-
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
The Politics of Demoralization
Why do the media magnify Mitt’s “inevitability” mantra?
Before the polls closed Saturday night in Louisiana, I made two safe predictions: First, that Rick Santorum would win big in the state’s Republican presidential primary and second, that the media (specifically including Fox News) would “immediately provide the Team Mitt spin, minimizing the significance of Santorum victory.”
The first prediction actually proved to be an underestimate. Santorum did not merely “win big” in Louisiana, he won huge, exceeding all expectations. The Real Clear Politics average of Louisiana polls had shown him leading Mitt Romney by 13 points, and early exit polls indicated a similar margin of victory. No polling, however, had suggested the possibility that Santorum would win a massive blowout and not even his most ardent supporter had dared to dream the former Pennsylvania senator could carry Louisiana with a 22-point margin of victory and 49 percent of the vote. Furthermore, as one of his state coordinators pointed out Saturday night, if Santorum had gotten about 4,000 more votes to reach 51 percent, he would have automatically gotten all the delegates at stake in the primary. Three non-competitive candidates — former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann — got a combined total of nearly 3,800 votes. Santorum was close to scoring a shutout against Romney, even without considering the 16 percent of the Louisiana vote captured by another non-competitive candidate, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Permit me to digress, dear reader, to ask: Is anyone so blind as to be unable to see that Gingrich’s continued campaign now has no purpose other than to deprive Rick Santorum of a one-on-one shot at Romney? We need not resort to the language of psychology — e.g., narcissism, delusions of grandeur, a possible tendency toward megalomania — to say that Newt’s campaign has been obviously doomed for weeks. If this was not obvious to everyone on “Super Tuesday” March 6, when Gingrich placed third in Tennessee and Oklahoma, it certainly should have been clear on March 13 when he lost Mississippi and Alabama. Along the way, Gingrich has also racked up numerous fourth-place finishes, even in Alaska where he might have been expected to get a boost from Sarah Palin’s endorsement. In many closely contested states, including the crucial primaries Feb. 28 in Michigan and March 6 in Ohio, Gingrich has campaigned just enough to play the spoiler, preventing Santorum from consolidating conservative support and thereby enabling Romney to win narrow victories. And by his repeated criticisms of Santorum, Newt has helped poison the well, demonizing his rival in the eyes of many conservative Gingrich supporters. (Another easy prediction: Comments on this column will be flooded by embittered Gingrichites who have talked themselves into believing that Santorum is an illegitimate usurper, somehow unfairly depriving Newt of his rightful place as the final choice of the “Anybody But Mitt” movement.) Gingrich and his supporters apparently have forgotten that Newt spent all of January and February insisting that stopping the Massachusetts moderate was a vital necessity, requiring conservatives to unite their efforts behind a single anti-Romney candidate.
Now that conservative are indeed beginning to unite (Santorum beat Gingrich by more than 3-to-1 in Louisiana), Newt and his supporters seem surprisingly amenable to accepting the GOP Establishment’s “Roll Over for Romney” consensus, rather than joining Santorum’s conservative crusade. This stubborn reluctance of Gingrich to read the handwriting on the wall was perhaps predictable to anyone who has studied the habits of oversized egos, a familiar quantity in politics. Even more predictable, however, was the media’s eagerness to accept and promote the “inevitability” mantra that for weeks has been quite nearly the only argument Republicans have heard in favor of Romney’s candidacy.
Having campaigned for president almost non-stop since 2007, Mr. Inevitable was always the Republican heir apparent for 2012, given the GOP’s longstanding custom of nominating the “It’s His Turn” candidate, second place in the primary campaign being practically a guarantee for the nomination next time around. Ronald Reagan lost to Gerald Ford in 1976, George H.W. Bush lost to Reagan in 1980, John McCain lost to George W. Bush in 2000, and in each case, the second-place finisher went on to be the next Republican nominee. (The party’s 1996 nominee, Bob Dole, was also a re-run, having finished last in the 1980 primary campaign. Many conservatives felt that Dole’s ‘96 running mate, Jack Kemp, had missed his shot at the White House by refusing to mount a primary challenge to the elder Bush in either 1988 or ‘92.) By virtue of being runner-up to John McCain four years ago, then, Mitt began the 2012 campaign as the pre-emptive favorite.
In retrospect, the ups and downs of Romney’s “Flavor of the Month” rivals over the past year look almost like an orchestrated spectacle, as if the media and the pollsters had conspired with GOP insiders to create a buzz of artificial excitement around what otherwise might have been a dull and predictable Republican primary campaign. Now, however, the media message seems to be, “Fun time is over. Act like sensible grown-up Republicans and vote for this rich guy of dubious ideological sincerity whom the party establishment wants to shove down your throats.” To do otherwise, it is implied, is to be immature, unrealistic and unserious because (the sensible grown-up Republicans assure us during their frequent appearances on TV panel discussions) Romney is the most “electable” candidate. Skepticism toward this “electability” argument is dismissed by Mitt’s media minions in tut-tutting tones, and woe unto the conservative who predicts that Romney will most likely repeat the pattern of previous establishment favorites and lose in November. The sensible grown-up Republicans who have endorsed Romney condemn such predictions as treasonous pessimism — giving aid and comfort to the Democratic enemy — whereas by contrast the Romneyites expect their own predictions of Mitt’s “inevitability” to be accepted as Neutral Objective Facts. (And don’t you dare accuse them of bias!)
Between his inevitability and his electability, Romney’s advocates would have you believe their man is an unstoppable electoral juggernaut, a lead-pipe cinch to become the next President of the United States, and they’ve managed to sell that proposition with the assistance of journalists who seem suspiciously eager to ignore all evidence to the contrary. So when Santorum won his 11th victory Saturday in Louisiana by a margin much larger than anyone had predicted, the media went out of their way to pretend that this result was neither surprising nor significant. Fox News actually interrupted coverage of Santorum’s victory speech in order to permit their reporter Carl Cameron to provide the pro-Romney angle on the Louisiana vote. Sunday morning, Fox brought on Romney surrogate John Sununu and gave him 10 minutes of airtime to pour cold water on any notion that Santorum’s 22-point margin of victory in Louisiana might portend any meaningful revival of conservative resistance to Mitt.
Santorum’s supporters have complained for weeks that Fox News is in the tank for Romney, an accusation angrily denied by employees of the “Fair and Balanced” network. Their attitude seems to be that it is simply a fact that Mitt is as inevitable as Sununu and his other surrogates say he is, and thus they automatically reject the possibility that Romney’s surprisingly large defeat in Louisiana — twenty-two freaking points! — could signify yet another Santorum surge. The Romney campaign has spoon-fed reporters and commentators a steady diet of delegate-count projections showing their candidate with an insuperable advantage. Very few reporters, however, have taken seriously the Santorum campaign’s contention that Team Mitt is both overestimating its share of delegates already won and prematurely counting delegates as hatched chickens in contests to come. Whether the Romney camp’s estimations of delegates are accurate or not, they convey the impression of a contest already over, although Mitt is still nearly 600 delegates shy of the “magic number” majority of 1,144. The delegate math functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and Fox News has been prophesying Santorum’s doom since late February.
