The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Campaign Crawlers
Print Email
Text Size

Campaign Crawlers

Little Note Nor Long Remember

By on 3.21.12 @ 6:09AM

Rick Santorum in Gettysburg vows to continue his fight.

GETTYSBURG, Pa. — The hotel where Rick Santorum held his Tuesday election-night party is located at One Lincoln Square, and to this Gettysburg address the former Pennsylvania senator came to rally his forces for the fight ahead.

There was discouraging news from the battlefield in Illinois, where former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was on his way to a double-digit victory, 47 percent to 35 percent for Santorum. Yet the folks who crowded into the ballroom of the Gettysburg Hotel heard a confident speech from a cheerful candidate, who took the stage to the tune of an upbeat campaign song, “Game On,” and stood in front a banner with a one-word slogan, “Freedom,” while his supporters applauded.

Referring to results of the Illinois primary, Santorum said, “We’re going to win downstate, we’re going to win central Illinois, we’re going to win western Illinois. We won the areas that conservatives and Republicans populate. We’re very happy about that and we’re happy about the delegates we’re going to get, too.”

The home-state crowd cheered, even knowing that Romney’s Illinois win had once more widened the frontrunner’s lead in the delegate count. According to the Associated Press, Romney has now won 563 delegates — more than half the 1,144 needed to clinch the Republican nomination — against 263 for Santorum. Still, Santorum smiled and said how great it was to be back home in Pennsylvania, and the crowd cheered some more.

He actually had reason to smile and his supporters had reason to cheer, because the result in Illinois brought Santorum closer to what he has long said was his objective — a one-on-one showdown with Romney. If Santorum can keep up his long uphill fight a little while longer, he is soon likely to be the last conservative in the field against his more moderate rival.

Newt Gingrich finished fourth in Illinois, just as he had previously finished fourth in Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Washington State, Alaska, North Dakota, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Wyoming. However, the former House Speaker’s prospects suffered a more damaging blow Tuesday when his monthly financial report to the Federal Election Commission showed that his campaign is essentially bankrupt. Gingrich’s fundraising evidently fell off the table after his Jan. 31 defeat in the Florida primary. Gingrich raised just $2.6 million in February (less than Texas Rep. Ron Paul), spent $2.9 million and entered March with a cash-on-hand total smaller than Newt’s campaign debt. By comparison, Santorum’s campaign raised $9 million in February, spent $7.9 million and began March with about a $1.7 million net balance ($2.6 million cash on hand, against about $900,000 in debt).

Even after losing Alabama and Mississippi to Santorum last week, Newt had vowed to continue his campaign “all the way to Tampa,” but with money running out, it’s difficult to imagine how Gingrich can keep going much longer. Louisiana’s primary is Saturday, and the two most recent polls there show Gingrich running third. Another loss in the Deep South would end whatever faint prospect for Newt’s resuscitation remains but, given that he published a Monday column at Red State harshly critical of Santorum’s record, Gingrich evidently has no intention of throwing his support to the Pennsylvanian in an effort to stop Romney.

With or without Gingrich’s support, Santorum is positioned to keep fighting Romney well into May. After Saturday’s primary in Louisiana, with 46 delegates at stake, another nine days will elapse before primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland, and the District of Columbia on April 3. Then a three-week interval follows before primaries April 24 in Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, New York, and Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania. While it is unlikely Santorum will close the delegate gap with Romney over the course of the next month, it is equally unlikely that Romney can reach the “magic number” of 1,144 delegates in April. Thus, Santorum could keep up his campaign into May, where such conservative bastions as Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and delegate-rich Texas fill the calendar of primaries.

Romney’s campaign has spent the past two weeks asserting that their advantage in the delegate count makes their candidate the “inevitable” nominee, but Santorum seemed undaunted Tuesday night. “We don’t want to be that generation that lost the torch of freedom.… That’s why we must go out and fight this fight,” Santorum said, urging his listeners to join him in the fight. “We’re going to head to Louisiana from here. We’re feeling very, very good about winning Louisiana on Saturday.… And then we’re going to be back here in Pennsylvania, and we’re going to pick up a whole boatload of delegates and close this gap and on to victory!”

As speeches go, it was not the most memorable ever made in Gettysburg, but in 1863, Abraham Lincoln spoke after the battle was over. For Santorum, the battle goes on.

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 (127) |

oldfart| 3.21.12 @ 6:34AM

We watched the victory speech by Mr. Romney last night with his change in focus to November. Later the telly had Mr. Santorum's speech from Gettysburg. The difference was astounding. Mr. Santorum's performance was that of an obviously beaten man. He knows he is beaten and has no chance of the nomination. It was in his face, his words and his demeanor. I believe Mr. Santorum is an honorable person and now is the time for him to change the target to November. I personally favor Mr. Santorum but we are switching our support to Romney as the best person, currently in the race, that will retake the White House, will fix the sails and rudder of our ship of state and steer us away from the rocks of ideologically driven economic insanity.

Drek| 3.21.12 @ 8:49AM

He's never delivered a decent speech throughout this long process. Remember his victory speech after Iowa? The guy knew from internal polling that he was going to have the eyes of the nation on him that night, but didn't have the presence of mind to have a first rate speech prepared.

That was when I knew that with Santorum, we were all looking at amateur hour.

Akan Brooks| 3.21.12 @ 8:22PM

If Santorum had lived in 1863, he would have been a Confederate otr Confederate sympathizer.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.12 @ 8:53PM

...perhaps Santorum visited Gettysburg to lay a wreath on a Confederate's grave?

Derek Leaberry| 3.21.12 @ 8:55AM

Romney is a self-professed "progressive" and not worthy of the presidency. Given that second terms are disastrous for incumbent parties, an Obama victory would be better than a Romney victory.

Drek| 3.21.12 @ 9:17AM

I don't know about that.

The United States cannot sustain the spending trajectory that Obama has laid out for us. Nor is there any growth in the economy that indicates we're able to shoulder this level of expenditure.

We're going to hit a wall, and we're going to hit much sooner than many anticipate. Our bond sales are already drying up.

The only guy who has laid out the solution for our economy, that has laid out a solution to our debt problem, that has a plan for resolving all existing debt is GINGRICH, yet THE OTHER MCCAIN is rabid about him.

Judy Hopson | 3.21.12 @ 10:00AM

Are you kidding? The Obama administration has been a disaster for our country. It is not in my belief system that Mitt Romney would even consider doing anything to bring down this great country. I do believe Obama is on track to do just that. If he gets re-elected, all bets are off. Consider the consequences before you say you won't vote for Romney. Country first!

Anthony| 3.21.12 @ 11:05AM

Derek, That's complete bull****. Obozo's 2nd term will be disasterous for America, and will put an end to America as a Constitutional Republic. You can kiss the Constitution, our freedoms, and way of life good-bye. America will officially become a 3rd world banana republic led by an oligarchy of radical leftist elites.
That said, Romney is McCain lite. He is a protean, ever changing man with no core values, especially conservative ones.
Romney, like McCain, is clueless, a whimp, and a product of the Washington establishment that only cares about power and its share of it. Washington Republicans and the base have nothing in common.
Romney has already given up the economy as a campaign issue, despite America being in a DEPRESSION. This thinking comes from the R wizzards of smarts inside the beltway, as opposed to the Ds who said G.H.W. Bush's economy was "the worst in 50 years".
Ds have no qualms with lying. Rs have no guts for the truth, especially with a black president.
If Romney is our nominee, I will help kick his ass into victory over the Muslim Marxist and will do my bit to keep kicking Romney's ass until he governs as we Americans expect.
How's that for a first term agenda???

