-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 0 comments
-
I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel
May 23, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Issa Recovers
May 22, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer
May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Rick Santorum swept the Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado caucuses last night. Enough ink has been spilled on Rick’s “big night,” which indeed it was, and I think the political implications are fairly obvious: it will put increasing pressure on Newt Gingrich to get out of the race to leave just one non-Romney (whereas I incorrectly predicted that the pressure would be the other way because, frankly, I didn’t see this coming).
It’s true that Mitt Romney spent no resources in Minnesota and Missouri, and he would be expected to shrug off those losses for that reason, though the magnitude of the losses was significant. After all, if Romney spent no money in those contests, then that means that he and Santorum spent similar amounts of money — leading to Santorum more than doubling Romney’s vote in Missouri (55 percent to 25 percent) with another major drubbing in Minnesota (45 percent to 17 percent, with Ron Paul taking second with 27 percent).
But as a resident of Colorado, that’s the caucus I want to talk about. I attended my local caucus, but since it’s in Boulder, there were only about 200 people there. Also, since it’s in Boulder, it is not reflective of the larger, more conservative parts of the state. That’s why the results at my caucus location had Romney just barely beating Ron Paul, with Santorum and Newt Gingrich a distant third and fourth. Like I said, not representative of more Republican areas of the state — and obviously not representative of the more conservative caucus-goers in Minnesota and Missouri.
Although Santorum’s victory in Colorado was narrower than in the other two caucus states last night, winning 40 percent to 35 percent over Romney, with Newt Gingrich taking 13 percent and Ron Paul taking 12 percent, anything other than a Romney win here is an important surprise.
Rick Santorum did have a couple of high-profile endorsements, such as from former Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Bob Schaffer. But many big guns were out for Romney, including the popular former governor Bill Owens, former Senators Hank Brown and Wayne Allard, former Congressman Bob Beauprez, and current Attorney General John Suthers.
Robo-calls featuring recorded voices of many of the above were received with annoying frequency across the state in the prior 48 hours. I got at least two robo-calls featuring Mitt Romney and two more from Ann Romney.
Furthermore, Colorado was one of the strongest early pro-Romney states during the 2008 Republican primary contest, with Romney taking 60 percent of the vote, more than tripling John McCain’s 18 percent second-place finish.
And the state Republican Party organized a live conference call (which I listened to) during which the very popular New Jersey Governor Chris Christie aggressively supported Romney as a true conservative, as most electable, and as a good person.
If there were any state in which Romney should have been a prohibitive favorite last night, it was Colorado — and yet he lost.
Perhaps the recent endorsement by the Denver Post of Romney as “right for Colorado Republicans” might have been the kiss of death, since the small number of conservatives on the editorial board there are routinely swamped by typical big-city newspaper liberals.
So, what to make of a Santorum victory?
At least in Colorado, it’s not just that Republican voters are worried that Romney isn’t a true conservative. They’re also sick and tired of “the establishment.” They’re tired of Republicans nominating the person who can claim to be “next in line”, who has diligently waited his turn, and who might lead to defeat against a beatable opponent, as we saw Bob Dole and John McCain, among others, do.
Also, as a resident of Colorado, I didn’t see or hear a single negative ad aimed at Rick Santorum, quite out of character for Romney and the Super-PAC supporting him. Maybe they were around and I missed them, but there was certainly no saturation like we saw done to Newt Gingrich in Iowa. Maybe Romney was so confident that he decided not to spend money on advertising in that way. Maybe the fact that delegates won’t actually be awarded until April meant this contest was not worth buying airtime for. Who knows? But negative ads work, whether we like them or not, and it was surprising that there were so few here.
But whatever the reason, losing Colorado should be a big wake-up call to Mitt Romney: He needs to show more passion and more principle. He has to be a better champion for conservative principles, not just technocratic “turnaround” expertise. He has to be more inspiring than his refrain of late that he “believes in America.” Heck, even Barack Obama can probably say that without his nose growing too much, just because it means so little.
Romney has tremendous organization and a lot of money behind him. But as the country gets to know the candidates better, so that messaging in a particular state just before that state’s contest becomes a less dominant factor in voters’ opinions, he will have an increasingly difficult time winning if he doesn’t become a more appealing candidate to Republican activists.
For this libertarian-leaning Republican, there is plenty not to like about Rick Santorum, not least his repeated statements that “I support the 10th Amendment, but…” with the next words being about some social issue that he wants to make a federal issue. There is, of course, plenty not to like about Mitt Romney, too, though those things are better-known than Santorum’s less-than-conservative positions. And I continue to believe that when the “mainstream” media is done with Rick Santorum, he’ll have a hard time winning anything.
But when no gloves are laid on him, he’s proven himself with last night’s results to be the last anti-Romney going through the GOP wringer. Whether he’ll survive better than Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and others is yet to be seen.