Just as Santorum supporters suspect Fox of bias, so too do they see Matt Drudge as squarely in the pro-Romney camp. They cite as an example last week’s ginned-up controversy that erupted when, during a speech in Texas, Santorum gave an awkward version of his oft-reiterated argument that the moderate Romney would be ill-positioned to provide a “clear contrast” to Obama. This gaffe got major play at the Drudge Report, creating the false impression that Santorum had said he would personally prefer Obama to Romney. Santorum went on Fox News the next afternoon and, in an interview with Neil Cavuto, vehemently insisted that he was the victim of an “absurd” and “laughable” distortion, “the hatchet job of all time.” A week earlier, Drudge gave similarly sensational treatment to a Daily Caller story about Santorum’s stated goal of “vigorous” enforcement of federal laws against pornographic obscenity. The article was factually accurate, but misled many readers into believing that Santorum had suddenly announced a plan for an anti-porn crackdown. In fact, the Daily Caller article was based on a position paper that had been on Santorum’s campaign website for weeks, and the article ignored the obviously relevant fact that both Romney and Gingrich had in January joined Santorum in endorsing the anti-pornography platform of a conservative group called Morality in Media. Any reporter who can extract a couple of “controversial” sentences from an hour-long Santorum speech is virtually guaranteed a Drudge headline, offering an incentive for the kind of “gotcha” coverage that makes it seem Santorum’s entire campaign has been nothing but gaffes and blunders.
Thus do the media portray Santorum as both hapless and hopeless. Voters who know only what they learn from TV news coverage of the campaign might be amazed that a candidate depicted as incapable of speaking a coherent sentence has nonetheless managed to win 11 states and 273 delegates. And their amazement would turn to outright disbelief if you told them that, despite all they’ve seen and heard about Romney’s overwhelming lead in delegates, it is still not certain that Mitt is really so inevitable. Yet even a victory as sizeable as Santorum’s Louisiana win is treated by reporters as a minor incident on the road to Romney’s nomination. The New York Times sniffed that the result in Louisiana is “unlikely to change the dynamics of the race.” Two days before Saturday’s primary, the Washington Post contended that Louisiana could be “more fertile ground for Romney than any of the six Southern states where he has lost to this point.” After Romney instead suffered his biggest loss yet, the Post felt obliged to note in the lead paragraph of its story on the Louisiana vote that Santorum’s “odds of beating Mitt Romney in the overall delegate race appear slim,” later adding, “Romney’s other victories, especially a big win Tuesday in the Illinois primary, appear to have cemented his status as the likely nominee.” To these journalists, a 12-point margin for Romney in Illinois was a “big win,” whereas Santorum’s 22-point margin in Louisiana was meaningless. (Republican voters who don’t cooperate with the consensus of the political press corps are manifestly inferior, you see.)
Whatever the intent of the media’s repetition of Mitt’s “inevitability” mantra, the effect is to discourage support for Santorum, to demoralize conservatives by telling them that the fight for the Republican nomination is already over, and to force them into a premature acquiescence in the putative triumph of Romney, despite the fact that this allegedly more electable candidate has so far gotten less than 40 percent of the vote in GOP primaries and caucuses. If you suspect that the intent of this demoralizing message is the same as the effect, you are certainly not alone. Nor are you alone if you remain determined to resist the media’s demand for an unconditional surrender to Romney. There is at least one other conservative willing and able to keep up the fight, and his name is Rick Santorum.
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.
Appleby| 3.26.12 @ 7:56AM
Since when did Americans meeky fall in line with what Their Betters instructed them they were required to think? Better yet, since when did those who consider themselves Our Betters start assuming that we'll slump our shoulders and whine, "What can you dooooooooooooooo?" and trudge forward to the destination Our Betters have pointed out to us as The Right Road?
That would be Eastern Canada, folks, not the United States of America.
In fact, the one way to be sure that Americans don't do something has traditionally been the instructions from Northeastern Liberals that they have no choice but to do same. (Two major examples: the Dollar Coin and the Metric System, both monumental failures when Our Betters directed us to fall in line and do what the Euros do.)
Besides the fact that Americans resist being ordered to fall in line, there's the clear fact that a good many Americans don't like Romney, don't think he represents our beliefs, and in fact don't have any idea exactly what he does represent. We do have the clear sense that Romney is Not One Of Us. And some of us notice that the people who insist he IS in fact One Of Us are themselves Not One Of Us.
My suggestion is that the Romney Is Inevitable people find out what we mean by One Of Us, and then take a good look at Romney and try to match him up. Good luck.
Gary B| 3.26.12 @ 8:33AM
"We do have the clear sense that Romney is Not One Of Us. And some of us notice that the people who insist he IS in fact One Of Us are themselves Not One Of Us."
Very well said, Appleby.
SpiralArchitect| 3.26.12 @ 5:08PM
There remains the issue of an impending election (unless things really start to look bad for President Decline) which will offer two candidates.
One most of the readers here detest in all categories & the other who is not the first.
No doubt I am not alone believing it better to take the one that is not a Marxist & America hater no matter who that may be.
One needs capital ( that's money for the thick heads out there) & organization to stand any chance in a general election. Only one candidate I know has those as his disposal...
Steve| 3.26.12 @ 9:18AM
It's hilarious you make fun of the metric system. Granted it would now be inefficient to switch over at this point, but it's obviously a MUCH more efficient system. Also, Romney unfortunately has the nomination locked up. There are a few winner take all states towards the end of the process that are sure to push him over the finish line.
Teflon93| 3.26.12 @ 9:38AM
Actually, it's not. You might want to look into the corrections to the length of a meter that have been required since it was created; this is a matter of definition given that the system is pegged not to a constant but to a variable and an arbitrary variable at that.
It is a Ruling Class innovation and suffers all the defects development by inbred aristocrats inevitably drives.
Appleby| 3.26.12 @ 11:08AM
Who's making fun of the metric system? I'm saying that when Jimmy Carter decreed that the United States would be metric within one year, the American People said "No it won't either" and it's pretty obvious who won.
Ditto the two abortive attempts to foist a $1 coin on us; the last time I saw any of those was in Houston in 2008, where their one toonervile trolley line gave change in what the local people and those of us in town for the American Le Mans/Champ Car weekend called "them damned yella things." The only ones who won on that exchange were the hotel maids, who reaped great rewards because we didnt' want to try to explain to Thomas Cook when we got home what those yella things were or what they were supposed to be worth.