Vern Crisler| 3.21.12 @ 11:40AM

I agree Derek. The Republican party is heading for oblivion in the same way the Federalist party fell apart. Republicans have shown that they are just whores at heart, willing to sell their political souls for whoever has the most money. We should work for conservatives in Congress to put the brake on any new semi-socialist legislation Obama tries to put in place during his next four years, but we should do everything we can to make sure Romney doesn't win. A win for Romney is the end of the Reagan revolution in the Republican party.

Anthony| 3.21.12 @ 11:59AM

Another blind fool. The R party might indeed be headed for the ash heap of history, fine with me, but with 4 more years of Obozo, America will beat the R party to the ash heap of history.
Wake the hell up!!!

Vern Crisler| 3.21.12 @ 1:10PM

You and your fellow Romney supporters are the blind ones leading the Republican party into the ditch.

Anthony| 3.21.12 @ 2:14PM

I am not a Romney supporter, fool. I first gave money to Gov. Palin, my first choice, I then gave money to Santorum, I then gave money to Newt.
I've yet to give money to Romney.
If you think a 2nd term with the Muslim Marxist, who is already governing like a dictator, despite congress, (pay attention, you to Derek) then you and your pal Derek have your collective heads up your a****.
I will vote for Romney if he is the nominee, because there will be no America left after Obozo's 2nd term to change the R party.
To use your analogy, there will be no America left for the R party to be run into the ditch.
Do you get it now?????

Anthony| 3.21.12 @ 2:19PM

P.S. fool, if as you say Romney's election signifies the death of the Reagan revolution, then what the hell does the re-election of Obozo mean to the Reagan revolution???
Are you and Derek leftist trolls, cuz nobody's that stupid??

Vern Crisler| 3.21.12 @ 3:38PM

Hey dickhead, this is the siren song we hear all the time: where are you conservatives going to go? I'm not falling for it this time. You Republican party whores can go to hell, assuming the place would have you. They have standards down there after all.

darcy| 3.21.12 @ 4:30PM

Great debate, here. But I tend to side with Derek and Vern on this one. And please don't call me a troll or stupid for saying so.

While it is true that four more years of the Marxist president could be harrowing for the country, it is also true that such dire warnings have long been used as a tool by progressive Republicans to convince us that we should just let bygones be bygones and vote for them, because after all, they warn us, a third party contest works in favor of the Democrats. Well, we accepted the despicable John McCain, went out and voted for him against our better judgment, and still he lost -- and we did too. At least if we'd had a third-party candidate, a conservative one, we'd have had the beginnings of our ground game for the future; in fact, this is the only way to put the Republican Party out to pasture for good, to send them the way of the Whigs. One thing is for sure, if a right-of-center third party crops up and starts culling off millions of understandably disgruntled voters, the Republicans will take note -- but I am cynic enough to dismiss their overtures, when they offer them to get us back, after having been dismissed by them over the decades.

I don't know if the Republican Party will ever see the error of its ways. Some people think it's OK to vote the establishment candidate in the general, calculating that if nothing else, we can -- if he wins -- at least retard the ongoing stripping of our liberties. But to what end? To patch things up just enough so that Americans can go back to Monday night football and American Idol without the nagging feeling that Damocles's sword is suspended above them? as it actually is?

Who knows anything about how all this will play out. All I can say is act on principle, not on fear.

JSMITH| 3.21.12 @ 7:47PM

I agree the need is now for a third party. I detest Hussein Obama but Romney will lose and running McCain again instead of Romney would have been better since Romney stands for absolutely nothing. We might as well go third party now since after Romney loses, the Rhinos have already picked fat man Christie, zero personality Daniels or moderate Jeb Bush for 2016-all this with the loser Boehner as speaker-Republican party is dead-

Anthony| 3.21.12 @ 8:26PM

You're pathetic, you haven't understood a single word I've said.
As much as I despise the R party and what it stands for, if you think Obozo is just a wee bit more worse than Romney, then you are indeed out of your frig'n mind.

darcy| 3.21.12 @ 9:16PM

I'd really like to be persuaded to your viewpoint; it's a lot easier to just go with the flow and accept the foul-smelling sandwich that is being served up for us rather than to continue to fight to sway the remaining primary states to abandon Mr. Romney. This nomination is not yet locked up. Why behave as if it is? Why indeed?

But your manner is off-putting and inspires in me not the least amount of confidence in your judgment.

spike59| 3.22.12 @ 6:42AM

you gave money to Palin, Santorum, AND Newt? and you have the nerve to ask others 'do you get it now?'

you might just as well have set your money on fire to get your fireplace going

W| 3.21.12 @ 1:37PM

I like Reagan and believe he was a great president. But let us face reality. Reagan cut taxes with the help of Republicans and Democrats (Kemp-Roth-Bradley). Reagan did not abolish any cabinet depts or federal agencies. His supreme court picks of Anthony Kennedy and O'Connor were mediocre, except for Scalia. Reagan was great dealing with the Soviets. But as for the "Reagan revolution," aside from cutting taxes and the rhetoric, what were the concrete examples of this revolution?

I am not criticizing Reagan, but the memory of Reagan and the reality are different. If Romney cuts taxes and reduces the deficit are we going to say Romney revolution?

Vern Crisler| 3.21.12 @ 3:41PM

Please don't mention Reagan and Romney in the same sentence, unless it's to contrast them. Romney is a liberal Republican much like Spiro Agnew and Nelson Rockefeller. A vote for Romney is a vote for liberal Republicanism.

W| 3.21.12 @ 5:59PM

It is more fruitful if you answer the specific questions, if you can, and deal with facts rather than labels.

Oleander| 3.21.12 @ 7:14PM

Now that's hilarious coming from you!

Paul Kotik| 3.21.12 @ 12:01PM

Barack Obama's strategy is to make irreversable changes to the American political economy. He has deeply understood that the Constitution, stretched to its limits, permits changes through Constitutional process which cannot be reversed by Constitutional process, and it is this sort of change he's been focussed on. It is this sort of change he'll accelerate in a second term.

If you doubt that the Constitution permits changes that cannot be reversed by Constitutional process, here's an example: the Constitution would permit adoption of an Amendement, by proper Constitutional process, which says "This Constitution shall not be amended again".

Vern Crisler| 3.21.12 @ 1:13PM

Obama is not changing the Constitution through the Amendment process. He's doing it by executive decree. He has no more respect for the Constitution than the Supreme Court in-justices.

If by Amendment we want to get rid of our form of government, that's entirely permissible. The Amendment process was set up by Madison, et al., as a form of peaceful revolution, and revolution is the way governments are changed.

Steven| 3.21.12 @ 1:45PM

Best of both worlds. Obama in the White House and Re pubs in charge in the Senate and the House

Vern Crisler| 3.21.12 @ 3:41PM

Agree.

darcy| 3.21.12 @ 4:36PM

I don't know, Vern; you just acknowledged that Obama is ruling by Executive Order, by by-passing Congress all together.

