-
Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?
May 21, 2013 | 14 comments
-
Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth
May 21, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Impeachment Talk is a Mistake
May 21, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Open letter to Anré Dárel Washington
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laughing to Keep From Crying
May 17, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
With remarks on Thursday by Rick Santorum suggesting he might rather see four more years of Barack Obama than see Mitt Romney become president, some are theorizing that Santorum is making a play for the 2016 Republican nomination.
As Newsbusters and AmSpec’s own Jim Antle pointed out, Santorum’s comment was more conditional than much of the reporting has made it seem, saying that Obama might be better than a Republican if that Republican would be not very different from Obama:
“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there… If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”
Still, the implication that Romney would be “little different” from Obama is so far beyond what the average American voter would consider reasonable that the focus on Santorum’s willingness to prefer Obama to a Republican other than himself is appropriate.
Frankly, I don’t think Rick Santorum is clever or devious enough to be thinking about 2016. I think he’s focused completely on this year’s contests.
However, Santorum’s statements are so silly, unnecessary, and potentially harmful during the general election — such as by encouraging his supporters not to vote for Romney in November should Romney win the nomination — that they should be held against Santorum today.
This is a man who too often seems temperamentally unfit to be President of the United States.
————
UPDATE: Newt Gingrich has said he “couldn’t disagree more” with Santorum’s words.
Santorum, on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” show on Friday afternoon, says that he is being misunderstood, and that he would never support Barack Obama. Still, even if Santorum didn’t mean precisely what he said, the fact is that he said it. Santorum also flatly denied having any thought about 2016, and on that I believe him.
View all comments (116) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/23/does-santorum-prefer-obama-to
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
David W| 3.23.12 @ 3:33PM
I think Santorum, if the quote is correct (and even if taken out of context), has lost my support.
Anyone who thinks Obama would be a better choice than any of the possible GOP nominees needs to quickly go away and re-evaluate his/her position. Four more years of the Marxist/Muslim-Apologist-in-chief will be a disaster for us.
Vern Crisler| 3.23.12 @ 4:20PM
I don't mind Santorum being "potentially harmful" during the general election. Republican are already shooting themselves in the arse by nominating Romney.
I think Newt's wrong on this.
I wish nothing but ruin on the Republican party. May they never rise again.
We need a conservative party to replace it.
MikeG| 3.23.12 @ 5:24PM
Go vote for Obama and stop pretending.
Vern Crisler| 3.23.12 @ 6:23PM
I will write in Sarah. Whereas, when you vote for Romney, you vote for Obama.
MikeG| 3.23.12 @ 7:09PM
You are an idiot. Just vote for Obama.
Vern Crisler | 3.23.12 @ 10:39PM
You are an idiot. Just vote for Obama.
MikeG| 3.24.12 @ 4:03PM
Not very original Vern. Just admit you are an Obama voter and get lost.
Vern Crisler | 3.25.12 @ 1:09PM
Not very original MikeG. Just admit you are an Obama voter and get lost.
Marco2| 3.23.12 @ 11:18PM
How long must we hear about and from that bimbo? Enough already!
Vern Crisler | 3.24.12 @ 2:26PM
Typical of Romney runts. They hate true conservatives like Sarah.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 7:53AM
Okay, I will. And I'm voting in NC, which the GOP absolutely must win.
Good strategy, MikeG---you just sealed the election for Obama.
See you in 2016. When it's Santorum's "turn".
MikeG| 3.24.12 @ 4:05PM
How did I seal the election for Obama? By telling these pretenders to go vote for their man Obama and stop polluting this site with their phony arguments about the "real conservatives?"
Please explain yourself Teflon.
Dai Alanye | 3.23.12 @ 5:24PM
Santorum is frustrated, and who can blame him. Romney's gaffes are quickly papered over, and the lies of Romney supporters accepted as fact.
Kaminsky, of course, has his own agenda, so he plays along with the Mitten wearers. After all, Romney is his kind of man, a manipulator of other people's money, whose friends own racing franchises.
somnolence| 3.23.12 @ 3:43PM
Santorum has clearly forfeited his validity for the White House with that statement. Not as much as Obama has forfeited his welcome, but close enough.
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 3:56PM
Well, most of the state of Louisiana seems to think differently. Great do not vote for him, can we move on?
Yeah, let us put Obama, a socialist community organizer on the same level as a Republican senator who has for most of his political life, with a few exceptions, has been consistently conservative. Yeah, they are essentially exactly the same and as equally unqualified. Yeah.
God help us.
Christopher C| 3.23.12 @ 9:03PM
..."clearly forfeited his validity for the White House"? Nonsense. What he has done is state the obvious - come November, should Mr Romney be the R presidential candidate, please will compare him with the incumbent, see little difference (mandated health insurance, warmist policy advisers, a wooden stage presence as opposed to the super-smooth snake-oily Mr Obama) and vote D. Why change when the choice is between artificial and false?
Oldefarte| 3.23.12 @ 3:43PM
David W above says it most all. I never would support the Ricster from Pa., due to his tingle up his leg from Pa's labor unions [which is not my idea of conservative]. I voted for Newt recently, but since he's now toast and the inevitability of Mitt seems apparent, I'll pull the straight R ticket in November and pray for the best. The idea that Mitt is akin to Obama is asininely desparational IMHO and not worthy of a so-called Republican!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 4:05PM
Just like you did the last 50 years....over and over again...
Then to your astonishment the guy lost and if he won he ran his administration just like a progressive Republican, just a slower drip of poison. When no fundamental and significant change and promises were kept or occurred, you scratched you head in befuddlement.
But damn, that guy who made some compromise with a union twenty years ago or had the audacity to actually express his social conservatism, well that sucker was toast, thank, God.
MikeG| 3.23.12 @ 5:28PM
Yeah we could do what you want and vote for Goldwater and lose over 40 states, the House, the Senate, and get LBJ to impose the Great Society. You guys have a martyr complex to go down in a blaze of you selfishness.
Al Adab| 3.23.12 @ 5:31PM
Mike:
Do you mean Barry Goldwater the most significant loser in the last fifty years. or Barry Goldwater the guy who brought Ronald Reagan into the Conservative fold, or maybe Barry Goldwater the man who knowingly sacrificed his opportunity to give birth to the Conservative Movement. Is that the guy you mean?
