @ 6:24AM
no, he's asking them to reject the OTHER GOP candidates-he's not trying to help the party, he's trying to help 'ricky'
Nick| 2.28.12 @ 7:29PM
How can any self respecting conservative vote for a candidate who is at this moment desperately prostituting himself to Michigan Democrats?
Easy, Cpm.
All's fair, in love and war. Politics is warfare by another means.
I proudly cast my vote for Mr. Santorum in the Michigan primary, today. First, because he is the most conservative candidate still running. And second, because O'Romney couldn't beat O'Bama if he had a billion dollars with which to smear his opponents.
O'Romney is worse than McLame. He flip-flops more than J.F. Kerry. And he sticks his foot in his mouth as much as Joe Biden. He can't beat O'Bama.
Alan Brooks| 2.28.12 @ 5:46PM
2.Should it come down to a brokered convention, which of these potential dark horses would you like to see emerge?
Chris Christie
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Jeb Bush[!]
Mitch Daniels
Occam's Tool| 2.28.12 @ 7:58PM
Mike Pence
JIm DeMint
Appleby| 2.28.12 @ 7:05AM
There is something about Romney that just doesn't set right with me. It has nothing much to do with the fact that he looks like the lawyers who fired me; it has more to do with the fact that a man worth $300 million ought to go buy his own country if he wants one...and seeing Romney trying to grip and grin at Daytona, walking right past a race car that said SANTORUM 2012.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.28.12 @ 9:19AM
I hope Obama and the Clintons take your advice. When they gather up enough money, perhaps they can buy Haiti and Darfur and proclaim themselves dictators of their socialist, tyrannical regimes. Problem solved.
We will throw in Sean Penn and Susan Serandon, or whatever her name is as a bonus.
Marco2| 2.28.12 @ 7:42AM
To all self-appointed Tru-Cons and would-be Theocrats: you have trashed the Romney voters and their candidate, threatened to withhold your votes in the fall should he be the nominee, and yet seem to take for granted their eventual support for whatever bastard hack you can can possibly drag across the finish line. Don't. There are millions of Romney voters who will not vote for either Santorum or Gingrich, or any other of your lifetime politician, conservative establishment, Washington insiders. If you win today, you lose tomorrow. Weirdly, that doesn't seem to matter to you.
Indy| 2.28.12 @ 7:56AM
I don't like any of the candidates but am committed to vote for the GOP nominee. Romney has been running for President for years, he cannot seal the deal because voters see through him for what he is... If RS or NG win, are you saying you won't vote for the nominee? If so, how are you any different from those you call out in your comment? Romney is the establishment pick, he's not a conservative.
Marco2| 2.28.12 @ 8:55AM
Nope, I'm tired of all the distortion and hate. There is really too much bigotry in the theocon movement for me, and many others I know. It's gotten beyond anti-Mormonism to the point of trashing Kennedy's religion speech, and reading entire Protestant denominations out of Christianity (Santorum). Also, I don't confuse libertarianism with libertinism, or good policy ideas with moon colonies (Gingrich). The crazy attacks on success and wealth by both are beyond the pale. I see Romney as a real threat to the Washington game. He's not beholden to any of them and has the managerial skill to clean house. Santorum and Gingrich are lifetime players. And from the electoral standpoint, I can't see them getting more than 45% (Gingrich) or 40% (Santorum) on a good day. So, in the name of ideological purity, what have you won after all?
Lyneuss Fields | 2.28.12 @ 9:22AM
Anyone curious about Mormonism's impact on 19th and 20th century America can either read Juanita's Brooks' Mountain Meadows massacre or review LDS history in their Journal of Discourses and Comprehensive History. The evidence (by their own historians) of murder, rape, polygamy and extortion is all there. Romney's lies and distortions are simply a product of his family and religion's double-talking and crimes throughout two centuries of American history.
No true conservative or moderate would criticize a nominee for success, but this is not about Romney's achievement. It is about his character.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html
Silver Bullet| 2.28.12 @ 9:25AM
@Marco2: You are sorely lacking in self-awareness, asserting as you do that Santorum "trashed" Kennedy's speech; and that he "read entire Protestant denominations out of Christianity."
Take a deep breath, step back for a moment, and consider: Do you honestly believe that Rick Santorum believes that he has "trashed" Kennedy's views on the relationship between religious belief and governance? Do you honestly believe that Santorum does not believe that Protestants are Christian? If Santorum would not use these terms to describe his point of view, then why do you?
Either you are wrong about his views in the way in which you characterize them, or else you must accuse Santorum of conscious hypocrisy and lying.