Anthony| 3.21.12 @ 8:40PM

Hey moron, (that's you Vern) how do you reconcile your two posts, when you first say Obozo is not changing the Constitution thru the amendment process , but rather thru EXECUTIVE ORDER, and then you agree with Steven that the best of both worlds is Obozo as president with a R congress??
If Obozo has total distain for the Constitution now, with an election to win, do you not think he will double down on executive orders after his re-election???
Do you actually believe that a R congress will impeach and convict Obozo and throw him the hell out of office???
Darcy and Publius are right, you guys are a bunch of D hacks pretending to be conservatives. But you give yourselves away, because like all good lefties, you make no damn sense at all!!!

darcy| 3.21.12 @ 9:29PM

You are nothing if not passionate this evening, Anthony. We sorely need passion among those on our side to steer this ship from the approaching iceberg. That said, while I noted Vern's contradictory remark, I didn't say that he was a D hack, which I don't think he is.

Wouldn't it be a riot to get us all together, those on just this thread, and take a look at who we're replying to? We might tailor our comments a bit differently; then maybe not.

Vern Crisler | 3.21.12 @ 9:31PM

Hey dickhead Anthony. There's no contradiction. We can survive an Obama presidency with a conservative Congress (can you say impeachment?) Obama would get all the blame for the continued economic recession.

If Romney gets in, and inevitably moves to the left, the recession will continue and Republicans will be blamed for everything. Meaning another Democrat in 2018, and Republicans in the wilderness for years without end.

As I've said, Romney is a disaster for the Republican party. We need a conservative party to replace the party of whores who are ready to nominate Mr. Etch a Sketch. Of course, for this conservative party, RINO morons like you need not apply.

W| 3.21.12 @ 6:01PM

Yeah right, Obama appointing two or three Supreme Court justices, maybe a Justice Eric Holder and Justice Sebellious, and Obama vetoing a repeal of Obamacare, and Obama blocking driilling for oil/gas. That is a great world. Get a grip on reality.

spike59| 3.23.12 @ 6:06AM

sorry, but it appears that self-righteous ricky is now supporting obama

gearjammer| 3.21.12 @ 6:35AM

Read Washinton Times report on our burnt out troops. Their was a reason commanders wanted more troops on ground in Afgan effort. I mean at some point we gotta be about more than some quest for some notion of conservative perfection. When do we talk about tangible issues and solutions-this emotional crusade for someting " magical "-what is it ? We need to focus on Obama say by June 1st ?
All we are gonna do is argue among ourselves it seems. The troops need our held. This stubborn and stupid president has them undermanned and is burning them out - they need GOP help. It always has been us to stand up for them-Obama trying to win in Afgan on the cheap is wrong ! Wants to spend less to fund his green dreams and schemes. More troops equals more time between combat missions. Seems these guys are getting less and less needed down time. But just claw at each other,

Clint| 3.21.12 @ 6:57AM

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

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

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Stupid Party Attempts McCain Redux.

Publius| 3.21.12 @ 8:04AM

There's a bunch of Democrats posting on this site
and they all say the same thing: "I'm a conservative and I don't like Romney so I'm going to stay home." So stay home. We Republcans are going to support Romney and he's going to carry 40 states against the Muslim & we're going to take the Senate and keep the House & y'all just stay home and watch us do it !!!!!

Al Adab| 3.21.12 @ 12:51PM

Publius of proud name:
The States that matter this November are FL, NC, VA and Ohio. It does not matter a whit if the GOP nominates someone who does well in states like IL or CA which will not cast electoral votes for the GOP nominee. Does the GOP feel satisfied that blue states are selecting its candidate?

To nominate a candidate who appeals to blue state voters is a certain road to failure. What tell me, is the distinction between a DEM nominee who feels that government should regulate and provide health care or set energy policy and a GOP nominee who feels government should regulate and provide health care and set energy policy? Either way we accept the legitimacy of the social-welfare, redistributionist State. That dear friend is the battle.

W| 3.21.12 @ 1:56PM

Al Adab
I believe at least 50% of the population favors the social welfare redistributionist state. They benefit finacially from it.

Al Adab| 3.21.12 @ 3:00PM

W:
It is almost 50% and therein lies the problem. The Left, from the progressive era to today, has created an entitlement or dependancy class and has persuaded them that their condition is irretrevable and that they cannot survive without the welfare state.

Whether it started by design or not, it has become a deliberate ploy of The Left to keep themselves in power. That, not the condition of the nation or its citizens - and certainly not their liberty - is the only goal. We have indeed sold our birthright for a bowl of pottage.

W| 3.21.12 @ 3:35PM

Al Adab
I agree. We have to change the entitlement mentality ourselves. It will take time and we have to elect those will will not increase the welfare state but work to limit and decrease it.

tps| 3.21.12 @ 8:30AM

Dude, lay off the coffee and take a chill pill.

Mike Rogers | 3.21.12 @ 8:51AM

Booring!
Do you have a function key for "The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges"?
I don't like the "Ruling Class" of either party any more than you do, but your repetitiveness in support of closet liberal Paul grates after a while.

Oldefarte| 3.21.12 @ 11:43AM

Hey Dumbars so-called libertarian Paul supporter [of which Root is also DA!] but in actuality a Media Matters Stooge-sucker for Democrats disguised as a Paul supporter-tea partiers; read my below along with Wayne Root's excellent editorial attached and try to understand his point!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 3.21.12 @ 5:32PM

Uh Oh !

The Nurse Forgot To Change The Fartman's Adult Pampers Again.

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Briokered Convention.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 9:35PM

Uh-oh! Clint's an f-ing moron & had to paste another canned screed again!

Well done, Mr. Originality!

spike59| 3.22.12 @ 6:44AM

Widdle Cwint is still having a Tourette's meltdown over his Tinfoil Hat Messiah, the 'honorable' DrEarmark, getting punked by GOP voters from sea to shining sea

RCV| 3.22.12 @ 11:36PM

No, Clint, after Illinois, it's heading to Romney wrapping this up by June.

boogalie| 3.21.12 @ 8:23AM

I hope Santorum is not exhibiting fatigue and loss. He is a good man, and identifies with many of us working (and now not working) folks. This IS the most important election of my lifetime. If I have to settle for Romney (who scares me as being the typical establishment vanilla, go along to get along type) then so be it. Our current POTUS is toxic for our country, and given a last 4 year term where the electorate will not inhibit him, we are in for very real trouble. Santorum is coming to speak here shortly, I am anxious to hear him. Semper Fi.

Marco2| 3.21.12 @ 8:45AM

I read this silly stuff on this and another long respected conservative site and begin to wonder, how much longer are reality-based people going to bother? All this behold the coming of Santorum garbage is just nonsense, so far from discoursing on the reality of the situation as to be almost insulting.

Mike Rogers | 3.21.12 @ 9:02AM

I don't think Santorum's daunted yet, and I think his faith in his God and his Country keeps him going.
Romney, R-Money, can mouth all the right words but he can't truly sound conservative.
Santorum has grasped the essential truth that Reagan knew - freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction, and has to be fought for. He's fighting for it.
Newt may have the boldest ideas, but even as a supporter, I get vertigo and headaches from the rapidly changing message.
Finally, the left will always tell you who they are afraid of, and it isn't Mittens: Just check out the radical abortionists, including this guy http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DLew.....00/010.JPG
Doesn't he look like a regular protester? Recognize him? Say something!

Mike Rogers | 3.21.12 @ 9:04AM

Hmmm my prior post was indented one level too far.
To Marco2 - we know what you're against, but what are you for? How do you plan to preserve and restore our freedoms from government excess?