MikeG| 3.23.12 @ 7:08PM
I mean the guy who lost big in 1964 to Johnson. Now you guys cry every day about the Great Society state.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 7:52AM
What did Bob Dole, Bob Michel, and the other Great RINO Hopes do to repeal the welfare state?
Nothing.
How did the RINO presidential campaigns turn out?
They got crushed every time out.
Run a RINO, get a Goldwater-sized loss EVERY TIME.
And at least Barry had to run against the fuzzy media memory of a martyred president.
What's Bob Dole's excuse? McCain's?
MikeG| 3.24.12 @ 1:16PM
They did as much as Santorum and Gingrich.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 7:50AM
Kindly name the last GOP moderate to run as same and win.
Whoops, can't.
MikeG| 3.24.12 @ 1:15PM
Bush 88, Bush 2000 and 2004, Nixon 1968, Nixon 1972.
All were moderates if you would have looked at their record. All won.
Dole was a conservative and lost.Look at his voting record, more conservative than Santorum.
McCain was a moderate to liberal and lousy candidate.
Tom| 3.24.12 @ 3:16PM
Again, you show your total and complete igorance.
Nixon ran as a conservative in 1968. He was the first Republican to use the"Southern strategy" which targeted white southernors and conservatives.
Bush Sr. ran as the cosnervative heir to Reagan in 1988, It was only after the mask came off to show his true colors in 1992 that he got beat.
And Bush JR. ran as a CONSERVATIVE in both 2000 and 2004.
And Bob Dole was no conservative.
Continue to spew forth your stupidity, you Romneyite nitwit.
MikeG| 3.24.12 @ 4:09PM
Tom,
Do some reading. Your ignorance is astounding. If you believe GWB is a conservative then there is no hope for you. Nixon was never a conservative. Bush Sr. was never a conservative. Unless you are easily fooled by what a candidate says as opposed to the record. Look at Dole's voting record.
Tommy, you are a typical Ron Paul zombie. Can't post any facts, only your opinions and name calling.
Imissbuckley| 3.24.12 @ 10:55AM
Rockefeller wouldn't have done much better. And technically the Dems already held control over the house and the senate before the 64 Elections. Comparing that election, (an election that occurred in the shadow of Kennedy's assassination), to this one makes no sense. Since 1980 every Republican who has won an election ran as a "conservative" , (Reagan, Bush 41 "read my lips", Dubya). While every candidate who was perceived as a moderate has lost, (Bush 41 re-election, Dole, McCain). Doesn't mean a moderate can't, but the politics that made a conservative unelectable in 64, have changed, there's no point in mentioning Goldwater.
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 3:49PM
Perhaps the whole story might be in order here, Ross.
You know you should really have more confidence in yourself. The level of distortion you spew about this guy is really overkill and only serves to underscore your hatred and fear of social conservatives and Christianity.
Don't worry, your secularism and 'get religion as far away from government and the public sphere as possible' is not under any substantial threat. Romney will be nominated and will lose and all will be just peaches and cream for your absolute separation of church and state and the continued loss of the culture war.
By the way, the rhetoric Santorum used is called political sarcasm. It is sometimes employed to make a point even though the user does not really mean what they say literally.
Santorum emphasized Friday that he will support whoever wins the Republican primary. On Thursday, Santorum argued that Romney and Obama are so similar on the issues that Republicans might just as well vote to give the president a second term instead of casting their ballots for Romney.
"I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney's policies mirror Barack Obama's," Santorum said.
"I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it's easy to see why - Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts. Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign's movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation.
"If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation. It's time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts. This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum - this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms."
Read more on Newsmax.com: Santorum Walks Back Remark on Obama Second Term
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
rightasrain| 3.23.12 @ 3:58PM
Sure he's walking it back now, but an inference can fairly be made from Santorum's statement that if we don't nominate Rick the Messiah, we might as well stick with Barack the Messiah.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.23.12 @ 4:03PM
Santorum's words were obviously not intended as sarcasm.
And as for my "fear and hatred of social conservatives", why don't you ask the many Christian conservative candidates I have contributed money to?
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 4:34PM
They obviously were. Yeah, he really meant that he was going to walk into the voting booth and vote for Obama. Do not be ridiculous.
You supported christian conservatives that agreed to keep their mouths shut about their values. Please, I am not as stupid as your sycophant readers. You made your positions clear on the culture war, bible clinging, and your desire for complete separation. I actually read your articles and remember what you say.
By the way, the idea that Romney is not much different than Obama on many significant policies is not a new one. It has been drummed endlessly out here by libertarians like yourself all frigin year. Many conservatives have said the exact same thing.
What really pisses me off about you is this lame crap you continue to write. I can think of 5 reasons why Santorum might not be the best candidate that do not require stretching the truth, lying about the man, or making crap up.
Romney himself has made some incredible inferences as well, rightasrain, and some that do not require exaggeration or reading into.
You might want to think about the inference that he is deceiving us about his conservatism, he gives a rats ass about what the Tea party wants or the base, and he will be running to the Left right after he is nominated and if elected by some kind of miracle.
Look, if you do not want to vote for someone then do not for whatever GD reason. But have some intellectual integrity when you come out here and share your grand opinions and deep political insight.
Frankly, my dears, I could give a damn.
Short of a miracle and given the rancor, stupidity, shortsightedness, hypocrisy, and circular firing squad mentality, we do not have a rats ass chance of saving this republic nor of avoiding the inevitable collapse.
At this point all is meaningless, ridiculous, and a waste of breath, money, time, and effort.
Keep pulling the levers like trained mice, refuse to learn anything, and keep being on the defense and allow the radicals the offense.
Lest I forget, keep apologizing for your conservative values, particularly the social ones.
Keep that disconnect up between politics, economics, and the social fabric.
Purp, Dred, and Alan thank you, mightily and sincerely. So, does Karl Marx, posthumously, of course.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.23.12 @ 4:41PM
Actually, I supported Christian conservatives who were vocally pro-life, but not if they supported an anti-abortion amendment to the US Constitution.
For the record, I would support overturning Roe v Wade and returning the issue to the states.
For someone who claims to remember a lot of what I've read, you apparently have a very bad memory.
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 5:08PM
Yeah, and you wanted Santorum to shut the hell up about social issues and contraception and anything else that might constitute bible clinging.
I remember that as well.
It is you that need to explain yourself not me. I think I have made my beliefs, values, and positions all too clear.