In either case, you fail to give seemingly a moment's thought to how Santorum himself might not agree with YOUR characterization of his views, and why; nor to how he actually DID speak out.
Consider this, for example: you know that Santorum considers himself to be a "faithful" Catholic -- i.e., one who believes what the Church teaches to be true. Therefore, because the Catholic Church teaches that so long as Baptism occurs with water and the Trinitarian invocation of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," the Catholic Church considers the Baptism to be valid, and the person baptized to be Christian. Therefore, Maroc2: Santorum, believing with the Church, of necessity would label Protestants as Christians. Indeed, Marco2: you CAN'T quote Santorum as saying that Protestants are NOT CHRISTIAN!! Why? Because he has never said such a thing.
Instead, you need to learn to listen to what he is actually saying to understand him.
As for his remarks on Kennedy's speech, again: you are not listening to him before "trashing" him!! The fact of the matter is that he has a substantive difference of opinion with that expressed by Kennedy in his 1960 speech. And the fact is that Santorum is correct, because Kennedy's speech was intended to "read Catholicism out of having a voice in the public square at all (my words)"!! That Santorum himself does not likely believe that he "trashed" Kennedy's speech is because Santorum's view is considered, whereas the word "trashed" is not.
Therefore, Marco2: before you post any further ill-considered, sophomoric rubbish, I suggest that you withdraw yourself from this public forum for a period of extended reflection and listening. You are, I believe, deliberately mischaracterizing Santorum's views in order to impugn them by using inappropriate, inaccurate hot-button words that have nothing, in fact, to do with the reality of who Santorum is, or of what he has actually said.
But, then, you aren't listening; and you don't care -- do you???
Dai Alanye | 2.28.12 @ 11:04AM
Marco#2 is "...tired of all the distortion and hate."
I'm not sure what he means by "hate," but the distortion is coming from the Romney campaign, which is using all that wealth to buy endorsements and dishonest ads.
You see, Romney can't win on his own. The man himself would make a satisfactory mayoral candidate for some suburb of Boston, but he's not up to running for President. He's able to play over his head only due to his own fortune and the deep wallets of like-minded plutocrats. In fact, he could go out and start a third party in competition to the Libertarians -- the Plutocrat Party.
Mitt's sincerity problem won't go away. For fifty years a devotee of liberalism, he has changed 180 degrees in the last few years, and hasn't even a good Road to Damascus story to explain his new vision.
As far as religion goes, I'm not a person of faith myself, and generally don't care who worships where. But you've got to admit that voting for a bishop and former missionary to the Gallic Republic feels more than a little strange.
So let's quit on Mitt of the checked shirt and jeans. He's a fraud from the gitgo.
Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 11:42AM
But watch gentlemen as once again the GOP nominates a tepid, lukewarm, nebulous candidate who tries to offend no one and thereby fails to motivate anyone. Watch as the GOP seizes defeat from the jaws of Victory.
Indy| 2.28.12 @ 11:39AM
RomneyCare is the show stopper for me, the fact that he's a Mormon isn't an issue with me. Romney continues to defend RomneyCare, he's opened to a VAT, is an admitted progressive, I could go on with other points. As I said if he wins the nomination, I will vote for him (realy, my vote will be against Obama) but I don't trust him at all.
Santorum and Newt are also big government candidates. RP is for small government but I have other concerns with him. These are the players on the field, many of us are frustrated others did not enter the race. We will vote but don't kid youself, Romney will disappoint you in the end, my predictions is ObamaCare will be the issue Romney will cave on, especially if SCOTUS punts or upholds the mandate.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 2.28.12 @ 8:00AM
Marco2: To all self-appointed Moderates and would-be Liberal-Republicans: you have trashed the Santorum/Gingrich voters and their candidates, threatened to withhold your votes in the fall should they be the nominee, and yet seem to take for granted their eventual support for the bastard hack you drag across the finish line. Don't. There are millions of Santorum/Gingrich voters who will not vote for Romney, or any other of your lifetime politician, moderate establishment, Wall Street insiders. If you win today, you lose tomorrow. Weirdly, that doesn't seem to matter to you. Right back at you Marco!!
Marco2| 2.28.12 @ 8:59AM
Just the facts, unfortunately, for those who expect money, effort and votes from those they impugn so cavalierly.
TrueBlue | 2.28.12 @ 2:06PM
So please, prove anything that is said about Romney as false. I'm interested to hear your facts on the matter. I see a lot of Romney supporters making statements that things said about him are false, yet none of you ever bring up actual facts to support your opinions.
It's really hard to take those opinions as anything else given that your chosen candidate has to outspend his opponents by nearly 3:1 in order to win any state. If his views were actually so appealing he wouldn't need to do so.