Drek| 3.21.12 @ 9:22AM

Columnist Ben Shapiro said of Santorum that he has many ideas that he agrees with, but Santorum says them in the least persuasive fashion possible.

Santorum moved forward unnoticed in the wake of the attacks against Gingrich, and benefited from those attacks enormously. But when the eyes of the nation turned to him, ---- he started prattling on about JFK and contraception!

He's not the answer to our problems.....

Drek| 3.21.12 @ 8:59AM

When Santorum went to South Carolina, and in the debate tried to pander to Blacks by saying he was all for prisoners and former felons being able to vote, --------- and he did it in some smugly moralizing fashion, as if he was the more moral of all those on stage because of his position, -------------- that's when he lost me and lost me for good.

Earlier in the race I was open to what he had to say, -------- weren't all Conservatives, because we were looking for any alternative to Romney? That was when THE OTHER MCCAIN was embarrassing himself flogging that dead horse Herman Cain, the guy who knew little beyond his 999 plan.

But a closer examination of what Santorum has to offer, a closer examination of his record in the Senate, where he was Trent Lott's right hand man, where he went along with so much of the idiocy from the Bush administration without any speech railing against the course we were on, --- how can any of us really support Santorum?

Not to mention the guy hasn't any executive experience whatsoever.

None.

Nada.

Zip.

He hasn't run a damn thing in his life yet the guy is out there trying to run for the job of chief executive of the United States!

And some talk about Gingrich's ego that supposedly has gotten the better of him!

Georgetwin| 3.21.12 @ 9:18AM

IMHO Santorum's CONSTANT swerves into Theology have doomed him to perpetually inhabit 2nd place. Heathens, atheists and agnostics vote also. It is FINE for his religion to inform his policy position, BUT it cannot BE his policy position.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 10:00AM

Right there with you, Brother. I think he's the most conservative guy in the race, by FAR. However, its like the man has ADD sometimes. I can't remember who, exactly, said it, but someone said he's just the type of guy to answer any question put to him, almost without thought. And in so doing, he's prone to shoot straight from the hip, & therefore comes off as less than eloquent sometimes. All of this makes it easy to sidetrack him, which is "no bueno" in a contest like this.

Santorum will still certainly get my vote, & I haven't counted him out yet either. I've seen enough of his career & this campaign to make that mistake. However, of Mittens is the nominee, I'll hold my nose & push the button for him. The alternative, staying home, is the most selfish thing I think anyone can do. The very future of our Republic is at stake & the current "president's" re-election would be the end of that Republic as we've known it. This time in our history is not unlike the period of time when Caesar made his power grabs in Rome. Let's hope we don't go the way of the optimates &our; Republic the way of Rome's.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 10:06AM

"...to NOT make that mistake."

Doing this by phone sucks.

W| 3.21.12 @ 1:42PM

I had the same thought about Rick. He is almost too honest for a politician because he actually answers questions and says what he believes. He should stop answering questions about contraception and religion, like Romney did at the debate, and say the problem is the country is bankrupt, and gas is $5 a gallon, but he insists on talking about "morality" and the "family." Those are fine sentiments, but most voters want a strong economy, and not lectures from any politician about morality and family values.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 2:31PM

Exactly right. He's too easily baited. He needs to dial it back & realize that's what they're TRYING to do to him.

MetairieMike| 3.21.12 @ 9:33AM

My candidate first was Mike Pense, then Marco Rubio, then Tim Pawlenty, then Rick Perry. As each either refused to run or dropped out I kept switching to the "most conservative who can win" candidate. Now I support Mitt Romney because he's the best candidate who can beat obama. Anyone who says he or she will not vote for the republican against obama is an obama, harry reid, nancy pelosi supporter. Standing on principle is a wonderful thing, but standing with your country is more important than any individual. obama, without the need to be reelected, can damage this country far more than most people can imagine. And if he can replace one of the conservatives on the SCOTUS he can damage the country for generations ...... he may even appoint himself as a recess appointment. Whoever our favorite candidate was or is, we HAVE to defeat obama. It's now time to stop talking nonesense like "it's better to have four more years of obama" or "romney's as bad as obama." It's time for the "sunshine patriots" man up and support whichever candidate has the best chance of beating obama.
That sound you hear in the background are your grandchildren and their grandchildren thanking you.

Oldefarte| 3.21.12 @ 11:46AM

As one who also previously lived in glorious Metairie, your commentary is brilliant and absolutely correct/accurate!!!!!

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 2:32PM

I'm SO glad to see I'm not the only guy on the face of the planet who digs Mike Pence. He was MY first choice when the rumor mill began. I was bummed when he passed it up.

RJ| 3.21.12 @ 7:03PM

I agree with you all the way. Obama is leading the country in the wrong way, towards control by government, which is already corrupt. I can't imagine anyone really believes the "we win by losing" song. We need to win this one, more than ever.

martin j smith| 3.21.12 @ 9:43AM

Santorum and Gingrich should stay in thje race to force Romney to move to the right. That is the main goal I think. Unless something else happens which it could at the convention.

Oldefarte| 3.21.12 @ 11:50AM

I respectfully disagree, since same will only politically harm Romney/Republican party candidates. The sooner this romney candidacy is finalized, the sooner the political messaging can become concentrated on OBAMA/DEMOCRATS where it should be. To continue this squabbling is damaging to defeating him in November. As Dick Armey proclaimed recently, an elected conservative Republican House and Senate can effectively corral the moderate Romney into thinking/acting their way after November!!!!

Mimi| 3.21.12 @ 9:51AM

Check out the county's in Illinois that Romney won...all in the populated cities and close surroundings...Rick won handily in all the other county's. The Dem's voted for Romney this time but won't in the general. The voting numbers were DOWN. This tells a story!
The way to go is to increase by all means the numbers in the outlying areas...and get these people to the voting booth in overwhelming numbers...That would serve Conservatives NOW and again in the General against Obama,
I seems the Dem's WANT to have Romney win..The plans are all prepared...They are petrified to run against Santorum or Newt...and it is THEY who are skewing the Primary process!
Something tells me it is NOT over YET!!!

darcy| 3.21.12 @ 4:46PM

Good thoughts to keep in mind, Mimi. And yes, I totally agree that Democrats welcome a Romney win.

Bill| 3.21.12 @ 10:06AM

Santorum supported Arlene Specter, who switched to becoming a Democrat and cast the 60th "crucial" vote passing Obamacare, and lost in the senate primary. Santorum failed to get the endorsement of Pat Toomey because of political pay-back.
No wonder why Santorum lost MI, OH, IL.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 11:00AM

If you like Alito & Robert's on the Supreme Court, you can thank Rick for his act of political sepukku.

Bill| 3.21.12 @ 11:26AM

How About OBAMACARE?

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 11:36AM

Oh, so Specter was the only one? The shenanigans with Scott Brown being seated didn't have anything to do with that?

Gimme a freaking break. If that's the best you can do, go back to the dojo, Grasshopper. You ain't hacking the load

Bill| 3.21.12 @ 1:18PM

Santorum means big-government and big labors, and he is NO alternative to Romney.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 1:26PM

"Big labor."

He voted against a NATIONAL right to work bill while representing a union heavy state. Last I checked, we're people like him not elected to do the will of their constitutents?

Yeah, Romney's SOOOO much better. I mean, what conservative DOESN'T think that the government, on ANY level, is a better answer to the health care debacle.