While I (and political bettors) still expect Romney to be the Republican nominee, his loss to Santorum in Colorado is, more than any prior result in this political season, a signal to me of Romney’s inherent weakness, and the remarkable change from 2008 when he ran as the conservative alternative to John McCain.
No doubt Santorum struck a nerve last night when he said ““I don’t stand up here claiming to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I am here claiming to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”
And as Rick Santorum was tossing that red meat to his Missouri audience, Mitt Romney was in Denver offering pablum about “restoring the values that have made America the greatest nation in the history of the earth,” calling for “fundamental, bold, dramatic change,” and asking supporters, with nary an ounce of passion, to “fight for the America we love because we believe in America and its Founding Principles…We have a long way to go, and I sure love this country.”
Yawn.
Come on, Mitt, you barely sounded sincere. The way you said “and I sure love this country” sounded as if you remembered a talking point which your consultants told you to mention every time you speak. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe in something, that you’re principled and not just a pragmatist. But you’re not making it easy. And with speeches like that, you’ll also start making me and others wonder whether you are indeed reasonably likely to beat Barack Obama. Everything Obama says is wrong, but at least he says it like he means it (his last State of the Union speech notwithstanding.)
Colorado’s caucus results should be a slap in the face to the Romney campaign, perhaps the biggest one so far. Romney’s remarks last night show that at least in the minutes after he realized he was likely to be swept in three caucuses by a semi-appealing opponent with no financial backing, Mitt still hasn’t understood why.
View all comments (46) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/08/romneys-colorado-lesson
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dan| 2.8.12 @ 10:21AM
Somebody WAS running negative ads in Colorado. That was the boy wonder du jour, Rick Santorum. But he wasn't going after the beau of the establishment, Romney. No. He was going after the other conservative in the race, Newt Gingrich.
Dutch| 2.8.12 @ 2:31PM
I'm not sure how you can classify someone sitting on the couch with Pelosi pushing for more work to be done on global warming who also criticized the Ryan budget as right wing social engineering as a conservative. The truth is there are no conservatives who are running; there are only different shades of moderates.
Mitt Romney| 2.8.12 @ 10:30AM
Come on, Republicans. From his roost in Hell, Ted Kennedy supports me.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.8.12 @ 12:24PM
"Simon", I've been very clear on these pages and elsewhere that my goal is to beat Barack Obama, period.
My inclination is to support whichever Republican I think has the best chance of doing that, but at some point each of them has the potential to be so dismal on policy that I'll vote Libertarian again, as I have for many consecutive presidential elections.
As for your silly attempts to insult me, I'll say this:
I am a right-leaning libertarian, not a left-leaning libertarian. And to be a "phony" as far as being a conservative, I would have to routinely characterize myself as a conservative. However, I routinely characterize myself as a libertarian-leaning Republican.
I am explicitly NOT a conservative on social issues, but I am very conservative on fiscal issues and mostly conservative on foreign policy.
Finally, you suggest that I support Ron Paul whereas I have said in the recent past that Ron Paul is probably the only Republican candidate whom I certainly would not vote for in a presidential election in November.
So if you're going to try to insult me, at least get your basic facts right.
USSAlabama| 2.8.12 @ 1:48PM
So far, Romney has won every state Hillary Clinton won in 2008 -- and lost every state she lost.
My comments would not post earlier.
Simon Templar| 2.8.12 @ 3:23PM
You said it yourself, you are not a conservative but a libertarian leaning Republican who apparently can not stomach a Santorum presidency because you put your left leaning cultural values before anything else.
You jumped write on the smear campaign within the first twenty hours of the Santorum victories. You seem real comfortable with a Romney nomination as you wrote at length giving your advice on how he could turn this around.
To me that sounds a lot like the typical moderate republican who really thinks the mass or base of this party consist of idiot hicks and rubes who just do not get it and just want to cling to their guns and bibles.
So, I do not think its is a stretch to make the claim that you really do not give a rats ass about the general size of government but rather its reach as to how it effects your ability to do whatever you want in the area of abortion, drugs, and family values. Is that it? A Romney win would be business as usual but much more preferable than that crazy social conservative Santorum, right?
Ross, just why do you want to beat Barack Obama?
I think I got your number very well.
The real problem with you so-called liberatarian Republicans is you can not seem to grasp that the Left is not interested in short term political gains and never has been. They are interested in changing the cultural underlying foundation of society, not who wins elections. Why do you think, knuclehead, that they first took over the universities and the media in the beginning of the twentieth century? Why? Because they know that if they get the society to accept the basic false values, premises, and liberal thinking about the foundation stones of a Republic as defined by our founding fathers the rest of it will fall down and fall in line with their ultimate statist objectives.
Culture is down stream of politics.
So, if Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul are not good enough then who is? There is no one left but Romney, the progressive northeast Republican which you seem to have an affinity with....