Your first sentence is a good example. Since we are relying on inference as you like so much, one could inference that your fine with people talking about their values just do not bring them with you after your elected to office. It is baloney about being pro-life but letting the states decide and have abortion is ridiculous. You would overturn the supreme court decision and let lower courts and legislators decide. Ruse and misdirection.
Something as fundamental as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems to elude your libertarianism as a necessary and guaranteed protection, not a negotiable one.
I really do not care about your views on this subject but rather my objections to your cheap shot and once again strained effort to slam and kick another conservative.
darcy| 3.24.12 @ 2:39AM
The evil mastermind himself, George Soros, said in essence, there's little daylight between Obama and Romney. Hey, if Romney makes George happy, we should all be happy right?
My prayers are that Romney will crash and burn; but since the MSM, Drudge, and others are singing his praises, shaping the public's perception of the candidates, and meanwhile they're magnifying and twisting Santorum's ill-phrased comment -- in this case -- that's not likely to happen. But I'm still praying.
If you don't like Obama and think he's dangerous to our country's well-being as a free nation, why on earth would you vote for Romney who is little if any better? That's what Santorum meant: Romney would merely be Obama 2.o with a slightly older veneer. So vote for someone different than a mere shadow of what we have now.
It was a poorly-worded comment which was used against him. If only the media had been as sensitive to the abysmal gaffes of Obama; but then, why would they? He's their guy. Which means Romney's their guy, too. Which means, Romney is NOT my guy.
Clint| 3.23.12 @ 5:11PM
"In 2005, 2007, 2009, and again in 2011, Dr.Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 5:27PM
Clint, when I wrote to Ross I was actually thinking about Ron Paul and his consistency and thoughtful position on this subject.
Clint| 3.23.12 @ 8:03PM
Carry On.
Al Adab| 3.23.12 @ 4:02PM
Santorums comment, which likely just cost him his opportunity for the nomination or any part in a Romney administration, is one which, in a certain sense, I can share.
A second Obama term would destroy the American economy, but would finally relegate the Democrat party to the ash heap of history where it has long belonged. A Romney administration will certainly delay any such collapse, but would not reverse the trend. Why is it so typical of the GOP to try and treat the parasitic cancer which has infested our body politic with simple accupuncture when radical surgery is required. The lack of courage and decisivness remains disappointing.
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 4:55PM
Why Al, are some people comments more damaging than others? Even when the others are more outrageous and offensive and do not require interpretation?
This is all in our heads. We decide what we think, act, and do. The game here is well know, by Ross. He knows that it is about buzz, influence, sound bite, repetition, and attack in this age of fast media. There are plenty of people lining up to get a dose of it so they can think they have an original opinion and thought. See, it too much work to think, read, and educate yourself. Let Ross inform you. Ross, has your best interest at heart and please do not dare to question that or anything he presents.
Besides if you have a bias or agenda the best thing is to hide it. Always be directing away from it and on the attack of those that threaten it, ally or enemy. Politics is personal agenda and personal interest driven, the Marxist taught us this well. It is not about the constitution, good citizenry, the interest of all Americans, principles of honor, integrity, free speech, or intellectual honesty.
It is about getting what you want, hook or by crook.
Al Adab| 3.23.12 @ 5:36PM
Simon:
If I follow you correctly what you say is that the battle for the future of this country is actually one between those inside the east coast club coumbined with the urban centers against those in the hinterlands" flyover country and outside the cities who still value their freedoms over the bowl of government pottage and mutual admiration so many seem to want.
Have a good weekend we'll see you on the flip side ie Monday.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.23.12 @ 10:30PM
"Simon",
Why do you, who love to throw bombs my way, not have the courage to use your own name?
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 7:49AM
1. You don't know it's not his own name. Any resemblance to "The Saint" may be purely coincidental, or his parents Roger Moore fans.
2. His alleged lack of courage in choice of alleged internet moniker is less surprising than your foolishness in putting yours to your RINO blatherings.
3. What precisely would you do if you knew his name, tough guy?
Tom| 3.23.12 @ 4:32PM
For all the garbage that Mr. Electability (Romney) has pulled, ESPECIALLY his lying, deceitful negative campaigning against Santorum and by extension the social conservatives who support him, for ANYONE to attack Santorum for doing nothing more than speak the TRUTH is anothing less than hypocrisy of the highest order.
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 4:40PM
Exactly! And you can see that this is the truth even if you are not a Santorum supporter and are not going to vote for him for other more substantial reasons.
Where has fair play, intellectual honesty, single standards, and a desire for the truth gone?
Tom| 3.23.12 @ 4:51PM
"Where has fair play, intellectual honesty, single standards, and a desire for the truth gone?"
Well, it certainly is absent from the Romney campaign and the modern Republican Party.
William R| 3.23.12 @ 4:33PM
Santorum is just a Catholic version of Dubya Bush. Big government at home with a NeoCon foreign policy. I can't believe people actually think Santorum is any kind of conservative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Vern Crisler| 3.23.12 @ 5:21PM
It's because you think Ron Paul is a conservative.
William R| 3.23.12 @ 5:58PM
Ron Paul is Mr conservative. Limited government at home, free markets, sound money with a non interventionist foreign policy. That is conservatism 101
Santorum believes in big intrusive government at home with a belicose foreign polcy. There's nothing conservative about it.
Vern Crisler| 3.23.12 @ 6:25PM
You need to update your political lexicon. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. No conservative would adopt a Rothbard-Paulista blame-America-first foreign policy.
William R| 3.23.12 @ 6:32PM
The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
You're a blithering idiot Crisler.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 11:21AM
Edmund Burke wouldn't know what the hell you're talking about.
Go read "Reflections on the Revolution in France" then tell us what the great founder of conservatism sought to conserve.
Libertarians had nothing to do with that epochal event; they are a much later----and much less coherent---strain of conservatism, grafted on to the Anti-Federalists, hampered on the question of slavery and the Civil War (where much of their kook fringier ideas come from), helped immeasurably by Hayek and von Mises (although hindered once again by Rothbard and Rockwell who apparently didn't pay enough attention to von Mises' lectures). The general objective of strictly limited government is of course their greatest virtue---and the greatest common ground with conservatives.
But do check out Burke---it's important to realize that limited government is not an end but a means to an end, that end being an enduring republic not susceptible to tyranny nor the anarchy which almost always precedes it.
