-
BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity
May 24, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden
May 24, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Good Luck Quin
May 24, 2013 | 6 comments
-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 9 comments
-
The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Where it concerns Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney I think it is fair to ask, “Is it better to have fought and lost than not to have fought at all?” Even if Rick Santorum had the tar beaten out of him by Bob Casey in 2006, Santorum does have a point (as noted by Jim Antle) in saying that he stood for re-election when Mitt Romney would not do the same here in Massachusetts.
As I have written here previously had Romney faced off against Deval Patrick five years ago, Patrick would have wiped the floor with him and his presidential ambitions. O.K., maybe Romney wouldn’t have lost by 20 points but he would have stood no chance against Patrick and his campaign team headed up by David Axelrod.
With that said, in the event Romney does win the nomination there is no way in hell that he carries Massachusetts against Obama. Not if Bay State voters are in any kind of mood to vote for Elizabeth Warren.
View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/03/romney-vs-santorum-is-it-bette
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 5:33PM
Remember, Nixon lost first to JFK, then he went on to lose against Pat Brown I believe, for the California governorship.
PattyMor| 1.3.12 @ 5:50PM
Weekly Standard had an article on Romney vs. Gingrich strengths. They said Romney would likely do well in the Northeast and West Coast. But, he probably wouldn't carry these states, only lessen the loss margin. However, Gingrich would do better in the Rust Belt and the South. States that Republicans can win.
This seems to be a reasonable assessment of these two candidates. And, that makes Romney just a younger, better looking, better haired, better dressed John McLame, although with a pile 'o cash at this point. And he has successfully used this cash (along with the superpacs) to pummel Gingrich.
W| 1.3.12 @ 7:40PM
Romney and McCain are different.
McCain had more self described conservative voters that GWB did in both elections. McCain, though, had 8 to 10% fewer independents and Hispanics than GWB. Thus the losses in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and a few other states, and the election.
Romney will get fewer conservative voters but more independents and if he has Rubio on the ticket he will get the Hispanics. He wins Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and maybe Virginia.
Palin helped McCain with the conservatives but drove away independents and Hispanics.
McCain was and is an economic illiterate.
Economics is Romney's strength. McCain also looked like he was afraid to criticize Obama. Our nominee must attack Obama to lower his likability.
There is plenty of truthful material to attack Obama personally such as Rev Wright, Ayers, 90 vacations, in addition to the policies such as spending, no drilling, obamacare, and the general economy.
PCC| 1.3.12 @ 8:00PM
The 2008 presidential election was a "change election", very much like 1960.
John McCain was an old, cranky politician, the antithesis of change. He was a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign.
The circumstances in 2012 are fundamentally different in several material aspects, most especially the country's unhappy experience with an unseasoned liberal narcisist in the White House.
Steady, competent leadership will be the winning ticket in 2012.
Bob Grant| 1.3.12 @ 8:53PM
"Steady, competent leadership will be the winning ticket in 2012."....
...indeed, that will be a large part of it but it will also be a mandate on socialism bordering on fascism vs classical liberalism.
Romney would be a fool to toy around with RINOism, considering the recent disastrous results.
If you think about it he has no reason at all to govern as anything other than conservatism.
Bob Grant| 1.3.12 @ 8:54PM
...other than as a conservative.
Casey Abell| 1.3.12 @ 6:27PM
Yeah, like Santorum would carry Massachusetts. Santorum would lose (and has already once lost) Pennsylvania in a landslide.
Santorum would get beaten like a drum by Obama - ten points at least, thirty-five states at least. He's a fringe social-con who has a problem with birth control.
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 6:47PM
Actually, Santorum would force the Dems to spend a tremendous amount of money and effort holding Pennsylvania.
He lost Pennsylvania not in some ordinary election year, but in 2006, when Republicans were dropping all over the place.
Curt Weldon lost that year too, he lost to the fraud Sestak.
I think it would be a good idea if Romney gains the nomination to think of a guy like Santorum.
I know many are thinking Rubio and Susanne Martinez, -------- but Santorum has strengths that shouldn't be overlooked.
It's not a bad idea having a guy with an edge on the ticket, to rip and tear into the opposition. Santorum fits the bill in that regard.
Dai Alanye | 1.3.12 @ 6:33PM
Santorum would take Ohio, my state, and almost certainly Pennsylvania as well, party due to home-state effect. With his tax policy of aid to manufacturing he ought to be strong across the entire rustbelt.
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 6:50PM
I don't know if he would take Pennsylvania.
But I do know this, that if he lost, it would be a narrow loss indeed.
Pennsylvania has many Catholic voters, and is not a pro-choice state.
Santorum has a certain appeal to people from Pennsylvania, especially in the West and the
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 6:58PM
Keyboard froze up on me.
Anyway, Santorum would do well in the Northeast of the state as well, leaving Obama to do well in Philadelphia, {the street money churns out the vote...} and do OK in the surrounding counties of Philadelphia, {Bucks, Montgomery, Chester and Delaware}.