Oldefarte| 2.8.12 @ 3:50PM
If there is any semi-intelligent human being on this earth within the boundaries of the USA that DOES NOT know the answer to this question of '....Ross, just why do you want to beat Barack Obama?....'; then may the Almighty help us all!!!!!!!!!
Simon Templar| 2.8.12 @ 7:20PM
I know why you and I want to beat Obama; the question is why does Ross. If our candidates suck so much that they are not fit to take his place then what exactly does Ross want to replace the guy there now? Just exactly is Romney going to make a whole lot of difference in any shape or form?
I am afraid I am going to add to your list, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS STUPID!
IT'S THE PROGRESSIVE ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS, the NEO-LIBERAL LIBERTARIANS, AND THE DEMOCRATS STUPID!
Oldefarte| 2.8.12 @ 10:46PM
No friend, you make the same mistake many do sadly here, since now/presntly IT'S THE COUNTRY'S SURVIVAL STUPIDS. These conservative purists have a valid desire [and I'm certainly one] for the ideal conservative, but the stakes are simply too high concerning the November election. If the bumbarsses of this nation that should have enough common sense to know better don't put forth the most viable REPUBLICAN candidate [be it a moderate RINOish or conservative], then the end result is Obama's re-election and thereafter the destruction of this capitalistic nation into a large version of Cuba or Mexico. Purism in this election will get us economically killed. If we don't get our collective heads our of our backside cavities and vote for THE REPUBLICANS in order to add to the current group of moderates, conservatives and yes liberal Republicans in congress, the IT'S THE DEMOCRATS STUPIDS that now control 2/3 of our government will finish the job and lock us non-Muslim, non-liberals, non-athiest, non-environmentalist within the jail cell of socialized governmental control of our entire lives. If that what you want, be forwarned that if the most electable Republican is not selected [and instead a true/pure conservative but politically vernerable is chosen], prepare for Socialism 101 being the required reading and implementation for all. True and purity of conservatism can be accompolished over time IF and only if Republicans control government. RINOS, liberals and moderates etc can be futuristically weeded out and replaced by true and pure conservatives [but same must wait until after control of government is obtained from the socialists Democrats]!!!!!!!!
Simon Templar| 2.9.12 @ 12:48AM
We have been down this road before a dozen times. It is not purity I am after. But I will not settle for a sham either or something someone tells me is conservative and is a mile and half away from it. Nor do I believe that anyone else is after that either, they are mostly interested in winning and promoting their own agendas while they pretend that they are looking for the pure conservative with no blemishes, mistakes, or misteps in life or politics.
The other guy is guilty of the holy sins against conservativism but their guy, he is a saint of conservativism. It has become so ridiculous and absurdingly dishonest that a NE Progressive Republican responsible for a carreer of liberal positions including socialized medicine is claiming he is the true conservative and his opponents no better than Obama. I have more respect for the guy if he just was honest about himself with no apologies and just laid out his case as to why he is what he is.
If you have no trust that the general public can be convinced of the conservative argument then pack it in. Why tout all this silly talk about it? Purism has not lost elections, wishy washy moderates have, time and time again. Just once the electorate stopped believing this myth and Reagan got elected. The election that was considered impossible.
We got into this position after nearly a hundred years of being cautious, timid, apologetic, spineless, compromising, and on the defensive. The Left played us very well.
No more.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.8.12 @ 4:35PM
Simon, I will attempt to treat your response seriously, despite reservations about your actually listening to anything I say:
I don't put my cultural values before everything else. In fact, social issues are far less important to me than economic and foreign policy issues.
My point with Santorum is not that he's a social conservative, but that his respect for the constitution is too easily trumped by his social issues positions.
I have been comfortable with a Romney nomination, which is not the same as being enthusiastic about one. I think this puts me within a majority, or at least a large plurality, of Republican voters. I've said dozens of times that for me it's all about beating Obama. That's not an unreasonable position even if you disagree.
What part of anything I wrote suggests that I think what you said I think about most Republican voters? (By the way, I cling to my guns as well, though not to a bible.)
A Romney win (or any Republican win) gives us a chance to repeal Obamacare, fix the NLRB, EPA, HHS, and possibly get the chance to replace the very old Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
In fact, I care about the size, intrusiveness, and cost of government far more than I care about social issues. If you look at the history of my political giving, you'll see many donations to social conservatives. Again, my issue with Santorum is not that he's a social conservative but that his respect for the plain language of the Constitution ends where he thinks some social issue is important enough. That's tyranny, just as Obama's birth control pill rule is tyranny.
I grasp the history, tactics, and strategy of the left at least as well as you do, so don't bother with your superficial history lessons.
Finally, I have no more affinity to Romney than to any of the others, and that's part of what annoys me so much. If there were not so much on the line in this election, I would already be fairly certain that I'd vote Libertarian again -- for which I do not apologize.