I rest my case.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.26.12 @ 8:26AM
The GOP is in an internecine battle against the Socialist Democrats and MSM.
There is a maxim that states "when your enemy is committing suicide, do not interrupt." What does one do when both Generals and their advisers are committing suicide at the same time?
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 8:30AM
See Ross Kaminsky's article on why Santorum's wins mean so little.
Clint| 3.26.12 @ 9:16AM
The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges 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 An Open Convention.
Gary B| 3.26.12 @ 9:35AM
You're a lot more right than wrong. All this fake conservatism from Republicans... a guy could get cynical.
Teflon93| 3.26.12 @ 9:35AM
From your lips to God's ears, RSM. This isn't Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs. conservative; it's Ruling Class vs. The People Who Pay the Bills.
Time for the Tea Party to rise.
Anthony| 3.26.12 @ 9:42AM
Why do the media pedal the Romney is inevitable narrative, Mr. McCain? Well, because the media are pack animals who will not stray from the herd, lest they reveal their individual banal stupidity for all to see.
Second, they are political whores doing the bidding of their establishment task masters, be they the Ds or the Rs.
Like the old adage "follow the money", this one is, "follow the agenda".
John - TMF| 3.26.12 @ 9:46AM
The Pledge:
Willard Milton Romney is a Limousine Liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican; therefore I WILL NOT vote for him, EVER!
My wife and two sons have taken the pledge.
The last Conservative standing is Rick Santorum, and I will vote for him with a huge smile should he be nominated.
Sadly I was not able to vote for him in the primary. Virginia was rigged for Romney years ago, and with the exception of the indefatigable Ken Cuccinelli, the establishment GOP was in the bag for Romney before the final tap gaveled an end of the 2008 Republican National Convention - (forever to be known as the "Great Dying Cockroach Affair") .
Let us hope that all of the uncommitted delegates, and those committed to other candidates (do you hear that Newt folks?) Rally to Rick Santorum's support on the first ballot.
It would be tonic to see Rick Santorum at the convention having swept the south and the plains states. (sorry Floridians, you have been invaded by dependent Yankees, and they destroy everything that they touch.)
It will be interesting to see but in the end Willard's map of support is going to look a whole lot like the map of the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections. Yup. Mitt's Support is BLUE!!!! They know their own, don't they? And we know for whom the majority of blue folks are going to vote in November, don't we?
r/John - The Mighty Fahvaag
santorumistoowhinyforme| 3.26.12 @ 2:29PM
So Santorum's inability to get on the ballot in VA is somehow Romney's fault? HOw about all the other states? Guess you didn't hear about Romney choosing not to challenge several districts in IL which would have meant Santorum was inelligible for even more delegates (he had already had several stripped from him).
John - TMF| 3.26.12 @ 3:25PM
Ok Troll.. just once and then off to the muck under the bridge...
Virginia's primary ballot access rules were written in the mid 1970's to protect Democrat incumbents from challengers, as the political process moved away from caucuses and conventions.
It takes three things to get on a primary ballot in Virginia by STATE law, not party rule...
1. a very large number of petition signatures from each congressional district (I am not going to dig that up right now but VALID petition signatures on a standardized form that provides little writing space for verification is difficult stuff for lots of regular folks.) Those petitions pages have to be individually notarized and submitted. The counting process is obtuse and credentials committees are hand selected by the party officials - gee the entire RPV was in the bag for Mittens, so who is going to make the ballot easier?
2. It takes people. Lots of people all over the state... you can't just concentrate on a few counties where you get help, you need folks in Pulaski, North Hampton, Middlesex, James City... etc... Which means having a statewide organization in place, on the ground and ready to go months before the process even starts. That takes TIME.. bigger time than most candidates who file even two years early have.
3. TIME IS MONEY. The process COSTS, and new candidates to the process don't have the money to build a core paid organization with the experience and contacts necessary to get the process working, especially when those contacts have been bought up wholesale by the opposition.
So, Virginia ended up looking so ridiculous that even Thomas Davis, my former CongressCritter, said that the process was flawed and needed to be revisited.
In addition... there are NO WRITE INS allowed by STATE LAW in Virginia Primaries, so if just let us say that ROMNEY and RUPAUL who had four years to get on the ballot, dropped out of the race, there would be NO candidates on the ballot, and no way to write one in.
It is a typically corrupt, stupid system, AND add to that we STILL have another primary to conduct because the Party saw fit to split it - of course if the Presidential Primary had been combined with the state level contests - which is usual, the whole thing would have happened in July or August, and the candidates would have had plenty of time to get on the ballot.
The Virginia Republican Primary was 'fixed' and no amount of liberal deflective attacks can change it.
Oh? And as to the "whiny" smear... So now everybody who disagrees with The new Chosen One, the man from Mittstinia, and his dirty political attacks is whiny?
Right. Sure keep up the projection... the whiniest ween in the campaign wears Gucci, has perfect hair, and his wife drives her Caddies with pride.... If I tell him his real name does he stamp his feet in anger and the ground crack to swallow him up?
RUMPELSTILTSKIN!!!! RUMPELSTILTSKIN!!!!
RUMPELSTILTSKIN!!!!
Sure hope that worked...now off the bridge with you.
-Billy Goat Gruff
Adjoran| 3.26.12 @ 10:59PM
Yes, Virginia's ballot requirement is sooooo tough that under stricter rules in 2008 (the old rule required last four digits of Social Security for ID, now it is optional), all six Republicans qualified, as did Denis Kucinich on the Democratic side, and as Alan Keyes did in 2000.
The rules were known in advance and no one objected then. The fact that candidates in this field lacked the basic competence to qualify for the ballot - for Gingrich and Santorum, in their own state of residence - is a sign they aren't qualified to be President.
Walter M| 3.26.12 @ 9:54AM
Look, Santorum had big impressive victory in La. He crushed his opponents, both Romney and Gingrich..BUT he only picked up 5 delegates over Romney. That is all that counts. He needs 75 percent of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. When Santorum goes on TV and is questioned about this he says it is bad math. What is he talking about? He sounds like a Democrat when he answered so stupidly.
Mike K| 3.26.12 @ 9:57AM
Santorum has no chance to get to the 1144 for the nomination. His best shot would be to get out and think of a campaign in 2016 or 2020. If they go it to an open convention he is only going to alienate Republicans that can help him down the road
santorumistoowhinyforme| 3.26.12 @ 2:30PM
His ego is way to big.
santorumistoowhinyforme| 3.26.12 @ 2:30PM
*too*
Toby | 3.26.12 @ 10:11AM
For Santorum to even suggest that there is little difference between Obama and Romney is nonsense. He was trying to back pedal from it on Friday but remarks like this only hurt him.