Whoops, nearly gave away the ending there....
Vern Crisler | 3.24.12 @ 2:29PM
"Rothbard and Rockwell who apparently didn't pay enough attention to von Mises' lectures"
Hah! Great comment. They should have paid attention to his critique of anarchism in *Socialism*.
William R| 3.23.12 @ 7:23PM
Just to show what a truly blithering idiot you are, here is the father of modern conservatism Russell Kirk talking about foreign policy.
True, we did not suffer a long war in the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. But we must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States -- even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq.
In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems.
In this century, great empires have collapsed: the Austrian, the German, the British, the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Italian, and the Japanese. The Soviet empire now languishes in the process of dissolution. "Imperialism" has become a term of bitter reproach and complaint; all this within my own lifetime.
American Empire. But there remains an American Empire, still growing -- though expanding through the acquisition of client states, rather than through settlement of American populations abroad. Among the client states directly dependent upon American military power are Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and El Salvador; and until the withdrawal of American divisions from Germany for service in Arabia, Germany, too, was a military client. Dependent upon American assistance of one kind or another, and in some degree upon American military protection, are the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, and Panama; and also, in the Levant, Egypt and Jordan, and formerly Lebanon. Now Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are added to the roster of clients. I hardly need mention America's earlier acquisitions: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgins, and lesser islands. I refrain from mentioning America's economic ascendancy, through foreign aid or merely trade, over a great deal more of the world. In short, although we never talk about our empire, a tremendous American Empire has come into existence -- if, like the Roman Empire, in a kind of fit of absence of mind. No powerful counterpoise to the American hegemony seems to remain, what with the enfeebling of the U.S.S.R.
http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html
Vern Crisler | 3.23.12 @ 10:40PM
Go crawl back into your anarchist hole moron.
William R| 3.24.12 @ 12:19AM
Russell Kirk anarchist. You're a loser in the game of life.
Calvin| 3.24.12 @ 8:02AM
Russell Kirk would describe you as a radical.
Clint| 3.23.12 @ 8:07PM
Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A brokered Convention.
Calvin| 3.23.12 @ 4:38PM
Santorum is frustrated and beaten and Kaminsky gets in a couple of quick kicks. Gay marriage and abortion are fantastic motivators.
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 4:42PM
Well, in two sentences you have summed it up relatively well.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.23.12 @ 4:44PM
I should add, for the record, that I do not apologize for not being a fan of Rick Santorum's. I'm not a big fan of Romney's either, but for me -- who cares more about winning than anything else in this cycle, which is different than my view 4 years ago -- Romney is much better than Santorum.
My dislike for Santorum is not his social views, but that he wants to use government to try to corral people into those same views. It's the right's version of what the left is doing through Obamacare and other smaller items representing their twisted morality.
Quin| 3.23.12 @ 5:14PM
Ross, what is your evidence that he "wants to use government to try to corral people into those same views?" As for his statement yesterday, even Erick Erickson, who has spent 11 months ripping Santorum, said it was clearly taken out of context: http://www.redstate.com/erick/.....-santorum/ as does the ever-wise Matt Lewis: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03.....president/
Santorum CLEARLY misspoke. The context of the FULL statement was rather clear. But his sentence was awful, and he obviously said it wrong. It was a goof-up by a very tired man. But it is utterly absurd to think he actually meant, or has even ever thought, that people ought to vote for Obama rather than Romney.
I did NOT jump on Romney's "I don't care about the poor" remark. I did NOT jump on Etch-a-Sketch. I jumped all over Gingrich for numerous things, but I jumped in to DEFEND him for remarks taken out of context that some said made him sound racist. This whole game of taking people out of context is sickening. This whole "gotcha" attitude is awful.
Ross, much as we disagree on Santorum, you usually are wonderful at focusing on actual substance. Why don't you just ignore idiotic kerfuffles like this?
Dai Alanye | 3.23.12 @ 5:32PM
A question we should be debating is whether Kaminsky actually believes the bilge he spews, or is distorting Santorum's policy views as a means to an end. I'd like to think Kaminsky isn't pushing Romney simply because like cleaves unto like, but the evidence of his writings tends to indicate otherwise.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.23.12 @ 10:01PM
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've made it extremely clear why I'm leaning toward Romney: because I want to beat Obama. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think Romney is a great candidate, nor is he nearly as pro-liberty as I would like. But none of the others can beat Obama.
Casey Abell| 3.23.12 @ 8:04PM
As always, Quin makes every excuse possible for his guy Santorum. But the definition of gaffe applies here: a politician saying something he thinks is true. Santorum really does think Romney is no better than Obama. He's just not disciplined enough to avoid saying it.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.23.12 @ 10:00PM
Quin,
My evidence is hearing Santorum say more than once that he respects the 10th Amendment except when it comes to certain social issues.
And my evidence is Santorum telling me directly that he believes Republicans should tell people how to live their lives.
As for this idiotic kerfuffle, my take is that even if Santorum "misspoke", it shows something real about the guy. This was not an out-and-out gaffe, like "I don't care about poor people..."
More specifically, though, the reason I mentioned it was because I heard a whole bunch of people responding to it in the news, and then I updated it when I heard Santorum address it directly.
But I did not see this as a "gotcha" moment at all. Those were pretty significant comments he made, and I don't entirely buy his walking it back. I think he meant much of it.
Casey Abell| 3.24.12 @ 12:54AM
"I think he meant much of it."
Have to disagree with you, Russ. I think Santorum meant every word of it.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 7:46AM
But you're fine with Mitt Romney forcing taxpayer-funded abortion upon us because he'd decided that was the right thing to do?
Do you even think a moment before you write?
Ross Kaminsky | 3.24.12 @ 10:30AM
Where do you see me being fine with taxpayer-funded abortion? Do you even think for a moment before you write?
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 10:33AM
He's your candidate, not mine, clown.
Fearing The Coming Theocracy as you do, you might want to look at his record in that light then go vote Paul with the rest of the masterminds.