Romney a conservative my ass.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 1:26PM

"...WERE...."

W| 3.21.12 @ 2:49PM

Santorum was correct in voting against a FEDERAL right to work law. Each state can pass a right to work law if it chooses as provided under the Taft Hartley act. Some states, especially in the South and West have done so. This is a states rights issue which is what conservatives are supposed to favor under federalism. This is a phony charge against Santorum that he is for labor, he is for each state to decide, not the federal government.

Al Adab| 3.21.12 @ 3:05PM

NB, W:
Romney is no Conservative. He represents the same old accomodationist wing of the GOP as did his father before him. There is nothing to be gained by nominating a republican who believes that the Federal government has a role in providing health care than there is in electing a DEM who believes the same. The legitimacy of the entire social-welfare state is the issue and who on the GOP side denies that legitimacy?

W| 3.21.12 @ 3:30PM

Al Adab
I disagree.
Cutting taxes, reducing the deficit, drilling for oil/gas in the USA, appointing conservative judges, reducing regulations, and generally respecting the constitutional separation of powers are all things to be gained by electing Romney, or any Republican, instead of Obama.

Obama is a disaster and another term will be worse. Do we want two or three more Justice Kagans? We may get a Justice Holder and Justice Sebellius.

I agree with you that no Republican denies the legitimacy of the welfare state, except for maybe Ron Paul, but his foreign policy views and terrorrism views have made him not electable.

The welfare state will not be eliminated by one president, but we can start to reduce it, and prevent it further growth, with a willing Congress and any Republican president.

As for federal involvement in heath care, we have Medicare, Medicaid, which Santorum voted for in expanding Medicare Part D. We need to restrict the goverment's power to mandate coverage in plans and mandate treatment and decide treatment. Those are the keys.

Except for Paul's domestic agenda of cutting taxes, none of the four are truly conservative. They all have some big government baggage.

But we need to defeat Obama.

Al Adab| 3.21.12 @ 4:13PM

W:
This is why we need to sit down over a good Scotch one of these days. Nothing here we couldn't work out and find ourselves on the same page.

I wish I could agree with your first paragraph, but it is nonetheless why I vote GOP. Still, even given a republican President it will take constant scrutiny to make sure that for example Court appointments don't go to Harriet Myers types. That was from Bush and he was to the right of where Romney lies. Fortunately the outcry from Conservatives stopped that nomination.

Ron Paul, as a Libertarian, does not factor into my analysis. I do dream though of the day when one emerges who will defend the small, unintrusive government our nation once had. Which leaves us the same old question, "Who is the most Conservative candidate we can elect"? Romney, sadly no Conservative, is not even in the ballpark. Remember, we rejected him four years ago in favor of (the more Conservative) McCain.

W| 3.21.12 @ 6:06PM

Al Adab
We do need to plan this blogger meeting.

I am skeptical of our candidates but we have to play the cards on the table, and I think Romney is hungry enough to attack Obama, beat him, and focus on the economy. We can take care ourselves of our morals and religion. It will be a slow process to reduce the welfare state. It took the Dems from FDR to today, one law and one regulation at a time.

Bill| 3.21.12 @ 5:17PM

Santorum not only opposed the "Right-to-Work" law but also worked for the big labors in PA. Ironically, SEIU endorsed Obama instead of him.

W| 3.21.12 @ 6:03PM

How did Santorum "work" for SEIU? That is a new one. Be specific.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 9:41PM

Het, moron, again, is he not elected to do the will of his constituents? And you're kvetching about his not voting for a Federal right-to-work law, yet you're telling us how great Mitt "I'm a Fake Conservative Who Turns to Gov't." Romney is & that Romneycare is all about individual states doing their own thing?

Hypocrite much? Why not stick to posting things about "ni**er lovers," as you're known for? You can't hack the load on anything deeper, it seems.

Oldefarte| 3.21.12 @ 11:53AM

No respectfully, you can more so thank George Bush for nominating them to the SCOTUS. Santorum didn't have any more effect as a lowely senator than did any other conservative Republican fellow senator in getting them confirmed. Additionally see my attached Wayne Root editorial below for another reason to exclude Santorum going forward to November!!!!!!!!!

Bill| 3.21.12 @ 1:17PM

Oldefarte, you nailed it!

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 1:23PM

You don't think that if Santorum wouldn't have backed Specter, that vindictive ole cuss would've stopped either of those men from being "Borked?" For reference of Specter's ability to prevent that, see Justice Thomas.

Les| 3.21.12 @ 10:22AM

Mimi-Not true that Dems voted for Romney. I live in suburban Cook Co.,and we had many contested races,both Democrat and Republican. Very little reason for crossover. Anopther thing. Don't believe for a minute that all of Illinois,or Chicago metro,is Democrat. It isn't.

Vantura Capitalist| 3.21.12 @ 11:03AM

Go Away Rick. NOW.
Show’s over. Get off the stage. Your 15 minutes are up.

Seek| 3.21.12 @ 11:04AM

As for Gingrich, what should his next move be? Does he have a fighting chance?

Owen K| 3.21.12 @ 11:58AM

No, and he never had a fighting chance. Newt should have bowed out a long time ago. The positive in his staying in the fight is that he is helping Mitt Romney. Newt has too much past baggage. The photo ops with Pelosi and some comments made by Newt have done him in before he even started.

spike59| 3.22.12 @ 6:47AM

no, he doesn't...and he doesn't care; it's a sign of his all-consuming immaturity and overwhelming ego that he'd rather destroy the party and the nominee, and let ObaMao win re-election, as payback for not picking him

Oldefarte| 3.21.12 @ 11:36AM

To anyone reading this THAT HAS WHAT'S KNOWN AS A ''''''BRAIN'''''' [or if you will an INTELLECT], please please contemplate Root's editorial point below and understand that the main/whole focus of this election is to WIN [ie elect our Republican nominee and not to alternatively LOSE TO OBAMA/DEMOCRATS]. Romney at this stage represents the one/only hope for our Republican cause. Is he my favorite-preferred candidate? Absolutely not! But we have no other choice. Santorum is the epitome of a disasterous defeat for the Republican Party and will be hammered for his one-trick-pony messaging of morality, Catholism, riligious values that he continuously proclaims within his campaign. His other messaging is simply so too generalistic simply because he [as Mitt rightly proclaims] is an economic lightweight. Not that Santorum's heart is not in the right place, but he's simply ignorant and inexperienced [and unconcerned] about things financial. All he represents is G-d and religion, and as such will be destroyed by Obama and Democrats in November is we are STUPID ENOUGH TO ALLOW HIS CANDIDACY TO INTERFERE WITH THE INEVITABILITY OF A ROMNEY NOMINATION. Republicans are being played [as Root claims] by Democrats by diverting the campaign discussion from Obama's/Democrats' pathetic economic policies onto a discussion of religion by our crusader Santorum and we simply must WAKE UP AND CONCENTRATE ON NOMINATING A CAPABLE AND ECPERIENCED ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL ORIENTED CANDIDATE ROMNEY AND THEREAFTER ALLOWING AND SUPPORTING HIM TO DEFEAT OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS [THERE WILL BE NO TOMORROWS AFTER 11/4/12 AND THIS COUNTRY WILL DIE FINANCIALLY IF WE DON'T DO THIS]!!!!!!!!! :