John - TMF| 3.26.12 @ 10:27AM
Drink much Kool-Aid?
Romney is a creature of Wall Street, Citi, Goldman, et al. He's their other puppet.
Romney's single failed stint as Governor of one of the most Leftist states in the union puts him squarely in the Liberal Democrat school of governance.
He is also a flip-flopping phony who will say anything to anybody at any time to get what he wants or his handlers tell him that he needs.
Today he's a "severe conservative", yesterday he was "pragmatic" as he created socialized medicine with mandates and penalties for not participating, raised taxes and especially fees in Massachusetts. Tomorrow, if it looks good, he'll be moderate and compromising when the first attempts to repeal ObamneyCare fail in the Democrat controlled Senate... Willard will equivocate, shave the edges, tweak the program.
Yeah I expect Willard Milton Romney to be exactly what he has shown himself to be, a Limousine Liberal Democrat. He might be to the right of The One, but Romney exists in a place shared with Bill and Hillary. Left of Center, and ever compliant to the needs of the Establishment.
The One is a sock puppet, Romney is a marionette, sure different.
-TMF
Adjoran| 3.26.12 @ 11:01PM
Um, Romney and Bain were from Boston - Fleet Street, not Wall Street, and his backers are more Bain investors and companies saved by their intervention than big bankers. But I'm sure you wouldn't let facts get in your way anyway, would you?
fiscal| 3.26.12 @ 10:19AM
Why is it that virtually no one in the right wing ideology class talks about the corrupting influence of the SuperPAC's in the choice of candidates? Virtually all of the negative advertising against the candidates of the moment came from rich people who do not want to be identified. Let's face it, Citizen's United was one of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court in history. Is it a surprise that the wealthy want a candidate like Romney who will bail them out if they get into trouble and will favor them with better tax rates and loopholes?
As for Fox News, with Roger Ailes at the helm, they have been tied with the back room leaders of the Republican Party since the beginning. They will like about many issues regarding Democrats -- and because most of you are right wing, you don't mind. But they also favor the candidate of the Republican establishment -- something most of you don't like. However, if they are willing to shade the truth for Democrats, it is just a small step to do the same for Santorum. Corrupt is corrupt.
Toby | 3.26.12 @ 10:20AM
Nice speech But please tell me how Santorum gets to 1144.......Please
fiscal| 3.26.12 @ 10:35AM
He doesn't -- Romney has the nomination. So that isn't the issue. The real issue is how we fix the system so we can get real fiscal conservatives (notice that I didn't say only "conservative" which has lost its meaning) who will fix our financial problems into office. That's not going to happen with the Citizen's United ruling in place.
Kevin| 3.26.12 @ 4:06PM
The real oddity to me is that the folks here seem to think Santorum is a conservative. Santorum IMO is a RINO running on social conservatism. His record in the Senate is clear. He is a big government Republican that voted against right to work. He was the Majority Whip during the free spending Bush era. Does anyone even pay attention to this stuff anymore?
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 3.26.12 @ 7:55PM
Even sheep know 'fckewe' - bah we mean 'fiscal' - is in reality a liberal wolf just pretending to be a fiscally conservative sheep by donning a sheepskin.
Even sheep know the liberal wolf howls liberal talking points with every post.
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
John - TMF| 3.26.12 @ 10:37AM
He doesn't need to. He just needs to keep Willard from getting there on the first ballot at the RNC.
Once Willard and his masters fail to bully their way into the nomination, the delegates will be free to choose the candidate most compatible with Conservative Republican principles.
Besides, Romney's handlers are overestimating the number of delegates that are committed to him. It is an attempt to sandbag his opposition.
It doesn't look like Santorum is willing to be dismissed or buffaloed. Louisiana gives him momentum and support for Arkansas and Texas.
This isn't over, and it shouldn't be. Romney is not acceptable to the vast majority of Republican voters. We in this family of four voters will not cast a ballot for him.
-TMF
W| 3.26.12 @ 11:58AM
All the attempts to "fix" the system produce more legislation and regulations affecting free speech, and creating work for attorneys and lobbyists.
The only was to "fix" the system is to elimnate all rules dealing with campaign and political advertising, but require all candidates to disclose all donations of money and services, such as the services of phone calls, door to door solicitations done by labor unions.
Most voters are intelligent enought to know there is political advertising paid by donors, and if the content is accurate. The issue is not whether it is negative but is it accurate. Let the market of ideas, under the first amendment, decide, and not another government monstrosity like McCain Finegold, where the ruling class decides who can donate and how much one can donate. They assume we are too stupid and must be protected from speech.
Mike Hawk| 3.26.12 @ 10:36AM
Ask the Democrats about SuperPACs. Soros and Moveon.org know all about them.
Toby | 3.26.12 @ 10:40AM
Obama is a disaster...I think we all can agree on this...if he gets another term I don't want to think what is going to happen...Whatever we all think of Mitt Romney he would be a thousand times better than Obama and for Santorum to even suggest that there is no difference will come back to haunt him.
bdog57| 3.26.12 @ 10:39AM
The media didn't have to minimize the significance of Santorum's Louisiana victory. It was already a victory of minimal significance.
While the MSM are indeed herd animals, at this point there is precisely zero chance of an outright Santorum win. The only path to victory for him happens at the convention...and it'll have to be a bit underhanded and disenfranchising to the millions MORE people who voted for the OmniDroid (yours truly included).
Look, this may be a bitter pill to swallow, but we're conservatives: the side that claims to be part of the "reality-based community". I've never made any claims to inevitability. Further, I think that the extended primary season has been useful in honing arguments and building up organizations needed to fight the Big O machine. Even so, it may be time to start entertaining the notion that the OmniDroid will be the GOP standard-bearer.
Appleby| 3.26.12 @ 11:12AM
No. Or if you prefer, Hell No.
bdog57| 3.26.12 @ 6:54PM
One blue pill, coming up.
Mike Rogers | 3.26.12 @ 11:22AM
Dog whistles and gnomes, oh my!
I have dispatched my dog, Dago, to the north country on a search and destroy mission for errant gnomes. For explanation please see:
http://theothermccain.com/2012.....g-whistle/
And this on the reliable attack surrogate, "gnome of the north"
http://granitegrok.com/blog/20.....me-be-gone
Paul from SA| 3.26.12 @ 11:40AM
Drudge has lost a lot of credibility in the last year due soley to his biased headlines in favor of Mitt Romney and those against the conservative candidates. Drudge even went after Rick Perry's and Newt Gingrich's wives, negatively, while always portraying Mitt's wife positively.
Fox News has tarnished its reputation this past year due to their biased coverage in favor of Mitt Romney and against the conservative candidates.