With this election being as important as it is, however, I have to decide whether any of these guys is someone I can hold my nose and support. Romney did seem that way but I'm liking him less with each passing week.
Having met Santorum, I simply don't like the man. That's not to say I definitely wouldn't vote for him, but it remains a 50/50 proposition at this point. Same for Gingrich, and while I like Ron Paul's domestic views his foreign policy views are so dangerous that I simply couldn't vote for him.
OK, that's probably more of an answer than you deserve, given your primary purpose of insulting me, but anyway there it is.
Jeff Perren| 2.8.12 @ 5:58PM
Vis-a-vis Ross's comment here, I just wish this site had a "thumb's up" button, and that one could press it a couple of hundred times.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 6:12PM
The other question is this: what don't you like personally about the man. I had a chance to meet him, but decided to sleep instead, as I knew I'd be voting for him.
I'm curious about the personal view.
Simon Templar| 2.8.12 @ 7:08PM
My primary purpose was not to insult anyone.
You decided to write the article and put your views out there with the sly apperance of being an objective 'journalist" and "opinion columnist" while making sny and unfounded conclusions about candidates as you just did by comparing Santorum to a tyrant no better than Obama.
You are the one holding your nose about all these candidates but seem not too smell the stench of a undoubtedly progressive liberal Republican that is being foisted on the broad conservative electorate. Yes, you are in a minority.
Just where and what do you draw the absolute conclusion that Santorum would violate the constitution in order to support traditional values?
There is no constitutional right for abortion, same sex marriage, nor the use of narcotics. You paint this guy like he was somekind of crazed person who wants to institute Sharia law. You call that objective and reasoned? So, you simply do not like the man. Fine. Then keep it to yourself and go sell some more shares.
Let me explain something to you. This position you have as a writer for this web magazine is not your living room or your dinner party where you can come out and give your little opinions and all your friends can pat you on the back and tell you how insightful you are and how intelligent you are about that political stuff. Its a job, a profession, and a serious role of influence. Sorry for expecting something more than what you have produced here.
You make the claim that you want to win in November and that Romney once again is by all counts the only electable. Gee, then maybe you could explain recent polls showing Santorum beating Obama, the guy that is suppose to be unelectable according to you.
I really do not expect much. But I do expect people to be honest and if you are going to make an argument, a reasoned argument it should contain the truth, the whole truth, not just some cooked up exaggeration, half truth, sound bite, and propaganda piece that soots your particular likes and dislikes, your subjective opinions, and your whims today. Humility seems to be in short supply with many of our pundits today. Dare we question their "facts' and views or their credentials. I actually do listen to what you say. I listen very closely thus the reply to your article.
The difference between me and the sycophants is
I do not buy the notion that you are somehow more qualified because someone gave you the nod to post your articles here. I am not impressed just because someone gave you permssion or the fact that you find the time to do so.
WWK| 2.8.12 @ 8:17PM
Mr. Templar, the above post at 7:08 P.M. is well worded, well put. Thank you.
I have grave concerns (yes, this is literal) about the author of this article that extend to many of his writings in what I have seen in this past year, concerns that extend well beyond his opining on the current primaries and coming November decision date for our nation.
I am not sure how you might take it, please see my post below, a post beneath what Occam wrote some hours ago.
I truly believe what I write. I believe that you too, Mr. Tempar, crave coming to a web source that is professional, timely, relevant, factual, critical, yet one that is informed by those who have transformed minds (reference Paul's use of this phrase in the Book of Romans).
We're looking for wisdom and some give and take with those who esteem wisdom, those who understand the source of all wisdom.
I believe that the only foundation that leads to this is a personal relationship with God.
Otherwise it is all mindless folly, what we do, how we live, what we say, yes, what we write.
This is what I wish for Mr. Ross Kaminsky to grasp, others here as well. I would be interested, Mr. Templar, to know how you see this.
Thank you.
Simon Templar| 2.8.12 @ 9:26PM
WWK, thank you for your comments.
I usually do not get involved in religious discussions or share my particular beliefs in this area; that being said, I too noticed that he does not cling to his bible.
My viewpoint is rather simple in this regard. I find that very telling that he would find the need to point that out.
It certainly would explain his positions on social issues and his fear of Santorum. I do not believe that you have to be a believer to appreciate the fact that this nation was essentially conceived in the tradition of judeo-christian heritage, history, and ideals. In fact, I believe that you can be an atheist for that matter and appreciate the values, eternal wisdom, and practical value that this tradition has brought to the formation of this great nation and Republic. Not doing so puts the very notion of the idea that our inalienable rights come from that other than the state and other men. Whether that is sourced from divine providence or the self evident truths of reason and nature, it is critical to our survival.
What Ross actually believes I do not know; you should ask him.