Cpm| 2.28.12 @ 11:25AM
Then that makes you a RINO. If you can't support the eventual Republican nominee against Obama, then you aren't really a Republican, are you?
Mike Rogers | 2.28.12 @ 8:24AM
El Wrongo, Señor Marco!
Only the Paulbots have threatened to withhold their votes if ANY of the others is the nominee. Almost all other Republicans I have spoken to will be less enthused if Romney is the nominee (as opposed to Gingrich or Santorum), but will turn out for him.
Where Santorum is different is that, with blue collar and Catholic appeal, he will attract and keep some Reagan Democrats that Romney simpy can't get.
None of these guys is flawless on the constitution, including the overestimated Dr Paul, but Santorum gets it pretty close, and so does Gingrich.
This is not about theocrats or theocracy, although the Democrats may try to make it so against Santorum, but rather about unconstitutional assaults on our liberties and freedom of conscience.
florin| 2.28.12 @ 9:41AM
It will have no significance if Romney loses Michigan if it can be shown that Dems. responded to Santorum's call to vote for him to defeat Romney.Santorum knows Obama fears running against Romney so Santorum takes advantage of that fear and moves over to stand with Obama and Dems in order to defeat Romney, which will give Obama 4 more years in office. People will remember that Santorum told Dems to vote for him and he will owe the Dems if they heed his call..
bluecollarbytes| 2.28.12 @ 7:55PM
I'll gladly vote for Romney if he wins the nomination. But I prefer someone who at least articulates conservatism.
The level of Party opposition to every candidate that's come and gone, except Romney, makes me question Romney more, and the true desires and motives of Party-professionals.
Mike Rogers | 2.28.12 @ 8:35AM
By a weird coincidence, I will be flying over Michigan as the polls are closing, and I wish Stacy a great evening at the Santorum party. I hope for a Santorum victory, since I don't support "Mr Next in Line".
By another weird coincidence, both Stacy and I will be staying in hotels owned by a guy called Willard, while hoping for the defeat of another guy called Willard :)
Bill| 2.28.12 @ 8:52AM
Guess Who?
voted for
1. Raising the debt ceiling 5 times
2. Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
5. Bridge to nowhere
voted against
1. "Right-to-Work" law
Ans: Ricky "Pro-Union RINO" Santorum
Guess Who?
1. Romneycare
2. Pro-abortion, pro- gay marriage, pro-gun control, pro-climate change
Ans: Mitten "Big-government RINO" Romney
Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 5:35PM
Guess Who?
is an
1. Anti-semite crank surrounded by other anti-semite cranks
2. Is naive, dangerous, and incoherent on foreign policy
Ans: Ron "Surrender-Monkey" Paul
Bill| 2.28.12 @ 6:09PM
I don't like Paul, I like Gingrich.
Nick| 2.28.12 @ 7:33PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!
Bill| 2.28.12 @ 8:32PM
Nick is a convicted felon. Watch out!
Nick| 2.28.12 @ 11:22PM
You're a racist and a liar, Bill.
Now, GO AWAY!
Larry Engel, Snark| 2.28.12 @ 8:56AM
The only thing that Romney has beat the Democrats at, is character assassination of the other Republican candidates
Cpm| 2.28.12 @ 11:26AM
At least he isn't pandering to Michigan democrats to help him get the Republican nomination.
Ted| 2.28.12 @ 12:16PM
Ronald Reagan reached out to Democrats in the primaries just like Rick Santorum is doing now in Michigan.
Cpm| 2.29.12 @ 3:06AM
Reagan convinced democrats to change parties. Santorum just badly needs a win and will stoop to anything to do it. I don't have a problem with a Republican nominee trying to win over democrats and independents in the general election but I have real problems with a guy who robocalls thousands of democrats to choose the Republican nominee. They will vote for the weak horse.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.28.12 @ 9:28AM
Romney is running on the same type of message and logic that gave us Obama.
People were supposed to vote for the black guy since he was the only one who had the personal experience to solve the racial issues.
We got Holder promoting two Americas: His people and the non-blacks. And we got Black Panthers as poll watchers, or something like that.
Will Romney make caviar and escargot available on EBT cards?
Mimi| 2.28.12 @ 9:36AM
We say, this Primary is so different from before. More intense, more debates, more ups and downs...It sure is..and heres why:
We know.....all of us, that the person chosen to be the NOMINEE.......Will become the NEXT President of these United States!
Oh yes, there are some doubters on this but most of us instinctivly KNOW.