Most hosts, commenters and analysts at Fox News have exposed themselves to be Romney operatives. Their job is not to report news or provide analysis, but to persuade people to support Romney and to reject the conservative candidates. They regularly use liberal tactics of persuasion.
And they continue to tell me that I and the rest of the Tea Party will come around and vote for Romney. I will not. I am conservative and don't like being told what to do and think.
Gorgo| 3.26.12 @ 2:20PM
Because of Drudge's pro-Romney slant I've switched my primary news source to BadBlue. Try it at badblue.bitnamiapp.com.
Vern Crisler| 3.26.12 @ 11:46AM
McCain refuses to admit that Mitt's money is what stopped Newt. That same money is going to be used against Santorum now. No way he'll be able to stand up to that.
W| 3.26.12 @ 12:00PM
Newt stopped Newt. You assume the voters are stupid and just react to ads.
Tommy Frisco| 3.26.12 @ 1:42PM
At times I am impressed by the wisdom of the voters, such as in 1994 when they saw that Clinton was more liberal than they thought and again in 2010 when they saw the same with Obama. The voters also showed their frustration with Big Government Conservatism in 2006 by staying home.
Beyond those midterm elections, I can't honestly say the voters are not stupid or, at least, are very negligent in becoming informed on the issues and the candidates.
This GOP primary is a perfect example. The exit polls I have seen showed that most of the voters who chose Romney did so because they felt he is "most likely to defeat Obama." The voters have been pummelled with that message from the GOP establishment and most conservative pundits. The very same voters who complained about McCain are now listening to their masters and voting for Romney who is even more of a "maverick" than McCain was.
To sum, the primary voters didn't learn a thing from 2008. They are making the same mistake in 2012. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
Vern Crisler| 3.26.12 @ 2:13PM
W. I've got news for you: voters are stupid, and those who aren't stupid, are whores.
W| 3.26.12 @ 3:00PM
We all believe that voters who disagree with us are stupid.
In 2008 the primary voters chose McCain. Giuliani was leading in all the polls until the voting started. I am still not sure why we nominated McCain. He was not a conservative or even a Republican. He had discussed running as the VP with John Kerry in 2004.
The Republican primary voters chose McCain over Romney. Romney was one of the "conservative" alternatives to McCain. Herman Cain and others endorsed Romney.
McCain would have probably beat Obama if we did not have the stock market crash in Sept 2008. Palin provided a big boost to McCain, and they were leading in the polls until the stock market crash.
If there was no crash we would be saying McCain ran a brilliant campaign chosing Palin, and we would now be criticizing McCain acting as McCain always acted.
Vern Crisler| 3.26.12 @ 4:01PM
We supported McCain for the same reason Republicans are supporting Romney -- he can (supposedly) win against Obama. I even criticized Ann Coulter for supporting Hilary. I think she was right back then, just as she is terribly wrong today.
W| 3.26.12 @ 4:10PM
I don't believe that was the selling point for McCain. McCain had the nomination before Obama finally defeated Hillary.
I just heard a Romney ad from 2008.
"This is Rick Santorum. If you want a conservative. Vote for Romney."
Conservative Voter| 3.26.12 @ 11:52AM
What a blast to read! Finally a journalist with the nerve to tell the truth! My favorite part was the "22 freaking points!" Ha! Ha! Thank you R.S. McCain for finally writing an honest article that do not belittle conservatives as rural and non-college educated. If only they knew...
One of the glaring mistakes of the GOP elite was to support Mitt over all other qualified candidates. But their biggest mistake yet was to assume that conservatives like us would vote for Mitt vs. Obama in the general election.
They fail to understand the depths of our conservative beliefs. They can Etch-A-Sketch their weak positions all they want, but they should not expect us to abandon ours.
We will stay home in November than vote Mitt or Obama—none of whom deserve our vote.
WE BELEIVE THAT A CANDIDATE WHO SCALPELS AWAY AT OBAMACARE IS NO BETTER THAN THE PRESIDENT WHO RAMMED IT DOWN OUR THROATS!
The only thing we have left is our vote—and Mitt isn’t going to get it, in this primary or in November!
GOP beware! We will remember every US Congress and Senate politician who is unmasking their self-interests by coming out now and endorsing Mitt! We will exercise our votes in 2016, 2020, 2024...to make sure you suffer the same defeat as Mitt in your political careers. The GOP needs the conservative voters in order to win in any general election and if we don't get Santorum, we will stay home!
It is not too late for the GOP to *open* your eyes and read the writing on the wall! Mitt cannot win in November. Take your pick: either Mitt wins the primary and loses the general election--or Mitt loses the primary and Santorum wins in November. The President and the democrats know this so they've gone into this synchronized media blitz of belittling Santorum.
When anybody asks us if we’ll support Mitt if Santorum loses, we all say yes. But come November, we will stay home.
In fact, if Santorum loses the primary, it’s time to leave the GOP right after the 2012 presidential elections. Go Independents!
Vern Crisler| 3.26.12 @ 2:16PM
Yes, that's what I plan to do.
B Kay| 3.26.12 @ 2:38PM
When I get the opportunity to vote, my vote will go to Santorum. The only one I believe is a real Conservative. However, I will also vote in the national election. I will still cast my voice regardless of who ever is standing at the end. Please! Please! Vote! Here locally, folks are already saying they will not vote at all if their particular candidate doesn’t win the nomination. How stupid is that!? What about, the objective??? Isn’t it to defeat the current administration? When we vote, we are still demonstrating that we care and some of our local Politian’s are still listening. So, Please! Please! Vote! This is our voice. Also, when it comes down to the finish line, remember” Anybody But Obama! “ ABO!, ABO!,ABO!
Conservative Voter| 3.26.12 @ 4:41PM
About as stupid as voting for Mitt in November and thinking he will change Obama's policy. Check Mitt's policies in MA--just as blue as BO.
I think you missed the whole point--the goal is to undo Obama's policy, not just to defeat him in November.
This is the predictable outcome that the GOP elites are counting on from republican voters--just go along with Romney because *they* say so. What we need is to stand up to the GOP elite and tell them either they stop this Mittmania or they can go it alone. Then we can have the chance of undoing the damage done by the One.
They did this with McCain in 2008 and we all went along with it like a couple of zombies. Now they're doing it again--pushing another candidate *they* decided is good for the party. How long can we stand this?
It's time to revolt--the kind that a couple of ragtag pioneers did 200 years ago. We need a third party that can legitimize the people's voices from all the third parties we have now--the tea party, the libertarian party, the green party etc. A coalition of all these parties with no centralized elites to dictate when a primary is over, who's inevitable, who's got the math etc. This third party should be decentralized in operations at the county level, other than a centralized voter registration operation. The tea party activists are on their way to doing this if they have the guts to break away from the GOP. For now, they can look to the independent and soon-to-be-independents to bolster their cause. It's time to stand up and take a look at what you're voting for!