'.....Republicans Should Avoid Social Issues
Monday, March 19, 2012 12:36 PM
By: Wayne Allyn Root Rick Santorum could be the worst thing to happen to the GOP — ever. Worse even than George W. Bush. And that’s saying a lot. Bush did so much damage to the GOP brand, he almost destroyed the party forever. It was George Bush who brought us Barack Obama. Few Americans voted for Obama, they just voted for ABB (Anyone But Bush). Now the GOP has a golden opportunity. Obama has wrecked the U.S. economy from sea to shining sea. He has turned off voters by the millions. By historical standards, based on the current disastrous economic and unemployment numbers, Obama is virtually unelectable. Obama is a magician. He has made voters forget Bush in only three years. That's a pretty darn amazing trick.The proof is in the recent polls. This has been perhaps the worst month for the GOP in modern political history. The message is no longer jobs, rising gas prices, chronic long-term unemployment, or crumbling real estate.
The message is about women’s health, the right to use contraception, Planned Parenthood funding, Rush Limbaugh’s use of a crude term to describe a young female law student, and whether Republicans like sex, or hate women. It just doesn’t get any worse than this. And in recent polls, Mitt Romney is leading President Obama.
The GOP has been handed a miracle. His name is Barack Obama. It’s almost impossible to lose to Obama. Think of his actions in the past month.
He’s bribed women with free contraception. He’s bribed Hispanics by hinting he’ll give amnesty to illegal aliens in his second term. He’s bribed homeowners with a $25 billion bank settlement aimed at those who don’t pay their mortgages. He’s bribed environmentalists by cancelling the Keystone Pipeline. He hands out gifts like he's Santa Claus. And yet he’s still losing to Mitt Romney. After all that bribery. After all the stupid things said by Republican presidential candidates and conservative talk-show hosts. That’s called a gift from God.Mitt Romney has it won. All he has to do is avoid talking about his wife’s two Cadillacs, his $250 million fortune, his money in the Cayman Islands, and his dog on the roof of the family car. It’s over. Shut up and you take back the White House. You’d think conservatives would be rejoicing. Licking their lips. They’ve found a new Gipper, as handsome as a movie star, with the perfect family, and a 20 percent Reagan-like across-the-board tax cut. It’s time to party like it’s 1980 again.Enter Rick Santorum. It appears that conservatives and Christians have decided to self-destruct. They can’t take success. They must desperately want four more years of Obama and the Democrat Party. You know, that organization that stands for massive taxes, spending, entitlement and debt, income redistribution, sky-high taxes, sky-high electric bills, and a country based on social justice and affirmative action. Oh, and don’t forget amnesty for illegal immigrants and a union in every workplace. Lovely agenda.Looking at that agenda and the 60,000+ new rules and regulations put forth by Obama in only three years; and the $5 trillion of new debt in only three years. you’d think winning might just be important to someone other than Charlie Sheen. But the conservative and Christian base just can’t get away from Rick Santorum. They want to party like it’s 1875. They want to turn the clock back to Victorian America, Prohibition, banning of sin, and chastity belts. Here is what common sense should tell conservatives. The tea party chose to purposely stay away from social issues. They literally banned talk of anything besides economics. They chose to promote smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, fewer entitlements and lower debt — instead of the right to contraception. Amazing how that works!
It’s like magic. Embrace issues that a majority of Americans believe in, and presto — you win elections. Sure enough by avoiding divisive and unpopular social issues, the tea party led the GOP to the biggest landslide victory in modern political history in 2010.Understanding that, why would you choose to change the topic to contraception? To calling women who have sex “sluts”? To banning pornography in a nation that obviously watches it in record numbers? That was Rick Santorum’s new gem only days ago. As president he says he will ban porn on the Internet, in the privacy of your bedroom, on your computer, and even in the privacy of your hotel room. Now that should really turn on voters. That is certainly a job creator. The country has no jobs and Santorum wants to change the topic to banning your personal behavior in your bedroom. “Ban the porn, because I stand for smaller government.” Now that’s a rallying cry for conservatives. Marching in lock step to mass suicide.Think of it this way folks. America is like a bankrupt company, heavily in debt, bleeding jobs, desperately in need of a turnaround. What America needs is a businessman, not a community organizer. And not a Pope either.
What America needs is someone who understands how to turn around a failed company. How to create jobs. And yes, even how to fire people doing a bad job (think millions of government employees employed in useless jobs, think poorly performing teachers). We need someone who knows how to slash a budget in order to save the company (or in this case, the country).My advice as an objective outsider to Republicans — go back to the medicine cabinet, take those 100 pills out of your hand, put them back in the bottle, and put the bottle back. Charlie Sheen was right. It’s time for the GOP to choose WINNING....'

PS: Maybe the libertarianism of Paul and Root should be extrapolated into a new political party, since obviously the Democratic Party has bee taken over by the extreme radicals of Obama, Pilosi, Reid, Durbin etc; while the Republican Party is on the verge of being taken over by the conservative religious radicals of Santorum etc!!!!!!!!!

Owen K| 3.21.12 @ 11:51AM

Got to agree with Oldefart. Right on the money. This election is about sending Obama and his outlaw administration packing. We cannot hope to gain much of anything until Obama is out of office. Romney will win this November. Oldefart is also correct in that Santorum should stay away from social issues. Social issues have to take second place and the economy needs to be front and center. Santorum has an unnerving way of kind of sticking his foot in his mouth, by offering up such nonsense as a war on poronography. Such issues can be delt with at a later date after we get this country back on solid financial footing. If we cannot do this, social issues won't mean squat. Priorities people!

Oldefarte| 3.21.12 @ 11:56AM

Thanks O.K. but I can't take credit for what rightfully Wayne Root is rightfully telling us all what we have to do to 'WIN' !!!!

Tim| 3.21.12 @ 12:05PM

The sad part here is that the Rinos really think they could win with Romney.

Money will buy the election in November but its going to be the Socialists money---Obama's money that will win.

You have 60 million folks who will vote for Obama just because they will fear loosing their free lunch.

You will have millions of church going folks simply stay home because of their distrust of the Romney's
"Bohemian Grove" connection and then there are the vast millions of folks that just want to pay their taxes and work hard and go home to read to their kids who simply have given up on politics.

In a battle royal of the Socialists and the super rich.....the socialist wins because people are suffering and they will take a free lunch versus worry about the Constitution or the Rich loosing market share anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

While I can respect Santorum's will to fight I say let the Rinos flush the country down the drain so we can rid ourselves of them once and for all.

Al Adab| 3.21.12 @ 12:58PM

Does the GOP have the memory to recall when a young Eveett Dirksen looked Tom Dewey in the eyes and said, "Twice we followed you to defeat, we will not follow you again."?

How many times since has the GOP followed that wing of the party to defeat. Ford, Bush, Dole, McCain continue the grand tradition. Only when the Conservative Movement is ascendant and energized has the GOP enjoyed success. We may "hold our noses" once again and vote for a "moderate" (that is, one from the Rockefeller/Romney [George] wing of the party) but I dare say they will not work for or finance such a nominee. An unenthusiastic electorate is the recipe for failure.

darcy| 3.21.12 @ 5:09PM

That's exactly right, Al Adab. I most certainly will not lift a finger to help Romney's election. Why would I? when as you say, he will do nothing to attack the "legitimacy of the welfare state."