You don't foolishly not vet a presidential candidate, elect one with no experience, have a hidden (million doller secret keeper) background, who's turning the country into a third world nation...driving a train filled with all our precious history, artifacts, sacrifice and glory and fortunes on run away tracks to destruction. Brought our people to its knees and the promise of more dispair as he LIES his way wrongly thinking he could possibly be elected again.
The Primary is important folks... we might have to listen to them for four more years...we better choose wisely...I'm talking BRAVE, competant, and hard worker for there is much to do...it will not be a GLORY job this time...it will be more like pasting Humpdy Dumdity back together!
Ward Bond| 2.28.12 @ 10:07AM
What's happening in Michigan and, indeed, throughout the Republican race is not so much about Romney's lack of appeal to conservatives as it is Santorum hitting a nerve. The economy, although very important, is a symptom of the greater threat to our nation the past fifty years. Creeping and now sprinting socialism and the general decline in our spirtual and moral character have given us the dilemma we now face. Not only can Santorum be a formitable opponent for obama, he just might be the one to suddenly open peoples eyes to what obama really is.
Cpm| 2.28.12 @ 11:33AM
The nerve that Santorum has hit is appealing to Michigan democrats to decide the Republican primary. It will be the end of his campaign.
Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 5:29PM
WHY?!?!
Would someone please explain what, exactly, is wrong with trying to attract Democrats to our side???
Seriously.
That's called "politics", folks. Duh!
And if you can get them to join you in the short-term, you may be able to keep them for the LONG-HAUL.
It's time to think strategically, folks, not myopically.
Ronald Reagan was elected in 2 landslides with large support from Conservative DEMOCRATS. And not just in Michigan.
Rick Santorum isn't responsible for Michigan's open primary. He's merely using it to great effect.
There is NO WAY that any GOP-nominee beats Obama without attracting the votes of Conservative Democrats and Independents.
Let's stop this ideological purity crap, and all these dumb litmus tests, and get on with the most important item on the agenda in 2012:
DEFEATING OBAMA!
Cpm| 2.29.12 @ 3:15AM
Try and get it through your thick skull. Santorum isn't trying to win over democrats with his message, like Reagan did. He's just asking them to defeat Mitt Romney. Primaries are only about the party choosing it's candidates for the general election. Once the nominee is chosen, by all means, go out and attract whoever you want. If you went to vote in a democrat primary you would more than likely chose the weakest candidate. What do you think Michigan democrats would do in the Republican primary?? Vote for the guy they think could beat their guy?
PL| 2.28.12 @ 11:33AM
Ward Bond, you are correct. Most people, down deep, get it. Our issues are tied all to our moral failings. I'll use it again because I am learning details that are just plain ugly. We have people mourning the death of a Whitney Houston who, simply put, killed herself (she was lucky to live to 48 the way she was going). Yet those who followed her life as "fans" somehow want to excuse W. Houston's introduction of cocaine, partying, and heavy booze to her young teen daughter. Isn't it at 16 that the daughter first checked into a cocaine rehab center? Or is it 15?
This ugly little chapter is but a tiny blip on the screen of moral decay that paralyzes us.
This is moral blindness. It is moral depravity.
And that is the nerve that Rick Santorum is brushing up against. It strikes home because we all know that our moral failings are what is behind all of our ills.
Indy| 2.28.12 @ 11:43AM
One point not being discussed in MI, why do they allow D's to vote in a GOP race? Who decides to make it an open primary? I can understand allowing independents but not Dems...
Sparky| 2.28.12 @ 10:30AM
"I happen to believe..." is a formulation Romney often uses and it is a revealing one. To "happen" means to come upon by chance. It seems to perfectly sum up Romney's belief system. He's not a conviction politician; he comes upon his beliefs by chance.
PL| 2.28.12 @ 11:26AM
Good point, Sparky. You are right, he uses this intro phrase a lot. And it means he "happens" to believe it because it is useful -- for this moment -- for him to believe it. Situational posturing, I call it. Others would call it Situational Ethics.
Cpm| 2.28.12 @ 11:30AM
Rick Santorum "happens to believe" it is desirable to let Michigan democrats choose the Republican candidate. Of course they will vote for the weakest one.
Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 5:33PM
Wrong.
Incurable Liberal-Democrats will try to mess with the GOP primary by voting for the person that they think is the weakest candidate.
And because Liberals are stupid, they think that person is Santorum.
Point-of-fact is that Obama wants to run against Romney, and always has.
That's because with Romney, ObamaCare and cap-n-trade are OFF THE TABLE.