Quin| 3.24.12 @ 12:06PM
That's cr@p, Ross. Even Erick Erickson recognized it as BS. Santorum CLEARLY didn't mean it that way. Of couresw it was a gaffe. I said it was a gaffe. As Matt Lewis noted, he's been saying something like that (minus Etch-aSketch) for WEEKS. IT just came out wrong. Bad use of the subjunctive, unclear pronoun reference. IT happens all the time to all of us, me included, in everyday speech. To say that you think he actually meant to say he would prefer Obama to Romney is effing absurd. Get a grip. And some perspective. Again, some of us did NOT jump on Romney for his "I don't care about the poor" remark, because the context did not support it and it was absurd to think he meant it that way. Same thing here, as Erickson conclusively showed. Erickson, who has TRASHED Santorum for 11 months straight. Jeesh.
Casey Abell| 3.24.12 @ 7:41PM
Quin peddles more of however he spells crap. Anyhoo, Santorum said exactly what he thinks: Romney is no better than Obama. He's even amplified that point of view in his subsequent comments portraying Romney as an Obama clone.
Of course, Hillyer's so deep in the tank for Santorum that he'll never get out. Look, Quin, we know that whatever comes out of Santorum's mouth puts you into automatic, all-out, screaming defense mode.
When Santorum robocalled Dems with a left-wing message in Michigan, you hilariously said he was appealing to "Reagan Democrats." Got news for ya, he was appealing to Obama Democrats. Because the Reagan Dems are either dead or Republicans by now. The robocalls were no surprise from Santorum when he sees zero difference between Mitt and Barry.
Calvin| 3.24.12 @ 2:51PM
We are told how to live our lives by Democrats and sadly socially liberal Republicans. I am told that I will pay for abortions, "protection" for well off college girls (actually a middle aged women's studies grad) and that my opinions on the definition of marriage, abortion and other important affairs are unconstitutional so I should just shut up. I am told what kind of toilet is required in my house, how to feed my kids, what kind of light bulbs I will be using, what kind of medical insurance I must have, what kind of foolish propaganda that my kids should be fed, and a lot of other stuff. That is not Rick Santorum going along with that stuff, it is Mitt Romney expressing his progressive nature when he was governor. Kaminsky goes along with this stuff as well. I get him and see him as a fraud. I wouldn't walk across the street to be part of a coalition with him. Politics is littered with socially liberal, economic conservatives that always bail on economic freedom at the first opportunity. They can't be trusted. By the way I can make distinctions and never say stupid things like Romney is just like Obama. I also think that whoever is the Republican candidate will have a very good chance at being the next President. Obama is holding a hand much like Jimmy Carter. I will vote for Romney but the Republican Party is in extreme danger with him at the helm. It won't survive another business as usual Republican as President. If sufficient progress isn't made in the 2012 Senate elections, I don't think Romney will stand up to the prevailing liberal smog.
When Kaminsky uses terms like "freedom in personal lives", does he think this kind of code word baffles conservatives? That is the kind of indirect flimflammery for which liberals are famous. You're coming in loud and clear Ross.
darcy| 3.24.12 @ 3:19PM
Out of the ballpark, Calvin; well said! I especially like the use of "flimflammery." And yes, the Republicans will deliver restoration or they are history as a Party. I would suggest that conservative Republicans, a la DeMint, get together and have informal talks about cutting loose from the Redundant Party if it stays true to form this next go-round. If the Party is not going to self-correct, if the establishment is not going to give up its progressive agenda, then allowing it to survive within the Party as the driving force spells certain calamity for the nation.
Responsible conservative Republicans will understand that the clock will have run out.
Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 5:21PM
And there is the rub.
I know of no conservative today that wants to coral anyone into anything....you keep pushing this false notion. It is certainly not the rights version and shows all of us that you do not understand in the least what is going on in this Left wing assault and war on the culture nor do you understand conservatism.
What conservatives are struggling for is the right to have contrary views that are not ridiculed, trashed, scratched, attacked, and undermined. This about freedom. This is about preserving basic American values and its not about setting up a secular state that has none or does not allow for the values of the nation to be expressed in its laws. Why bother explaining this to you. You will never get it.
The bottom line is Santorum and social conservatives are not interested in setting up a Christian sharia as you would like to characterize it or shoving anything like the Left has done down peoples throat with political correctness. That is ridiculous.
darcy| 3.24.12 @ 2:56AM
"He wants to use government to try to corral people into those same views"?
You mean like the way the nation isn't being corralled into a culture of sexual hedonism? You mean like the way the government has had no hand in endorsing a complete collapse of traditional moral values through legislative measures? or Supreme Court decisions?
Someone's morality is going to be imposed on this nation, like it or not. The question is whose morality: Those of the practitioners of nihilism or the those who adhere to the "our rights come from God" folks.
I'm sure you realize this.
Tom| 3.23.12 @ 4:49PM
And I have as little regard for right-wing libertines and I do for left-wing libertines.
Tom| 3.23.12 @ 4:50PM
"and I do for left-wing libertines."
Should be; "AS I do for left-wing libertines."
Sorry.
somnolence| 3.23.12 @ 5:02PM
Instead of focusing on the issues of the deficit, Obamacare, prices at the pump, the Muslim Brotherhood, real unemployment numbers, etc. both Santorum and Gingrich focused on etch a sketch, which is glaringly childish on their part. So yeah, Santorum IS the one not much better than Obama in that respect(although he cetainly edges him and I would vote for him if he was the nominee). Once again, the enemy is OBAMA, the focus should be OBAMA, not Romney.
Dai Alanye | 3.23.12 @ 5:36PM
Somnolence dislikes Etch-a-Sketch because it so succinctly revealed Romney's attitude -- yesterday an independent, today a conservative, tomorrow a moderate who intends to jam Romneycare down our throats.
Drek| 3.23.12 @ 6:02PM
I don't know if others have noticed, but it sure seems that about every ten days Santorum says something that doesn't seem right, then he needs to clarify his comments, and THE OTHER MCCAIN devotes a lengthy piece riding to the rescue of Santorum.
This is getting to be old.
Why is it that a supposedly well-educated man such as Santorum, a lawyer, should find himself so tongue twisted, so inarticulate, so much like a rhetorical clod when it comes to his own native language?
Anommynous| 3.23.12 @ 6:33PM
Ross, I previously praised your principled federalist stance with regards to abortion. Read my comment:
http://spectator.org/blog/2011.....the-judges
I don't view you as hostile to social conservatives and I take you at face value when you say that your top priority this election is to defeat Obama, and that you believe Romney is the best man to do it.
For me, the most important issue this election is overturning ObamaCare. I just can't get past Romney continuing to defend RomneyCare as good policy. I worry about the people Romney surrounds himself with, when one adviser makes this Etch-A-Sketch comment and another (Coleman) said that ObamaCare won't be repealed.