Fear, and by all means it is truly fear -- and understandably so -- in the hearts of conservatives over the prospect of a second Obama term, may get them to the polls to vote for yet another accommodationist, but by doing so they signal their capitulation to the status quo. Isn't that the very thing we're so furious about with the Republican Party? Really. I don't know how we expect them to act on principle when we ourselves in the very act of voting will not act on principle but will rather capitulate because we're afraid. How can we expect the elected not to be capitulators when we ourselves are?

The best outcome for this election would be if Republicans stayed home in record numbers to demonstrate their solidarity in demanding a conservative candidate. It certainly hasn't worked for conservatives to keep propping up the establishment on voting day -- and it hasn't worked for the betterment of the country, either; if we have a conservative candidate, the turn out would be phenomenal, while all the middle-of-the-roaders would have to hold their noses and vote in a Marxist. At least there would be a real choice.

Tim| 3.21.12 @ 12:43PM

a side note...

With Romney as our nominee the best we can hope for is to retake the Senate so we can at least block Obama's Socialist/ Anti American Judicial appointments.
The vast mojority of blue collar folks that are social consevatives and actually love this country will just not vote for Romney in most swing States.

And while I wish the scenario was different it just will not happen

Romney represents what folks have come to hate...crony capitalism.

and while Obama is a Socialist and that's a given it won't matter in most swing States.

Even placing Rubio as VP won't help because even if we win Florida we loose in other states that are so called battleground.

Imagine the OBama machine in October scaring the living daylights out of people with the loss of all their freebees they now enjoy.

There isn't enough money in the Romney tank to convince avarage folks to vote for someone who will stop their free lunch.

This may sound like Liberal speak but only to those who don't want to open eyes to the reality of what is going on here.

The only chance we had was to energize a social conservative crusade on reclaiming this country
but money has spoken......

So don't complain come November 7th

Oldefarte| 3.21.12 @ 4:41PM

Well if the SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE BLUE COLLAR FOLKS do indeed stay home, they STUPIDLY will watch their country become economically/financially flushed down the toilet of bankruptcy [aka Europe style currently] after an Obama victory. If these social conservatives have any brains, they'll hold their nose and vote for Romney in order to stand a chance of saving their country from another Obama term of socialism, but since they may be too stupid to do so, who knows??????

David| 3.21.12 @ 2:05PM

The fact is Newt is pitching a hissy fit - he's throwing a temper tantrum.

It is just like Newt's personality. That is why so many who were in Congress with him do NOT want to see him as president.

Newt firmly believes that if Santorum were not in the race that he would be the frontrunner. In Newt's mind, Santorum is keeping him from the becoming the nominee, and if Newt can't have it, then he is going to make sure that Santorum can't get it either.

Talk about child-like behavior. Newt is not exhibiting jealousy (to mean that he would like what someone else has) - he is exhibiting envy (to mean that if he can't have it, then he doesn't want the other guy to have it either).

He is handing Mitt the nomination.

Drek| 3.21.12 @ 3:00PM

And what of Santorum's motivations?

Newt has an outsized ego because after a lifetime of experience, he's noticed that he's usually the brightest guy in the room, and the guy with the best solution to the problem du jour. Not always of course, he's not godlike, but frequently enough that his ego has swelled.

But so what.

Without that outsize ego he would never have tried to develop a GOP in Georgia, or a Republican majority in the House.

You, and others, so many, many others, don't understand that without that ego, his list of accomplishments would be as slender as that of Santorum, -----------who if you haven't noticed, seems to act as if he's doing the Lord's work.

I'll take the ego instead of the guy smugly moralizing about extending prisoners and dirtballs the franchise, I'll take the ego over the guy apt to go off on JFK and 1960, I'll take the ego focused on jobs and energy dominance, than the guy all eager to go off on internet porn and contraceptives.

Oldefarte| 3.21.12 @ 4:46PM

Both Newt [whom I voted for] and Santorum are done/toast/finaished etc, and the sooner these social conservative dumbarses get that through their feeble minds and realize that Romney is our only shot at economic salvation for this country. if they want the purety and morality that Santorum represents, then tell them to quit worrying about Romney and instead prevent their children from supporting Hollywood's movies and TV shows and start insisting that they attend church weekly!!!!!!!!!

Drek| 3.21.12 @ 6:30PM

Yea, Santorum had his chance and he screwed it up big time.

Outside of a political miracle, it's looking like it's Romney.

But Gingrich should stay in the race if only to continue pushing his desperately needed solutions to our problems.

As for Santorum, who pushes his earnest morality, what's his reason for staying in this race is now beyond me?

But then again, being pretty familiar with his record in the Senate, I really didn't ever understand what he was thinking getting in this race anyway.

No money.

No persuasive speaking powers.

No significant legislative accomplishments.

He rolled over for Bush.

Never headed any committee of note.

Never ran anything in his life.

Only a guy like THE OTHER MCCAIN would have gone to the mattresses for a guy with so slender a list of accomplishments.

e pearse| 3.21.12 @ 2:12PM

With all due respect, this is a parade of talking points that we already know and which contains the usual baggage of half-truths. Why is it that as soon as a writer joins the establishment press, he cannot tell it like it is.

And like it is: Romney is the Republican nominee by all measurements - votes, delegates, state primaries, endorsements, and the inevitable math.

Now, as a comparison, the managing editor of The Spectator should bother to leave his minions and go read a piece that tells it like it is, "Stop The Pretending, Stop the Fake Arguments, Stop The Pseudo Logic - We Have A Winner."
Find it, and be shocked, at http://www.AmericasChronicle.com

David| 3.21.12 @ 2:16PM

Con Chef, I wouldn't waste my time responding to some of these posters like Bill. He has been repeating the same f_cking things for 2 months. Again, he argues like a little child.....it is so just because he says it is so.

Go Santorum!!!

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 2:35PM

Too true. Sometimes its just too much fun to pass up a good chew toy though!

:-)

Ken| 3.21.12 @ 2:31PM

Once I was eager for November, looking forward to voting for president, confident that Obama could be beaten, but I'm rapidly losing any interest in the contest. If Romney ends up as the nominee I'll not bother voting for vote for a 3rd party candidate.

Doctor Right| 3.21.12 @ 3:36PM

That would be REALLY stupid.

Sorry, but you folks who want to make a "statement" by not supporting the eventual GOP-nominee are complete and utter idiots.

Your "statement" is pathetic, and it says a lot more about you than it does about the nominee.

It says that you value your opinion and your fragile little ego MORE than you value the well-being of the country.

It says you're immature, and don't really understand what's at stake in this election.

And if you're one of those COMPLETE MORONS like Clint or "Jack in Wi" who are dumb enough to believe that there's no difference between the two parties, then you're beneath contempt.

I have well and truly had it with these jerk-offs. They're worse than liberals, who at least FIGHT for something. Sitting home on election day with your thumb up your ass and sulking because your guy Ron Paul (and I know you're a Paul-bot...they're the only idiots who talk like that) didn't get the nomination is pathetic.

Yes, I'm talking to you.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 4:07PM

Amen, Doc. "Boo-hoo. I don't like the candidate, so I'm gonna take my ball & go home." I'm as sick of these hissy fit throwing childern as you are Doc.

darcy| 3.21.12 @ 5:27PM

How nice to learn that one is a moron for not wanting to continue the game being played by the Republican Party. It's the game where the conservative candidates are culled at the very beginning of the primary process, by means often including back-room deals, missing ballot boxes, and other shenanigans. Where multi-million dollar donors (have you seen the graph showing the comparison between the candidates?) using SuperPacs spend 10 times what the other candidates can garner to push forward their man?