Setting him aside for a moment, I believe that it is the fundamental issue of our day and the very crux of what is at stake here in our modern times.
The Left realized a long time ago that this nations backbone, strength, and uniqueness lie in its religious freedom and the very basic principles of judeo-christian belief about the nature of man, the role of government, and the morality of men as the basis of a free and fuctionally self governing nation. This is what has been essentially attacked and under assault for nearly a century. They know that it must be removed from the culture and the general fabric of this society if they are to be successful in achieving their aims.
You are correct, without these basic principles all is folly.
Please comment again....and feel free to address Ross himself. You are welcome here. I think he will be more happy to reply.
Oldefarte| 2.8.12 @ 10:58PM
ST: Put aside for a moment your rightful favortism for Santorum [or whoever] and isolate this upcoming election and the meaning of same. It has no relevance to prior elections, since the very survival of this country is at stake. If the most electable candidate is not selected, there will be no tomorrows and future elections will be meaningless. November is IT [and possibly the END] for this country [if you bet on the horse with the prettiest markings and the puriest bloodline, yet same loses the race due to being not as fast of speed as the faster horse that won, YOU/WE LOSE]!!!!!!
Simon Templar| 2.9.12 @ 12:23AM
I have not said I was favoring Santorum. What I am favoring and I have been demading for nearly a year is honesty, reason, unity, and clarity.
You make the assumption that Romney is the most electable where all actual indications are that he is not and many resonable arguments have been made that he may suffer from even greater weakenesses than those thrown overboard to date.
My overall point for months has been twofold. Stop listening to all these talking heads that know full well that many people are very much influenced by group think in an age of mass media and mass information and can be rather easily mainpulated and spooked like a herd of cows.
Second point is politics is always shifting and the landscape today can be totally different tommorow. What can make that landscape shift is the faith and mindset of the We the People. You saw a bit of it with the Santorum revolt.
That is why it is more critical than ever that people do not lend themselves to group think, the agendas and misinformation of dishonest pundits and talking heads, the MSM infuences and reports, and the divisiveness and self destructiveness that is so characteristic of republican politics.We can no longer afford it.
Stop believing the idea that we have to apologize for being conservative, have to pick this illusive electable candidate according to the latest talking head, and reacting from a defensive position all the time.
If you still do not get this, then you will never get what I am aiming for or what the hell I am talking about.
Ninety percent of the posters here assume that everyone is attacking one candidate or another because he secretly favors another and many do not give a frick about honesty, the whole truth, or reality particularly the realities are opponents will be throwing our way.
It's like a game, a sport, he roots for the orange team and she is rooting for the green team and the hell with anyone, or anything that stands in the way including reason, fairness, perspective, or reality.
None of this has to be this way or is justifiable. I ma not looking for purity. That is my point. I am looking for the individual who is the most committed to real change and willing to do as much as he can to bring it about. I am looking for the candidate that is best capable both in mind, heart, and strength to to do it. Most of all I will not relinquish my right to vote for that person because some pundit, talking heads, and establishment shit tells me that guy does not have a prayer particularly when I know they have an agenda, have mainpulated me in the past, and all other indications tell me that that may not be true.
I am tired of being played.
The Left did not get to where they are today by settling or this type of defensive positioning. You are old enough to know this.
creeper| 2.8.12 @ 8:37PM
Thats a big burr you've got under your saddle there, Simon. You started out belligerent and graduated to mean. Kudos to Ross for treating you civilly.
Ross, while I do not share your sanguine appraisal of Mitt, this is by far the best analysis of yesterday's results I have seen and I have read a bunch of them. This was a clear-headed assessment of what happened, why it happened and what it meant, along with some sound advice for the loser. I appreciate the effort.
Being a social liberal but slightly to the right of Attila the Hun on fiscal matters I'm finding it difficult to locate a blog that's a good fit. I've bookmarked yours and look forward to reading more by you.
Simon Templar| 2.8.12 @ 8:58PM
I suggest you and Ross take a hike over to Reason magazine where you would be more comfortable, honest, and can get to know one another better. You can then bitch all day about conservatives and how they do not measure up.
Doug| 2.8.12 @ 4:18PM
I think a better goal would be to support conservative principles. Beating Obama (a long shot when the liberals who support Romney vote for O) and losing the House while falling farther behind in the Senate is losing the war. Romney inspires lower turnout and less enthusiasm.
Derek Leaberry| 2.8.12 @ 4:50PM
What is your opinion of Murray Rothbard and what did you think of Rothbard's outreach to the paleos like Tom Fleming at Chronicles?
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 6:08PM
Dear Ross: I think the world of Simon, but I'm going to try a different tack.
My view, as has been well documented here, is that the traditional family is under attack and that we in the West are facing a demographic crisis. Santorum's social interventions are designed to strengthen families and give preferential treatment to families with children, which, given the need for US society to maintain the ability to defer immediate gratification for the sake of its dependents, makes sense (the opposite is to be seen in the demographic collapse of the Europeans. One should also look at the University of Viginia's Marriage project data.). In short, it's a complicated argument, I think.