Adjoran| 3.26.12 @ 11:02PM
We figured you were just RINOs all along.
Obama appreciates your support.
Worried for the country| 3.26.12 @ 12:15PM
I find it interesting that McCain brings up the Cavuto interview. Santorum was acting like a petulant child. He was like an angry talk radio caller. He doesn't have the temperament to be President. I suspect he is tired and desperate.
So Santorum wins by 22%? Nice win but he only nets 5 delegates. It doesn't really advance his cause. Also notice that turnout was extremely low. According to Newt and Santorum that only happens when Romney wins (a false charge since Ill. had the same turnout as 2008).
If Romney wins WI, MD, and DC on April 3rd the race is officially over. No one in their right mind will continue to back Santorum. Why? Because there is a clear yearning to get onto the business of defeating Obama and Santorum's personal attacks are hurting our chances and wasting precious resources that should be spent on Obama.
If Santorum was smart he would either drop out and fully endorse Romney or stay in and shift his focus exclusively to Obama. He could build his brand like Huckabee did when he was running against McCain. I suspect it is too late for the full endorsement path.
Santorum could be in for a big embarrassment if he stays in and loses PA.
Les| 3.26.12 @ 12:22PM
Fox has been in the tank for Santorum. Big. A few have been for Newt.
Tim| 3.26.12 @ 12:26PM
What I see happening is the real possibility that Romney won't get to the magic number after the last State votes in June ,Utah.
The reason I really believe we will head into mid summer with no nominee is that after Jeb Bush supported Romney this past Wednesday
Santorum went on to score his lopsided victory Saturday in Jeb Bush Country and what's worse
Romney could not even get to 30 per cent he ended with 27.....worse Romney southern showing....after the Jeb Bush Romney support and call for Santorum to step aside.
There are not enough winner take all States left to get Romney to the magic number by June.
Now if you start getting major conservative folks supporting your run as Jeb did with Romney and then loose worse you know your in trouble with the true conservatives.
The establishment media is no different than the Establishment anything....
.....that and Individual Freedom really don't go hand in hand and never have.
David| 3.26.12 @ 12:39PM
The fact that Newt won't get out of the race should make it clear to everyone just what sort of vindictive creature he really is.
I have have been saying for months that he does not have the personality traits to be president.
He sincerely believes he would be the nominee if only Rick were not in the race. Rick is at fault in his mind, even though Newt comes in a distant third and even fourth in every state.
So, the temper-tantrum starts. If Newt can't have it, then he is going to make darn sure that Rick can't have it either. He is intentionally handing the nomination to Mitt, and by default, is handing the general election to Bam Bam.
Way to go Newt. Way to put your country first. You vindictive pr_ck!!! That is why almost no one who served with you in Congress is supporting you.
Vern Crisler| 3.26.12 @ 2:18PM
Where were you when Newt was in the lead and Santorum wouldn't leave the race? Did Santorum put his country first?
Jerome Brick| 3.26.12 @ 12:55PM
The logic of Mr. Santorum's candidacy would be more apparent to me if he could show more strength in areas outside the "Bible Belt". We need a candidate who can attract the large swath of moderate voters out there who neither claim to be liberal or conservative and who are largely secular by nature - those voters who may have voted for Obama in "08 and are now inclined to jump ship and join our side if we don't get to shrill in our policy proscriptions, especially on cultural matters. Romney seems to fill the bill on that count and voting patterns thusfar confirm that.
Mike Rogers | 3.26.12 @ 2:22PM
There's strength aplenty.
Take a look at Mittens' wins up north, where Santorum is often nipping at his heels, compared to Santorum's wins elsewhere, where there's a big gap.
It's mitt that can't pull away, and should quit.
Lover of Freedom| 3.26.12 @ 12:56PM
The Republican Party is the party of freedom. If I am to be persuaded that Mitt Romney is the best choice for the Republican nomination, then I must first be persuaded that he fought to make and succeeded in leaving the people of Massachusetts, whom he governed, freer men and women when he left his post than when he started his governorship.
David| 3.26.12 @ 1:15PM
Jerome, pleeeeeease!!! Santorum doesn't show strength outside of the Bible belt???
What do you call Minnesota, North Dakota, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, and without Newt in the race, sure wins in Michigan and Ohio, too???
Santorum can attract blue collar workers and conservative democrats, and he will get a good chunk of union members' votes who are disgusted with what Bam Bam is doing to their country.
Romney will never attract those voters, and those are the votes we need to win in November.
Please explain Jerome.
Jerome Brick| 3.26.12 @ 2:53PM
Rick Santorum was thrust into national prominence with suprise wins in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota primaries - caucus States where a relatively small cadre of activists in support of a particular candidate can hold sway if well organized and highly committed - as was the case, I believe, with Santorum victories in these States. The States you mention in Santorum's favor have rather large rural populations that tend to be conservative and tend to hold strong religious convictions - Santorum's long suit. Tbis is all well and good, but it is too narrow a base to be decisive in a national election. We need a candidate who has wider appeal and I believe Romney is that candidate.
Unlike "Conservative Voter" above, I am unwilling to commit political suicide if my man doesn't win the nomination. Santorum is just fine with me if he can remove the cancer that is in the whitehouse, however, I objectively feel Romney is the better candidate for that purpose.
Commonman| 3.26.12 @ 1:16PM
Welcome to the website of the last stand. When the truth is on your side you call it inevitable. When the truth is against you, you call it a "mantra."
If it makes you feel better, call it a mantra, however this is the truth. Rick Santorum is finished as a viable candidate, so is Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul was never a serious threat. Mitt Romney will be the nominee and your choices will be:
1. stay home (Obama wins)
2. vote third party (Obama wins)
3. vote Obama
4. vote Romney
So all you good tea party folks, it all comes down to this: do you dislike Romney more than Obama?
Does your dislike trump your 2010 patriotism?
If you pursue options 1, 2 or 3, I had a higher opinion of you. If we get four more years of Barack Obama I blame you.
george washington| 3.26.12 @ 1:48PM
I like this scenerio better:
1. stay home (Obama wins)
2. vote third party (Obama wins)
3. vote Obama
4. vote Santorum NOW (Obama loses)
5. vote Romney NOW (Obama wins)
hahahahahaha
santorumistoowhinyforme| 3.26.12 @ 2:16PM
That IS funny!
george washington| 3.26.12 @ 3:01PM
BTW, karma has a way of working itself around. Be careful what you find funny....wink wink
Vern Crisler| 3.26.12 @ 2:19PM
Fine, blame us then. No more "where are you going to go?" bs.