Toomey blunted the margins of Democrat victory in those surrounding counties, and therein is the tale of Sestak's defeat, a well earned defeat too}.
Santorum would present a threat to the Democrats in Pennsylvania not seen since Reagan. Attacks against Santorum, about his Catholicism easily could recoil to the detriment of the Democrats.
Moreover if a loyal son trend started in Pennsylvania, that might carry Santorum across the finish line to victory.
A Santorum nomination is not something that a Democrat should greet with equanimity.
FeFe| 1.3.12 @ 6:50PM
Romney vs. Santorum: Is It Better To Have Fought & Lost? Hmmm. "Can I buy a shortcut for $35 million, Alex?" Santorum didn't cheat the people out of their due, in this case, to toss out an incumbent. Fair enough. Romney quit. With so much glad handing with the Liberal Lion of the Senate, Teddy Kennedy, and enacting Romneycare, I guess Romney felt he had placed a big enough down payment toward a higher office. It's not personal. Just business.
Romney went on to spend $35 million of his own cash in the last presidential go around. Romney sure did grease those skids well before losing to squish McCain that he has not needed to put his own money into this presidential campaign, yet. Political favors? Romney gets more Wall Street money and endorsements than anyone out of the gate. When you consider on Oct 11, 2011, Romney vocalized in the debates his support of the US Fed bailing out EU nation states through the IMF with a "TARP like" program using US taxpayer money (because we have $2 trillion sitting around unused), is it any wonder the Bloomberg Channel set endorsed Romney's quest for the crony financial status quo? Transaction Obama approved.
Today, Romney says the US should not bailout Europe, but can someone pin down this flip or flop if that means he wont countenance the Fed doing it outright under his administration or continuing to do it through the backdoor as they are now? And while Romney is not a fan of trusting in the people, could he spare a thought about legitimizing the EU deposed elected governments of Greece and Italy for EU selected technocrats? Is this how democracy dies, no vote all shortcut? Riddle me this; what has Mitt Romney ever done to advance the conservative cause?
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 7:03PM
Again, ------------- and with feeling this time..............
To understand Santorum's defeat in 2006, you have to understand the wider political situation at the time.
GW was an anchor that carried many Republicans down to their political deaths.
Santorum carried Pennsylvania in the EXACT same election that Gore carried the state.
Explain that one if Santorum was this universally reviled figure in the Commonwealth.
There were other factors involved.
Furthermore Santorum was target one for the Democrats in the rich target environment of 2006. They FOCUSED ON HIM PRECISELY because he was a rising star in the GOP, who was easily on his way to getting tapped for the ticket.
Let's just say that Santorum would present a far more difficult guy to take down than the rich guy.
Quartermaster| 1.3.12 @ 7:31PM
FRankly, as Romney's record in Mass comes out, and people see he's a flaming liberal, they will turn against him, if they have any electoral brains. There is so much from Mitten's Governorship to use against him, he doesn't stand a chance. When Obama shows there is no difference between the two, there will be no reason to vote against the man and he will be re-elected.
That seems to be the direction we are heading now.
Bob Grant| 1.3.12 @ 8:27PM
I always hear that he's a flaming liberal and "when his record comes out..." blah blah.
What. Are they sealed records?
Sounds like you are familiar with his record. Mind sharing or is that classified information?
Bob Grant| 1.3.12 @ 8:35PM
Look it. Not all RINO's are the same.
Some are RINO's for political expediency and some are ideologues.
Although I can accept a little RINOism if you are a republican and trying to get elected and run in an extremely liberal state such as Massachusetts. I have no patience, however, for RINO's from heavily conservative states such as John McCain and the Bush Dynasty.
They are a different breed of animal. I'm choosing at this point to give Romney the benefit of the doubt that he will not preside as a RINO.
Let's face it, we take our chances with any of 'em.
Anders13| 1.3.12 @ 8:38PM
Romney has no conservative political record, NONE!!! He talks the talk but he walks on quicksand.
somnolence| 1.3.12 @ 10:55PM
If the nominee is Santorum, or if it is Romney, the results will be the same against Obama. GOP nominee carries 37 states to Obama's 13. I'm staying all the way with that prediction.
somnolence| 1.3.12 @ 10:56PM
I don't blame Romney for using his political stance in Massachusetts. I would have done the same thing THERE especially in order to win. That type of ruthlessness is needed this year, and not the meekness we saw in 2008.
RJ| 1.3.12 @ 11:15PM
It sounds like we all agree that if Romney had run for a second term as governor of Massachusetts he would have lost. As governor, Romney "reached across the aisle" to Ted Kennedy to establish "RomneyCare." The lesson is that even this major concession to big-government liberalism was not enough to win political support. So for all you potential GOP candidates, please remember, betraying your base does not win elections. Ronald Reagan won Massachusetts twice. Be a committed and clear-spoken limited government conservative and you will be amazed at your success.