With Santorum as the nominee, Obama will need an entirely new strategy.
martin j smith| 2.28.12 @ 11:33AM
Your last sentence should be the bottom line--of course we have many pundits and MSM fakers,interlopers,liars ( well all of the above lie ) etc to to help us poor ignorant peasants to grasp the genius views. I would not be surprised if there were a brokered convention. The reason is that so far up till now no one has enough solid support. I think one question is what is Paul and Newt really up to. My impression is that Paul is working with Romney while Newt we shall see.
see. I am anxiously watching their every move.
Each of the above two candidates will have to show their hands--and I hope they are washed clean.
Mike| 2.28.12 @ 11:48AM
I voted for Mr. Santorum this morning. Should Mr. Romney win the nomination, I will vote for him. If Mr. Sandotum wins, I will work for him.
Patrick| 2.28.12 @ 1:03PM
Mike-Must be one of those Moore Republicans.
Tim| 2.28.12 @ 1:23PM
The key here is to figure out how many blue collar conservativ Dems that vote for Santorum today will vote for him in November?
My guess is that many will will there be enough to win the swing states?
Only God Knows for sure.
janet| 2.28.12 @ 2:12PM
I'm a conservative, Republican Catholic who gladly voted for Santorum this morning because he IS able to beat Obama. Romney cannot go after Obama on Obamacare because of his own Romneycare record; and although I do not fault Mitt Romney for his financial successes, I do feel that a lot of people will hold that against him if he were to be the Republican nominee. Lastly, if Democrats really think Santorum is the weakest candidate, they would no way in hell vote for him in the Michigan primary. The person they really fear is the stronger of the two -- Santorum because they know they can defeat Romney against Obama.
David| 2.28.12 @ 2:32PM
I happen to believe it is disastrous to have open Republican primaries. Dems and indys can wreak too much havoc. The RNC should require that only registered repubs can vote.
That said, to all of you who are critical of Santorum for looking for dems vot
martin j smith| 2.28.12 @ 2:33PM
For me the main ting is to make Romney have a difficult time getting the nomination. Even if he eventually "gets it", he will have dependent on those who disagree with him to be elected. There is a caution: The Socialists might actually want Romney to be elected because they know he too will fail and then they can really get a hold of the entire government. This very tricky business. The Republican Establishment must be given a message by voters that Obama-like policies are unacceptable.
Pete| 2.28.12 @ 4:22PM
If Romney loses in Michigan he should drop out. Super Tuesday would just do him in anyway. The desperation of the Romneyites has been interesting of late.
David| 2.28.12 @ 6:03PM
I happen to believe it is disastrous to have open Republican primaries. Dems and indys can wreak too much havoc. The RNC should require that only registered repubs can vote.
That said, those are the rules. To all of you who are critical of Santorum for looking for dem votes, Reagan tried to woo moderate and conservative democrats.
Further, what the f_ck do ya'll think Romney did in New Hampshire. The guy is a flippin' whiner. He trashes the shit out of Gingrich in Iowa, and then whines when Gingrich does the same to him. He smiles when dems and indys give him a big win in NH, then cries about Santorum doing the same
POST American| 2.28.12 @ 10:03PM
----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------
"America better watch it
or in a couple of decades
we're going to be a minstrel
show ---for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1985
In 2012, in the 11th hour of the
CFR-Globalist handover,
sellout RED China TREASON
and EUGENICS OP ---as
NAFTA moves ahead
---as GATT is a done deal
-----as FUKISHIMA fallout,
GMO foods, weaponized injections,
and nationwide nuclear plant leaks
are covered ---UP
-------as Jeff I-Melt-down builds new,
dirty plants ACROSS Red China
TAX FREE, even underwritten
---BY YOU
-----as NDAA 1021 is signed
(secret arrests/torture/ EXILE
and EXECUTION of American citizens
---ANYWHERE)
-------as Pelosi calls for TOTAL surveillance,
monitoring, and data collection while visiting
RED China
------------as sitting justice Ginzberg openly
disses the document she's sworn to defend
while standing on the 'Banks of D-Nile'
in 'E--jipped'
--------------------as QE 3 is 'on the way'
VOTER FRAUD in IOWA
-----------------------in Nevada
-------------------------in South Carolina
---------------------------in Florida
-----------------------------in Maine
--------------------------------in
-----------------------------------in
And NOW even the 'calm--ply--ANT'
FOX 'News' is being blackmailed into
self-censorship and dismissals.
ELSEWHERE
"We are sworn to defend and uphold the
US Constitution against ALLLL enemies
BOTH foreign and domestic."
-U S Army interview
---ON RECORD--
74% of ALLLLL donations
from the serving military are going to
---------------RON PAUL----------------.
The SIGNS are on the ground.
WHAT WILL YOU DO?