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.26.12 @ 2:27PM
4 more years of Obama could be the right prescription for this country to wake up and realize they've been had. The public at large is too slow to learn and too quick to forget. A Romney win means not much will change. The media will ensure public opinion swings back to the left of the left-right dichotomy and a D takes the whitehouse in 2016. Meet the new boss...
Every poll with Obama vs. Romney = Obama wins. Everyone should keep that in mind whilst cheer leading for Willard.
leslie alexander| 3.26.12 @ 3:05PM
Let's see, do I dislike Obama more than Romney? One answer from a lifelong Republican and tea party activist: I am not really sure. It's a pretty hard question.
Paul from SA| 3.26.12 @ 4:14PM
Commonman, you are the typical Romney supporter. Why attack the Tea Party? You sound like a liberal. Dislike Obama or Romney more? That's a liberal talking point.
We think Romney will be the easiest candidate for the Democrats to beat. If you disagree, then disagree, but why the cheap attacks?
Do you dislike Hitler or Kennedy? Does it matter? Is it not a stupid question like yours?
PaulC| 3.26.12 @ 1:16PM
There's certainly nothing inevitable about Romney beating Obama in November, so the claim that he's the inevitable Republican nominee doesn't mean very much at all. If the price of gas is well over $5 a gallon by September, the Republican candidate will have a pretty fair chance of winning. If not, I'd give the edge to Obama.
Thomas Paine| 3.26.12 @ 1:31PM
Santorum needs to GET OUT. His churlish attacks on Romney are pathetic. He's only helping Obama.
Romney is running for EXECUTIVE. Which he is prepared for. CONGRESS MAKES THE LAW. And Ryan's writing the Budget.
Civics 01, anyone? JOHN KASICH wrote the balanced budgets with his committee. Newt Gingrich ushered them through Congress. Bill Clinton pulled out his pen and signed them.
About as much effort as Obama's hit on bin Laden. Or Al-Awaki's 16 year old nephew. People, I feel from time to time, really are stupid. How sad.
leslie alexander| 3.26.12 @ 3:07PM
Oh please. Do you even know what "churlish" means? churlish smurlish.
David| 3.26.12 @ 2:01PM
Thank you George W.
Rick can attract the blue collar workers, conservative dems, and some union workers that we will need to get in order to win in November.
Those people will NEVER vote for Mitt, Mr. Rich.
george washington| 3.26.12 @ 2:18PM
your welcome David.
santorumistoowhinyforme| 3.26.12 @ 2:15PM
How could anyone minimize Santorum closing the gap with Mitt by EIGHT points? LMBO! I had a third prediction, Santorum would whine before the weekend was over!
george washington| 3.26.12 @ 2:20PM
.....yourpostistoowhinyforme....
hahahahaha
leslie alexander| 3.26.12 @ 3:10PM
Was that anything like the Romney whine heard round the world about the robocalls to Democrats that Santorum made? Please. What a baby.
LESD| 3.26.12 @ 2:19PM
Mr McCain, the reason that the mainstream media downplayed Rick Santorum's lopsided win in Louisiana and emphasized that Mitt Romney will be the party's nominee is that Mitt Romney WILL be the party's nominee. Not because the media wants it, but because Republican voters and Republican primary and caucus rules are awarding him a clear majority of delegates. You may not like that, but you know that it's true.
santorumistoowhinyforme| 3.26.12 @ 2:23PM
Come on LesD - you can't reason with people living in fantasyland! It's a waste of time! Anyone who might suggest the media is promoting Romney is clearly not informed. Too much precious time would be wasted beating a mule if you tried to present facts. Let them have their fantasy.
Gorgo| 3.26.12 @ 2:29PM
The GOP should hope their primary lasts all the way to the convention. It's become harmless background noise. Meanwhile, Obama's poll numbers are at historic lows.
The alternative is seven months of Team Obama and the media trying to destroy Romney - which will pretty much do the trick.
JimP| 3.26.12 @ 2:47PM
Great point, Gorgo!!!
timl| 3.26.12 @ 2:36PM
Ricky isnt gonna be the nominee. I suggest you and this loser (19 points in 2006 ) learn to deal with it.
Tim| 3.26.12 @ 2:37PM
If Supreme Court throws out Obama Care
Obama wins.
Don't get me wrong.....It would be a great victory for liberty if Supremes throw out Obama Care.
But then Obama is the under dog in November and the focus of their propoganda machine will be
Romney will now take away your free lunch and unemployment and Food Stamps etc etc etc
With Obama Care gone then the pasion that drives many now against Obama will be watered down by November and Obama wins because Union folks will vote for him and as was stated in a earlier post they won't vote for Romney.
So The Supremes could by deault hand Obama four more years by striking down Obama Care.
Romney can't make the pasiionate culture Consevative arguments in Ohio and Michigan so he looses there and in North Carolina and in Colorado and Wisconsin.
The November Electoral Math just won't be there for Romney...
Kevin| 3.26.12 @ 4:19PM
Romney runs well in affluent suburbs and urban areas. He runs about equal or slighly better than McCain in Rural areas.
Obama's strength in 2008 was in white affluent suburbs. Romney's demographic pulls votes from Obama's strongholds. Every voter that switches from Barry to Mitt is like a 2 vote swing. The demographics bode very well for Mitt. He will take votes from Barry in the areas that Barry was strongest. You are reading the math wrong.
george washington| 3.26.12 @ 2:37PM
as they say : NEVER SAY NEVER
My post is by a tru-blue yankee fan, whose Dad predicted the Yanks would LOSE & the Bosox would WIN in 2004 American League Championship Series once he read & heard the superbad criticism, insults & bragging CRAP that the NY sports press was shoveling against the Bosox when they were predicted as the "inevitable" losers...and the rest as they say...is tru-blu history (never say you WILL "win" and the other guy WILL "lose" until you have ACTUALLY "won" & the other guy has ACTUALLY "lost") :
BIGGEST SPORTS COLLAPSE EVER:
"The scene was game four of the 2004 American League Championship Series and the New York Yankees led the series three games to none against fierce rivals Boston Red Sox. It was the bottom of the ninth and the Yankees, up 4-3 in Boston, needed just three outs to advance to the World Series."
"Three outs they got, but not before Boston added a run to tie the game at four. Another three innings followed with the Red Sox stealing two more runs in the 12th to take the game. So the Sox take one game, leaving the Yankees with a 3-1 lead. No big deal, right? Wrong. The Red Sox did the unthinkable and swept the next three games to take the series, including one game in 14 innings. As New York sat back stunned of the massive lead they'd blown, Boston went on to sweep the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series for the championship."