And let's face it, conservatives who have a Christian veneer -- not that it's superficial, but that it's apparent -- are just oh so retrograde and, after all, they may not like the corrupt way things are run in Washington. And that would put a dent in how much these mega donors and big-government, welfare-statist, establishment perpetuating important people can steal from us.

Call me names, if it makes you feel better. For me, it just fires me up more. And fyi, libertarians are, in my opinion, nothing more nor less than super liberals, both of which are death to our nation.

W| 3.21.12 @ 6:14PM

Darcy
I like your comments and politics, but on this issue you are wrong. We have to beat Obama. We do not have a perfect candidate, and never have had one. We have three that are running on the same basic platform. It will probably be Romney and Rubio. Do you really want four more years of obama/biden? By then the welfare state will be so ingrained and entrenched, it will be impossible to reduce. It means that the next Republican president, however conservative, will have to cut through four more years of nanny state laws and regulations and three more lefty Supreme Court justices for the next 15 years.

darcy| 3.21.12 @ 8:01PM

I appreciate your comments, W.

I would say that the welfare state is already ingrained and entrenched; but nothing is permanent, and what is entrenched today may be uprooted tomorrow under the right conditions. I will not let fear keep me from voting my principles.

Those days are over. America will get what it deserves -- and right now, it looks to me like it deserves a good swift kick in the pants. This kind of is reminding me of the big boo-boo Chamberlain made at Munich. To keep Hitler happy, and Germany a barrier between Western Europe and Soviet Russia, he made a bad deal.

It bought him a little time -- for Hitler to re-arm.

Elect Romney and it buys you a little time. A little time for his SuperPac cronies (who so you think got all that stimulus money, or much of it -- and that was all about buying the next election, by the way, be it R or D, as long as it was a "friendly") to continue robbing us blind using the long-arm of the state. Do you think Romney will repudiate the welfare state? Do you think he will stand up to the Saudi's? Is he going to reverse Don't Ask Don't Tell -- the social engineering project whose deleterious effects on the nation won't be fully known for a few years anyway, and when they are you'll see that it becomes a crime to say from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin, or to speak against it in any way?

Romney is a plastic man without a spine and no core convictions; perhaps you imagine that pressure from the right would bring him to heel, or at least bend our way. But not so. A man with no core will bow to the onslaught of maliciousness that will be heaped on him from the left; while we soft-spoken conservatives can be put off until another day, or forever.

He's not the nominee. Not now. And I'm going to do my utmost to poison the well for him the best I can. Newt or Santorum would be better.

darcy| 3.21.12 @ 8:03PM

Edit. Fifth paragraph, second sentence:

who do you think, not who so you think.

Clint| 3.21.12 @ 5:45PM

Dr.Reich's The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooge,Who Said He'll Vote For The Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

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

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Mike Hawk| 3.21.12 @ 7:26PM

So who are you going top vote for Clint?? Bob (with one'o') Casey , no doubt.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 4:05PM

Thanks, "sunshine patriot." President MaoBama thanks you for your vote.

spike59| 3.22.12 @ 6:47AM

Ken, ObaMao THANKS you for your support-dullard

Clint| 3.21.12 @ 5:50PM

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....U2AvSwzuok

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 9:46PM

Make sure Dorothy, Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion (your mascot) & the Scarecrow are there, along with your Raggady Anne & Andy & Tickle Me Elmo dolls are all there. Between all y'all, I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out! I mean, they have as much intellectual acumen as YOU do.

spike59| 3.22.12 @ 6:48AM

without Dr Earmark, the Tinfoil Hat Tinhorn

David| 3.21.12 @ 6:28PM

Drek, a big ego is not the problem. It is his behavior.

Yes, Newt was instrumental in getting a repub majority in the House, and Newt is also the person primarily responsible for losing it and along with it the trust of the American people.

spike59| 3.22.12 @ 6:50AM

his ego DRIVES his behavior; like all megalomaniacs, he's so utterly sure of his own majesty and superiority that he simply cannot process the thought that he might not be 100% perfect and correct 100% of the time

somnolence| 3.21.12 @ 10:50PM

The only two TRUE conservative presidents of the 20th century were Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Reagan started out in his adult life as an unabashed admirer of FDR, voted for liberal Truman in 1948, and moderate Ike in 1952 and 1956. He was always keenly anti-Communist, however, but so was Nixon(who most certainly was moderate to liberal pragmatist). For all his evolved political and economic philosophy into the conservative realm(and I still admire and voted for him twice), the national debt went skyward under Reagan along with the economic growth. His legacy was tarnished by Iran-Contra, which I really believe would not have happened on his watch if he had been a younger, more vibrant man. So we all make a mistake by putting Ron on an elevated pedestal, and make a further mistake by trying to find "the next Ronald Reagan" under every rock. As far as I'm concerned, Coolidge may very well have been the greatest president of the last century.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 3.21.12 @ 11:27PM

If George Washington thought the way some are now doing, giving up and giving in, aka capitulating to Romney and the liberal GOP establishment, we would never even have had the USA created with the US Constitution written in the first place, let alone Ronald Reagan's victory over GHW Bush in 1980 to create the greatest economic prosperity boom since the Gold Rush of the 1800's.

As a Reagan Tea Party Conservative, these people make me sick and want to puke.

I, and millions of other Tea Party Reagan Conservatives, will NEVER support, let alone give up all of our Constitutional Conservative Values and Principles and vote for a liberal progressive Republican GOP RINO like Romney, period. !

spike59| 3.22.12 @ 6:51AM

ObaMao thanks you for your assistance in his re-election..you dolt

If Reagan were alive today, he'd apply a 'Jethro Gibbs slap' to the back of your pointy head

somnolence| 3.22.12 @ 10:15AM

The enemy is OBAMA, not ROMNEY.

john dubose| 3.22.12 @ 10:13PM

The reason that Romney is winning is simple.

Republicans have decided to do what it takes to win. Gingrich, Santorum and Paul can not. It is that simple. If you are so conservative that you can not be reasonable, try the Constitution party. Maybe .2% and not even a kind word from the media on election night. But at least you did not vote for Romney.

Owen K| 3.23.12 @ 10:07AM

I no longer support Santorum. His recent statement that if Romney is the GOP nominee, we should just leave Obama in office, is outrageous and totally wrong. ANY GOP nominee is far superior to a President who is a Socialist and who wants to impose as much Government tyranny as possible. Santorum tends to run at the mouth, and this time he has lost my support. I am now firmly in the Romney camp.

More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain

More Articles From Campaign Crawlers

The Tragedy of Mark Sanford

April 30, 2013 | Kyle Peterson

Massachusetts GOP Primary Coming to a Close

April 29, 2013 | Teresa Mull

A True Conservative in Virginia

February 22, 2013 | Teresa Mull

Inside the Israeli Elections

January 25, 2013 | Matthew RJ Brodsky

Doomed Beyond All Hope of Redemption

November 7, 2012 | Robert Stacy McCain

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/21/little-note-nor-long-remember

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|81 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|96 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|40 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|15 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|15 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|27 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|13 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

Weiner: More Photos of My Junk Might Surface

Kyle Peterson | 12:55PM

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein | 5.21.13

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord | 5.21.13

Wimps Versus Barbarians

Thomas Sowell | 5.21.13

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer | 5.21.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein | 5.21.13

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.