Romney did have an article yesterday in USA TODAY that is a good start, although it was a bit vague on details and he continues to stand by RomneyCare. I liked that he said this: "I would begin by changing the tax code, which currently offers a subsidy for employers who purchase health insurance for their employees." That is a relic of FDR's wage controls that is the source of so many problems (portability, rising costs, etc.) in our current system.
Rick Santorum did clarify today that he would vote for any Republican over Obama. If you are willing to accept Romney's explanations at face value, why won't you extend the same courtesy to Santorum?
Ross Kaminsky | 3.23.12 @ 10:05PM
A,
Santorum's words were not taken out of context. I believe he regrets saying them, and I believe it's possible that his restatement is 100% accurate, but I also believe that it's just as possible that he really meant what he said.
As for Romney's explanations, it depends on the issue. My bigger problem with Romney is what he actually says and means than his gaffes. For example, his ridiculous statements about China are stupid and dangerous.
But most of the gaffe-type stuff I've seen from him has been as much an issue of being taken out of context as anything.
Santorum's words, even in context, are harder to understand, though the qualification that Antle and I noted does help slightly.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 7:45AM
You're getting played, Kaminsky. Romney and his advisors meant the Etch-A-Sketch analogy; that is their whole campaign strategy.
When will you be heading to the Times or the Post? Brooks and Friedersdorf and Rubin can't keep up appearances forever....
Calvin| 3.24.12 @ 8:09AM
Kaminsky has revealed in the past that his main concerns are gay marriage and abortion. Everything else comes in a distant third and beyond. Going with the guy whose public record violates all your supposed beliefs accept for gay marriage and abortion demonstrates this fully. Kaminsky has the look of a David Brock during his American Spectator phase.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.24.12 @ 10:32AM
Please show me where I revealed that. In fact, I don't care much about abortion and I care even less about gay marriage. I am not highly motivated by social issues. My main issue, broadly, is liberty, including in economic and personal matters.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 10:37AM
Hard to practice liberty when you're slain in utero.
At least when Ayn Rand preached "the virtue of selfishness" she was able to do so with internal consistency.
You are highly motivated enough by social issues not to support Santorum. That's high motivation indeed given Romney's record on socialized medicine and enforcing his, ahem, distinct views on taxpayer-funded abortion with the stroke of a gubernatorial pen.
Given that we have two Leviathan Liberals running head to head if Romney gets the nomination, how precisely is the cause of liberty served by electing Romney?
Molly| 3.23.12 @ 6:47PM
Seriously - why does Romney get a pass on every supposed "gaffe" he makes in the press but Santorum gets nailed to the wall by people on our side! Romney is going to do more damage to the conservative movement than any of the other three put together.... I will vote for him, but only because I have to!
Drek| 3.23.12 @ 7:02PM
He's not getting a pass Molly.
It's just that after so many twists and turns from Romney, so many switches of position, so many, many gaffes, ------- that it's not news any more unless it's a real whopper.
Sad but true.
When obama and the Democrats/the media get done with him, ----- the entire GOP is going to be sick to heart at having nominated him, and is going to feel like they want to throw up.
And there won't be a single response that any of us can make that will be able to justify and rationalize his endless and serial switches of position.
This is going to be grotesque.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 7:43AM
He did get a pass. It was a one-day news story.
Tom| 3.24.12 @ 1:38PM
"When obama and the Democrats/the media get done with him, ----- the entire GOP is going to be sick to heart at having nominated him, and is going to feel like they want to throw up."
GOOD!!! And the GOP Establishment and the Romneyite hacks will deserve each and every second of it. I hope they take such a beating that what we saw this year NEVER happens again.
bluecollarbytes| 3.23.12 @ 7:49PM
Santorum needs to grow up, politically. Or maybe he's just ill-suited. There is a 'little-man mean streak' that creeps out of him at times. He's something of a bickerer. But I wouldn't have hesitated to vote for him in Nov if he hadn't mucked up his own campaign message over the last few weeks.
Kenny| 3.23.12 @ 7:57PM
Santorum is sounding like a stressed out fool more and more each day.
kf451| 3.24.12 @ 1:50AM
"This is a man who too often seems temperamentally unfit to be President of the United States."
Exactly.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 7:43AM
Kaminsky would clearly prefer Obama to Santorum, which makes him the same hypocrite his fellow MittBots are.
The truth in what Santorum said is that nominating a liberal like Romney is in some ways worse than reelecting Obama, as: a. The Republican Party will promptly get the blame for Obama's disastrous policies; b. The Republican=racist myth will be perpetuated; c. The weak sisters the GOP has in Congress will be likelier to resist Obama than Romney (they laid down for Bush); d. Obama is term-limited but Romney would run again in 2016, meaning the chance to replace this liberal with a conservative wouldn't come until well after Obamacare was permanently ensconced in law.
Since RINOs like Kaminsky are always pleading "lesser of two evils", conservatives ought to consider which of the two is worse.
If Romney gets the nomination, I and millions of other conservatives will be reregistering as independents and focusing on the Tea Party.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.24.12 @ 10:34AM
I would prefer Santorum to Obama, but not by as much as a Republican should be preferable to Obama.
If I am a RINO then your definition of Republican must include major focus on social issues...which is why the GOP has such a hard time doing well. The nation is becoming more libertarian, whether "real conservatives" like it or not.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 10:38AM
That's why social conservatism is one leg of the stool.
You don't know anything about the movement that writes your check, do you?
Ross Kaminsky | 3.24.12 @ 10:36AM
By the way, what makes you think that Obamacare will remain if Romney becomes president? The idea that he's less likely to repeal it than some other Republican is ludicrous.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 10:43AM
If by "ludicrous" you mean that the guy who actually architected Obamacare on the state scale and whose commitment to socialized medicine is the only thing approximating a firm principle to which he adheres would be less than committed to repealing it, you would be correct.
Add in that the moment Romney got elected the GOP Establishment would defend such Etch-A-Sketch apostasy on his part to the death---or at least to the mild inconvenience of not appearing on "Meet the Press" quite so frequently---and perhaps you can begin to understand the point.