But, by any measure, this is a good man and a solid one.
WWK| 2.8.12 @ 8:05PM
Occam and others: What Mr. Ross Kaminsky needs to do is just come clean. He is against someone like Rick Santorum because he is against moral imperatives. Kaminsky does not believe in God Almighty. He is part of the enemy. (that is scriptural -- and we all know it)
The Kaminskys of this world rankle at this, they bristle at this, they kick mightily against it, and they try to disguise their venom in always inconclusive faux reasoned statements, arguments.
Kaminsky needs to come clean on how he finds his domicile in Boulder, Colorado. Why is he at home there amongst not just fellow travellers but those who are anti-faith, anti-scripture, anti-God.
Yes, this is truly and fundamentally anti-family, too.
It's been said here on these pages before. A man not renewed in his mind by what God does for us, has no mind. Nothing to work with at all.
[To underscore, read St. Paul -- The Book of Romans. One can read this in just 2-3 hours, pausing. Do it. It can and should change your life.]
Emptiness. Empty thinking, empty thoughts. Arguments that are empty.
And that is Kaminisky's state.
Would that it was otherwise. But he has made his choice.
Will it be his eternal choice?
For now, he is not a voice worth the slightest of considerations.
creeper| 2.8.12 @ 8:44PM
Whoa! I do not believe in "God almighty", so that makes me the enemy?
What a remarkably Christian attitude.
Simon Templar| 2.8.12 @ 9:38PM
No. That makes you just another useful idiot in the struggle with the Left that has apparently been succesful in brainwashimg you into a whole hell of a lot.
What a remarkably predictable response on your part. You sound a lot like our liberal trolls here.
Since you do not believe in "God" or an almighty what would you know about being a christian?
WWK| 2.9.12 @ 12:48AM
Creeper, I believe in your God shaped vacuum. You do know what I reference here, yes? It is a very well worded, long-standing, highly regarded belief originally penned by a man who was brilliant in wording, reasoning, faith.
If God does not fill that space in you, me, or your neighbor, all of us, well, we decide to fill it with something else.
That space never goes unfilled.
And what we fill it with is who we are.
So, the question is what you have in your space? Something. And it sounds like enmity.
This is 100% Christian doctrine from Augustine and Aquinas to the present, Creeper. Where have you been?
Don't delude yourself. Don't give Satan the victory in you.
Believe me, Satan wants you -- bad.
You decide. Only you can decide.
But if you decide against God, then you are not a voice that can help lead others. You are a lost voice.
You may not like that, but you understand it perfectly well.
Mr. Templar, thank you for the response you posted earlier above this evening.
Dai Alanye | 2.8.12 @ 11:38AM
The time has come for Mitt Romney to withdraw from the race and let the conservative candidates battle it out. Romney is a poor campaigner. Without his almost inexhaustible funds he'd be in Jon Huntsman territory. He's like the guy who covers every number on the roulette wheel yet still manages to lose.
Pete| 2.8.12 @ 5:52PM
Could be, what if his numbers continue to drop? Who is passionate about Romney. If they think Santorum has a better chance of beating Obama, they will switch to Santorum. Romney though has too much skin in the game. But how telling is it to drop from 60 percent in Colorado to 35 percent. No one expected it.
Christopher C| 2.9.12 @ 5:08AM
Could it be, as someone suggested, that the attack on Catholic institutions and conscience reminded voters in the three States that the key to retiring Mr Obama in November is absolute, and absolutely credible, opposition to Obamacare?
Okay, many people posting on this site know that the fiscal outlook for the US is edging towards the truly terrifying. Mr Paul perhaps appreciates that. None of the other remaining three potential nominees appear to fully grasp that the country is about to have a Wiley E Coyote moment.
That said, though, Obamacare is such a clear and present danger to the future of the country that repealing every last nasty page of that abomination is an overriding priority. Romney cannot hope to be credible on the issue - he does not feel what an assault on We the People Romneycare/Obamacare are. To reverse course, you first need to arrest movement in the wrong direction. First Obamacare, then all the other fiscal reconstruction becomes not easy, but not simply impossible.
In the past, I've lived in countries that for a time thought that deficit spending was something that was theoretically bad, but not deeply consequential. Smaller, less prosperous countries found out sooner than bigger, richer countries that this was actually not true. Bigger, richer countries surprised me by how much longer the budget idiocy could continue before the reckoning because due (Canada for one - the Liberals spent like fools for years without great consequence, just steady decline). In the end, they turned things mostly around - compare the Canadian/US dollar crossrate in the 80s and 90s, and now.