...and to show that the Bosox aint no better, and that the northeast & new england have had their share of sports collapses to go around, here is the Bosox own collapse last year:
2011 Boston Red Sox Collapse
"After leading the American League East Division for most of the second half of the 2011 season, the Boston Red Sox went from heavy favorites to failing to qualify for the MLB Postseason after one heck of a collapse. The Red Sox first fell behind the New York Yankees in the division, but still held a nine-game lead over the Tampa Bay Rays as the season entered September, the final month of the season."
"Boston however collapsed in September, winning only seven games and entering the final day of the season, September 28, tied with Tampa Bay. A Rays loss and Red Sox win would have put Boston in the playoffs, and that looked pretty likely as Tampa Bay went down 0-7 against the Yankees in their final game. The Rays went on to not only come back, but also win the game in extra innings, while the Red Sox, after a rain delay, fell to the Baltimore Orioles, ending their postseason run before it even began."
JimP| 3.26.12 @ 2:40PM
Except for the boring and "predictable" 'It's all Newt's fault'/Newt hate section [Zzzzzzzzzzzz] this article is right on point, IMO.
It has been clear for quite awhile now that Fox is in the tank for Mitt. One reason is Fox is HQed in NY and staffed by people who are from the Northeast or already think like Northeasterners. [Think Romney, Snowe, Collins et al.] Throw in some Southerners who are insecure about allegedly not being "sophisticated"[ like New Yorkers inaccurately are alleged to be] and who will readily adopt the ways of NYers and voila, you get Fox News. NYC is one of the most parochial places on earth, despite its ethnic diversity. The zeitgeist that has existed there for roughly 100 years is leftwing/socialism. Add to this already toxic mix the fact that NYers see NYC/themselves as the center of the universe and bandwagon psychology and you get....@#$%. Where I come from that is known as FUBAR.
hrh| 3.26.12 @ 2:59PM
Quit lying, Stacy.
At the very least, quit acting like the lazy MSM and just quoting what they're saying - even when it isn't true.
Palin did not endorse Newt Gingrich.
I stopped reading your missive right there.
Basing even one argument on false information disqualifies the whole rest of the piece.
You're a much better journalist than this usually.
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 3:30PM
Well, if this is the mantra of MSM, then what does it tell you? Think. Set your biases, aside, just for one second.
THE LIBERALS WANT TO RUN AGAINST ROMNEY!
Les| 3.26.12 @ 5:29PM
Santorum should ahve dropped out after he failed to make the ballot in his homestate,DC.
Proud Mormon| 3.26.12 @ 6:03PM
This is a bunch of hooey. So Santorum had a good day. Romney is way ahead in delegate count and will win California BIG ending the dreams of the GOP right-wing rabble rousers and their reactionary flunkies in this blog.
PattyMor| 3.26.12 @ 7:19PM
If Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum have the money to stay in, they should stay in. Why are people calling for Gingrich and/or Santorum to get out, but not Paul?
Don't assume that if Gingrich got out, that all those votes would automatically go to Santorum. They won't. So let the process continue and make Mitt earn every single vote and delegate. Its the best scenarios for all of us.
Nite| 3.26.12 @ 7:32PM
Personally, I hope they go to a brokered convention and choose someone else. I am simply not happy with the current group.
Brianrw00| 3.26.12 @ 7:44PM
You are delusional, Mr. McCain. Santorum's big win in LA was worth a net gain of ~5 delegates. That does not exactly make up for his ~33 net delegate loss in IL. The chance of his winning ~70% of the remaining delegates (which he must do to win) is exactly zero.
richard mcenroe | 3.26.12 @ 9:02PM
The correct term, Stacy, is 'Gingrinches,' perpetually on the outside looking down from their imagined high grounds at the lesser beings who frustrate their daily existence, with hearts two sizes two small and egos six sizes too large.
Jeamar| 3.26.12 @ 10:02PM
Several times a day I watch FOX News. Many people have complained the network is anti-Romney. As for Gingrich, he seems all along to be as critical of Romney as of Santorum. I too would interpret the network as being somewhat anti-Romney but they haven't been exactly enthusiastic over Santorum or Gingrich either and so far neither have GOP primary voters.
Adjoran| 3.26.12 @ 11:07PM
Wow - "22 freakin' points" is pretty impressive - until you realize Romney won PR by nearly 70%. And while Santorum's "big win" netted him a five delegate gain on Romney, Mitt scored 23-0 in PR and 42-10 in Illinois.
It's over, whether you want to admit it or not. Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, Al Cardenas, and Kevin McCarthy get it.
Oh, and Romney's lead in CA polls is only "19 freakin' points" - wonder how many delegates THAT will translate into? I'm betting more that five.
Nathan M. Bickel | 3.27.12 @ 12:01AM
I've always voted for the "lesser of the 2 evils." This time around it will be different. The Republican Establishment is confident their Romney pick can woo all those Independent and Moderate voters. Therefore, I can only conclude that my Conservative vote is not needed.
And, why would I care to vote for Romney, anyway, should he be the GOP nominee? The only condition, on which I would vote for Romney, is that he makes a huge campaign issue out of Obama's forgery deceptions and his unconstitutional presidency, because Obama has not met the Constitutional requirement of being a "natural born citizen."
Should Romney be the GOP nominee, I hope that the Karl Roves and Ann Coulters of the Republican Party will finally be happy. What they will likely not get, though, will be Conservative votes, like mine. Their ridicule of birthers and people such as I, may finally come back to haunt and bite them!
POST American| 3.27.12 @ 1:43AM
----AS we sit under CHEM-trailed and FUKISHIMA fallout skies
----while the CFR hands off the last of our
economy, and soon liberty, to RED China
-----while those sleeper cancer viruses in
our Gates-EUGENICS borg shots slumber
----as we download the latest playoffs and
porn---between GMO corn chips-----and
begin to consider the 'choice' on offer
this November ---Goldman Sacks 'Sanitarium'?
--or capstone Globalist 'SUB--Mitt ROME-knee'
-------------yeah, we'd say there's a slight
morale issue.
-----Moral of the STORY?
-----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012--------------
Nightwing| 3.27.12 @ 4:17AM
The Dems are obsessed with control of the economy.
Meanwhile, some of the GOP's so-called "conservatives" are obsessed with Control Of The Uterus.
Dems are running a political campaign.
But some Republicans are running a religious crusade.
Are voters choosing a President.....or an Archbishop?
GregA| 3.27.12 @ 3:17PM
In your fevered imagination.
GregA| 3.27.12 @ 3:16PM
Robert, don't climb so far out on that limb that you can't crawl back and support the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, this fall.
Nightwing| 3.27.12 @ 6:34PM
Great. Then voters can choose between the Obama / Goldman Sachs administration or the Romney / Goldman Sachs administration.
Whoopee.