To put it in terms you might understand, if Obama had passed a law requiring people to attend church on Sunday, and Romney had passed mandatory church attendance laws in the Bay State just a few years prior and adamantly defended both the legality, the morality, the economics, and the politics of doing so, would you be manning the barricades for Mitt and expecting that law to soon be history?
Quin| 3.24.12 @ 12:09PM
Ross,
Now you are in la-la land. Romney during this very campaign has said he wants to "keep the good parts" of Obamacare.
martin j smith| 3.24.12 @ 7:56AM
Once you say something that you have to backtrack your toast in some degree. Santorum's remark that he would prefer another Obama term is beyond my comprehension. If Santorum had said I do not support Romney but given the choice I will reluctantly vote for him over Obama
that would one thing. Santorum should have made it very plain that defeating Obama is the number one goal. He messed up badly.
martin j smith| 3.24.12 @ 9:33AM
Teflon 93 sounds like a Socialist troll.
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 10:49AM
Teflon93 has a Political Quotient of 3 and knows a hell of a lot more about conservatism than you do, pal.
Here’s your PQ: 3
Politicians with similar PQs are:
Michele Bachmann (R-Minn, 2007-09) PQ=-4.1
James DeMint (R-S.C. 1999-2009) PQ=5.1
Newt Gingrich (R-Ga., 1979-94) PQ=11.4
Richard Nixon (R-Calif., 1947-52) PQ=12.5
But then I also know more about Romney than you and Kaminsky do (not that that's a high bar):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Teflon93| 3.24.12 @ 11:13AM
Meanwhile, let me take the opportunity to educate the MittBots---Kaminskyite or Anti-Kaminskyite---why a vote for Mitt Romney is inconsistent with libertarian and conservative principles.
He is a Big Government liberal.
Now, Kaminsky and the like seem to think that Romneycare was nothing more than a harmless attempt to end the free rider problem with health insurance. You'll never find anybody who hews to the Austrian School buying such utter nonsense, nor anyone who holds a Constitutionalist view. The question the libertarian economist asks goes to the heart of praxeology: "If you require people to have a service (insurance) they do not need and do not value, while in extremis promising them the fruits of that service, you will ALWAYS have free riders. How will increasing the size of the authoritarian mandate prevent the black market from cropping up, as it always does?" The Constitutionalist will ask, "Where is the power to do any such thing? Does not The Constitution clearly indicate that the federal government has only certain defined powers and the states may only encroach on liberty to the extent allowed by the people and outside the constraints of The Constitution? Do these constraints not extend beyond the Bill of Rights in the plain language of the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."?"
What you have with Romney and Obama are men who lack republican virtue. They are Caesars, not Ciceros. Romneycare commits all the crimes against liberty Obamacare does, crimes for which it is not acquitted of simply because fewer Americans stand to have their freedoms infringed on by it than by that for which it was the blueprint. If federalism didn't save the South for slavery---which was NOT banned by The Constitution until after the Civil War---how could it be a plausible justification for a government power grab of medicine, the power of which has never been granted to the government? The argument amounts to the claim that the Founders would have been fine with tiny North Koreas in their midst.
Indeed, more evidence of this has emerged that Romney engaged in the same crimes against religious liberty---protected by the 1st Amendment---that Obama has:
http://bostoncatholicinsider.w.....ay-debate/
Kaminsky and the other self-identified libertarians supporting Romney haven't raised an objection to the government FORCING Catholics to pass out contraceptives and fund abortions (when not required to assist or perform them) against their consciences. This is an abomination to those of us who favor small, republican, Constitutional government and liberty. Where are they? Off hiding from the mythological Theocracy of which Santorum is supposed to be the harbinger----all while the Ruling Class Theocracy is marching on.
The preference for liberty in social issues really ought to extend to not having a bunch of Ivy Leaguers impose their----unique----morals on the rest of us, shouldn't it?
But not a peep from Kaminsky et al on that front.
Oldefarte| 3.24.12 @ 2:26PM
Wow, Shazam.....what a bunch of crap above! High minded AH's supreme one and maybe all! Wo give a rat's ars about any GD politician since all of them are one shade south with the human toilet from used care salesmen and lawyers [aka ambulance chasers suing insurance companies for their own self enrichment]. Geez! Get a life! Santorum the crusading Catholic, right [as a GD lobbyist and labor union humjobber in Pa]. The rest of them are as indicated worse....who cares? The idea is to WIN THE GD ELECTION, DUMMIES! If the Rickster becomes POTUS, will he thereafter cure the nation's problems of abortion providing and corrupted judges marrying queers etc? When donkeys fly! Your desired morality issues will only be solved from the ground up, from heterosexual couples taking themselves and their children to weekly church services, by refusing to allow them to watch Glee and Brokeback Mountain from Speilberg etc, by disallowing labor unions within private companies and especially within public schools, by disbanning the DofE and hiring the best and the brightest as teachers, by sending children carrying weapons to school to prison for 20 years and by supplementally disqualifying their parents/relatives from government welfare benefits, by parent insisting that their children work and learn the value of a dollar instead of tweeting and facebooking crap 24-7, by parents teaching children the meaning of the TEN COMMANDMENTS instead of WHO'S BRITNEY'S LATEST BABY DADDY, by Americans turning off the idiot box TV at night and sticking their heads within books, etc. Any politican/president etc [ie Santorum] won't do excrement if elected and cannot do so, since the deck of cards nationally among the immorality of its citizens is stack against him. It's called P*SSING IN THE WIND! JC would be overwhelmed if elected as POTUS! Grow up and grow a brain, fools! IT STARTS FROM THE GROUND UP, WITH ALL OF YOU AS INDIVIDUALS, NOT WITH A GD PRESIDENT THAT MAY BE A CATHOLIC-MORALIST! Oh, and as I've said previously [for all of you knuckleheads blogging here].........IT'S THE GD DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 3.24.12 @ 3:35PM
" Rick Santorum was well ahead in Louisiana polls and expected to carry the state with the backing of evangelical Christian voters — 57 percent of the Republican electorate in 2008. "
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Oldefarte| 3.24.12 @ 4:13PM
I spent 25 years in that state, in addition to the numerous ones in Alabama [as well as being born and raised in the one in between], so don't attempt to educate me concerning southern politics, MEDIA MATTERS BOY TOY! The South will vote for whoever is selected as the Republican nominee, whether that be the Rickster, ya so-called favorite TEXAS TOO SHORT SHORTS FROM LJ, or MASSACHUSETTS ROMNEYCAREBOY. They're all smart enough to not buy into the Rickster's BS of Romney=Obama [since they know well the vast differences]. The Rickster won all of the tri-state contests, but so what? He won't be the nominee and neither will TOO SHORTS. The morons who say IF I CAN'T HAVE CATHOLIC RICKSTER, I'LL STAY HOME AND NOT VOTE will possibly DESTROY THIS COUNTRY SINCE IT WILL DIE IN 1 1/2 YEARS IF OBAMA IS RE-ELECTED, so shove your candidate moral purecy WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!!!!!