So normally, I'd have said, well, the US economy is SO big, and SO rich, that a fiscal day of reckoning could be years away. But that's where the US is, I suspect, once again exceptional. The gargantuan size of current deficits will soon need to absorb every last drop of world liquidity. And then, the last drop will be absorbed, and then ....
How long is there before Wiley E looks down, and sees nothing but a long fall and a hard, hard landing? I don't know, but at 10% plus, months rather than years. It scares the hell out of me, that the world in which I've lived with all my life could soon vanish. But the prospect of its continued existence will be greatly improved if the Republican nominee is someone who can be relied on to chew on and spit out Obamacare as his top legislative priority.
somnolence| 2.8.12 @ 12:55PM
Still the turnout of voters in all 3 states was pitifully insufficient, and needs to improve by the fall. That said, Santorum's victory suits me to a tee, as he at least isn't Newt, and I'm sure the firestorm over the Church and its being forced to accept the Administration's edicts on birth control and abortion only HELPS Santorum in the long run. Hopefully, it will boil down to a two man race between Mitt and Rick, but Mitt will strike back, reminding Rick that he supported Romneycare when it first came out, and that Rick supported selling the supercomputers to China and was also a big friend of National Endowment Of The Arts.
Vern Crisler| 2.8.12 @ 1:16PM
The idea that Newt should get out of the race is pure fantasy. Once Romney's smear machine starts going after Santorum, Santorum will be lucky people aren't confusing him with Adolf Hitler.
creeper| 2.8.12 @ 8:46PM
I'm in Iowa and I've seen that smear machine going full tilt. You're probably right, Vern.
But one also wonders if that negativity is beginning to pall on the voters.
Bill| 2.8.12 @ 3:09PM
Romney's problems:
1. ROMNEYCARE
2. liberal stances on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and climate change
3. TARP
can't get worse!
Oldefarte| 2.8.12 @ 3:34PM
The following is Newt's explanation of the recent BLS unemployment report [which Ross earliar ediotorialized upon] FYI:
'...President Obama's incredible shrinking labor force...by Newt Gingrich ....Posted 02/08/2012 ET....President Obama last week brandished new jobs numbers as proof that his policies were having an effect on the unemployment rate, which the report said declined to 8.3 percent in January. The president is right about one thing: his big government agenda and class warfare tactics are having an effect--but it's not the one he claims. In truth, last month's drop in the unemployment statistic was due largely to the evaporation of 1.2 million people from the labor force number. When people become so discouraged they stop actively looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed and the rate goes down even though Americans are hardly better off than they were before.
The rate went down in January because (apparently) 1.2 million people decided in a single month not to pursue work. This is the number, in effect, that President Obama is touting.The January report caps an extraordinary decline in the participation rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been reporting under the Obama administration. Since January 2009, the BLS says more than five million people have dropped out of the labor force--the greatest decline in American history and the lowest participation rate in more than three decades. Only about 6 in 10 adult American civilians are counted as part of the labor force.
A few more good jobs reports like this and we’ll have a 3 percent unemployment rate with nobody working.The president assures us, however, the lower unemployment rate is actually evidence that his policies are successful. Asked Monday about the fact that unemployment had dropped in part because so many Americans left the labor force, unable to find jobs, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the decline in the participation rate could be an “economic positive” because some of it is “due to younger people getting more education.” Carney also tried to blame the massive exodus on Americans getting older—which they must have done at record levels in January to account for 1.2 million people retiring at once. Those are pretty glib and grasping explanations for the single largest exit from the labor force on record—especially since it’s more than 4 times the number who left the previous month.In reality, almost half a million fewer Americans are employed today than when President Obama took office. The real unemployment rate, counting those who are unemployed, underemployed, or have looked for work in the past 12 months but since given up, is closer to 15 percent. More Americans are relying on food stamps than ever before. Teenage unemployment during the Obama administration is the highest since records began in 1948, with almost one in four teenagers who wants to work today unable to find a job. 8.2 million Americans have only part-time employment either because they can’t find full-time work or because their hours have been cut back.The president’s unrelenting assault on job creators has made a bad economy much worse. In the middle of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, he rammed through ObamaCare, spent almost a trillion dollars of “stimulus” indiscriminately, virtually took over the American auto industry, attempted to raise taxes on producers with carbon trading legislation, banned development of offshore oil and gas resources, passed the Dodd-Frank Act which crippled community banks, juiced up the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and other bureaucracies—and lately, has taken to demonizing job creators with class warfare rhetoric while offering policy platitudes that do nothing to solve our problems.
These are the things the president is trying to tell us are responsible for last month’s drop in the unemployment rate? Having driven 5 million people out of the labor force, maybe on second thought he’s right....'
Oldefarte| 2.8.12 @ 4:04PM
PS: The hairs on the back of my neck are starting to inch upward recently with this WELFARECARE mandate requiring Catholic institutions to provide birth control methods under their employees' health insurance [and the backlash of Catholics' irate denunciations of same [including Romney's, Ginguich's and Santorum's]. Obama/Democrats are obviously/apparently tweeking this R-nomination process in their favor by diverting attention away from the much more critical issues of our pathetic economic conditions [and relieving Democrats/Obama of having to alternatively explain same and put forth solutions]. It is possibly Alinsky's Rules For Radicals coming into play here, and a HIDE THE PEA GAME that Democrats are so successful at. These Republicans need to become aware of same and to refocus on the critical economical issues in their discussions and debates. Again, these morality-conservative issues are important, but not critical. This country will survive if Catholics have to buy their own condums, but if our nation's economy goes off the deep end into bankruptcy from exhorbatant defecits and debt, there will be no solutions and no tomorrows. Remember that IT'S THE DEMOCRATS [AND THEIR ECONOMY] STUPIDS!!!!!!!
Pete| 2.8.12 @ 5:49PM
More important than economic issues are issues dealing with freedom and personal responsibility.
Oldefarte| 2.8.12 @ 11:03PM
Economic issues are the most important currently. This country will be financially bankrupt after 11/3/08 if Obama wins re-election!!!!
Rob Seabrook| 2.8.12 @ 3:36PM
I'm sure you didn't mean to infer that Romney got the 27% in Minnissota. That would have been Ron Paul finishing a very respectable second and Mitt finishing a really distant third. I had that problem years ago. Before I learned to read what I write before publishing.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.8.12 @ 3:54PM
Good catch, Rob. I've repaired my error. Thanks.
Just time to pull the plug| 2.8.12 @ 7:51PM
"Thanks?" That is all you could muster for Mr. Seabrook?
That's a rather glaring error in the article. Rather amateurish. Proofreading?
Here is how a good journalist and man writes the above -- a response to a good reader:
"Mr. Seabrook, thank you for not only noting my very obvious statistical error but also taking the time to write and, in a decent way, correct me.
My Minnesota vote results error in the article is now fixed. I have you to thank for this.
I appreciate your help and your friendliness.
Sincerely,"
I guess Mr. Kaminsky, the hipster in Boulder who is well over hill yet the only one unaware of this, cannot bring himself to actually write in such a professional and gracious way.
Sad that we have to deal with lessers here.
Time to pull the plug.
Pete| 2.8.12 @ 5:45PM
Romney can only talk about being more conservative. He can't be more conservative. That requires a conversion.
What will hurt Romney more is that Santorum will get more air time. Santorum is strong on issues and the issues will beat Romney. Now we are hearing that RomneyCare also requires Catholic institution to fund birth control and the morning after pill (abortion). Romney will have to start going into detail on why socialized medicine is good for Massachusettes but not good for the country.
Romney will have to start justifying his position on cap and trade and global warming and the 2nd Amendment.
Colorado showed that the voters care about these issues and not who slept with who 19 years ago. Romney made hay early by appealing to the worst in human nature. Now he is going to have to try to appeal to what is best. Good luck, because his actions trump his words.
HH| 2.8.12 @ 8:24PM
Pete, yes. I would add to this, if I may, Romney might and SHOULD finally be asked how he supports huge state (Massachusetts) and most likely national mandates that trample the bedrock faith-based people of the nation.
I call for: Romney should finally be broadsided from all sides on just how exactly he is a Mormon. What does this mean to him?
(I frankly see no faith values at all in him)
Why does Romney get a pass on being an allegedly principled, faith-based guy? I see no faith principals in him.
One cannot fake or manufacture the conviction that must emanate from a solid, grounded, immutable soul.
Thom| 2.8.12 @ 7:10PM
"But negative ads work, whether we like them or not,"
The Big Lie works whether we like them or not too and money is speech and Romney is spending enormous sums to get his victories. See a problem in the General election there Ross?
Romney has done best in Blue trending states where Democrats can vote in the open primaries. He hasn't won a simple majority of the votes in any contest he has won including FL which W barely won in 2000. If Romney can't beat his grossly underfunded opponents in the Republican Primaries I can assure you he is going to find a very large gap in voter support with his current messaging and alike after the nomination fight is over. We've been here done this before.....
PCP Smoker| 2.8.12 @ 8:57PM
"whereas I incorrectly predicted that the pressure would be the other way because, frankly, I didn't see this coming"
I'm glad you mentioned this. It saved me the trouble of reading more of your pathetic bullshit. Try parroting Mark Levin. At least it would be interesting and right.
DeaN| 2.8.12 @ 11:41PM
hh-You do know that Romney won a CLOSED Republican primary in Florida while Santorum won caucuses in Iowa,MN,and Colorado that are open to anyone,ie Democrats? COuld it not be possible that Democrats voted for St.Rick? They did in SC,where Newt's biggest totals came from Jim Clyburns's majority black district.