Clint| 3.25.12 @ 7:05PM
The RINO-CINO Israel Firster Smear Bund RINO-CINO, Fartman Attempts To Sell Us His New Mancrush, Mittens Romney, The Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Fop Frontman.
You're The Hypocrite, Two Faced, Fake Conservative,Who Wrote:
"Oldefarte| 3.23.12 @ 2:16PM
Whether or not Newt says IT IS MY FAULT, the fact remains that of those CLAIMING TO BE CONSERVATIVE, only he and Paul deserve that moniker IMHO!"
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Oldefarte| 3.24.12 @ 4:45PM
Wait a minute, thought Media Matters Boy was a supporter of LJ TOO SHORT SHORTS? Are you a Benedict Arnold Republican Catholic, perhaps?:
'....Gallup: Romney leads Santorum, 40-26 percent Friday, March 23, 2012 08:56 PMHelped by his victory in the Illinois primary and an endorsement by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney's national support among Republican voters has increased to 40 percent, according to a Gallup Daily tracking poll. It's the first time a candidate has reached the 40 percent level in the 2012 campaign.Rick Santorum's support was second-highest, at 26 percent. Newt Gingrich had the backing of 14 percent, and Ron Paul had 8 percent.The data are based on Gallup Daily tracking from March 18-22. Prior to this week, Romney's high was 38 percent, in Feb. 29-March 4, polling after wins in Michigan and Arizona, according to Gallup. Santorum's high was 36 percent in mid-February after his sweep of the Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri contests on Feb. 7. Gingrich reached 37 percent in early December.Romney's 14-point lead is not his largest. He led by 23 points in mid-January after winning the New Hampshire primary, but that lead -- and another he held in late January and early February --disappeared......'
Oldefarte| 3.24.12 @ 4:50PM
Take the pledge TOO SHORTS MEDIA MATTERS BOY:
'....
Newsmax
Gingrich Calls for Pledge Supporting GOP Nominee
Saturday, March 24, 2012 01:38 PM
By: Newsmax Wires
Newt Gingrich’s campaign has sent a letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus demanding that the national GOP require candidates to sign a pledge promising to support whoever becomes the party's nominee. The move was a clear swipe at Rick Santorum over a recent campaign trail gaffe, reports The Hill's Blog Briefing Room.
“I request that you issue a pledge asking all the Republican presidential candidates to support our eventual nominee,” Gingrich chief of staff Patrick Millsaps wrote. “It is imperative that Republicans unite once the nomination process is complete in order to defeat President Obama. We cannot afford four more years of his leadership.”
The letter was prompted by Santorum suggesting Thursday that Obama could be preferable to a candidate such as Mitt Romney, according to The Hill.
Santorm's controversial comment: “You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”....'
Clint| 3.25.12 @ 7:17PM
The Nurse Forgot To Change Oldefarte's Adult Pampers.
Call Romney In The Morning, RINO-CINO Apologist, Oldefarte
" In a head to head match up with incumbent President Barack Obama, the indie voter chooses Ron Paul, a CBS News poll suggested on Monday.
A total of 47% of independent voters said they would choose Ron Paul compared to 45% of independent voters choosing Mitt Romney against Obama, and 41% of independents saying they would choose Rick Santorum. If a Paul-Obama showdown were ever to take place, 47% of independent voters would vote for Paul, 81% republicans and 10% Democrats for a total of 45% of the vote. Obama would get just 40% of the independent vote in that contest, with 85% of the Democrats choosing Obama and 9% of Republicans choosing the President on election day in November. Obama would win the general election by a narrow one point margin if the election was held today between the two."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open convention.
Oldefarte| 3.24.12 @ 2:37PM
PS: My pea-brain only tells me that Romney's it at this point, unless JC sprinkles manna from above down upon us. So if this be true, then TO WIN THE ELECTION AND THEREAFTER WORK ON REPAIRING THE NATION'S PROBLEM FROM WITHIN THE SYSTEM BY MEANS OF HOPEFULLY ELECTING MORE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE TO MANIPULATE A ROMNEY-MODERATE FROM MASSACHUSETTS, WHY DON'T WE ALL USE WHAT'S KNOWN AS ''''''COMMON SENSE''''' BY SUPPORTING THIS MODERATE INTELLIGENTLY INSTEAD OF IMPLODING ANY CHANCE WE MAY HAVE OF DEFEATING THE CURRENT RADICAL-EXTREMIST OPPOSITION AKA DEMOCRATS?????????
Tom| 3.24.12 @ 3:19PM
Just more worthless ranting from the Stupid Old Fool.
Oldefarte| 3.24.12 @ 4:03PM
Just more non-essential, non-specific bullexcrement from a DUMBARS-TOMCAT!!!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 3.25.12 @ 7:21PM
Speakin' Of Bullexcrement, Have The Nurse Change Your Adult Pampers, BullCrappin' Four Years Older Than Dirt, Up To The "E" In Alzheimer's, Oldefarte.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.
Michael Rowzee| 3.24.12 @ 10:46PM
If Santorum were running against Obama in the Democratic Primary, he would not drop out if Obama was far ahead. It is the same reason Santorum will not drop out of the Republican Primary. Santorum has said again and again, he is not a candidate of the Republican Establishment, he is a Conservative. The Republican Establishment are the party members loyal to the Republican Party. Santorum despises them. When Santorum says he is “A Conservative” he means, “My allegiance is to the Conservative Party.” Were Santorum elected as president, no one could complain when he promptly changed his official party affiliation to the Conservative Party. Santorum has made his allegiance perfectly clear. If the Republican Establishment is not with Santorum, it is his enemy.
Santorum put the screws to elderly veterans. http://www.disabledveterans.or.....-veterans/
Santorum: "People Have This Idea That They Should Be Left Alone" They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down, keep our regulations low, and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded