Second Chances: Santorum on the rise?

According to Phillip Klein at the Washington Examiner, Santorum has a window this week to make a strong case that he should be the conservative going forward in this race, not Newt:

After his late surge to the top in Iowa, Rick Santorum had appeared to emerge as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. But Santorum decided to compete heavily in New Hampshire, where he did poorly, and suddenly Newt Gingrich was able to come back from the dead in South Carolina. After Nevada, however, we’re entering a stage where Santorum has another opening.

There are three contests tomorrow and Santorum has a chance to win two of them and to beat Gingrich in all three. Though we don’t have much data, Public Policy Polling survey taken Sunday shows Santorum with a small edge in Minnesota, at 29 percent, with 27 percent for Romney and 22 percent for Gingrich. PPP also showed Romney leading with 40 percent in Colorado, but at 26 percent, Santourm leads Gingrich, who was down at 18 percent. There’s also a non-binding primary in Missouri tomorrow that won’t actually allocate delegates. But Gingrich isn’t on the ballot, and Santorum was leading Romney 45 percent to 34 percent when PPP checked in last week. If Santorum has a strong showing tomorrow, he’ll build up a head of steam going into the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he can make his case to conservatives.

In an apparent recognition of this, Romney’s campaign has shifted from its regular attacks on Gingrich to going after Santorum — dispatching surrogate Tim Pawlenty to criticize his pork-barrel spending. But there’s a risk for Romney. To start, Santorum is a much more sympathic figure than Gingrich, so pursuing a scortched earth strategy against him is much more likely to backfire. Also, Santorum’s record is much more consistently conservative than Gingrich’s. …

But whatever Santorum’s deviations from conservatism, they pale in comparison to Romney’s — on abortion, guns, and health care among other issues. Romney can’t credibly attack Santorum on his prescription drug vote, is calling for automatic minimum wage increases during his current campaign anyway and supported No Child Left Behind.

READ MORE >>



Also, read Michelle Malkin’s take on Santorum’s chances this week: Santorum’s Got Game.

I’ve said all along that I’ll take whichever of the two, Newt or Santorum, that rises to the top. Santorum is a stronger candidate on the issues, but Newt has that flare of inspiration that can wow people. I guess we’ll see if Santorum can make the case this week that it should be him versus Romney instead of Newt.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

227 thoughts on “Second Chances: Santorum on the rise?

  1. First Romney… now Sanitorium is being forced on us like a pack of herpes.
    I got Rick Sanitorium spamming my home mailbox with campaign fliers here in MN(how did he get my name and address???)

    Did the RNC give it to him?

  2. I want either Newt or Santorum to be the nominee, but favor Newt because I think that he would have the best chance of actually defeating Obama. I don’t see Santorum inspiring people with his message and being able to withstand the attacks from Obama and the left after he becomes the nominee.

    Newt tells it like it is and exposes Obama for who he really is. He’s a fighter who has great conservative ideas and a timeline to implement them. I believe that he would have a very good team of conservatives with him to help turn things around (Laffer, Sowell, Cain, Perry, Palin, West?). He knows how to work with congress and is able to get things done as has been demonstrated in his time as Speaker of the House.

    I cringe at the idea of Romney winning the nomination and then going up against Obama. They’ll agree on 80-90% of the issues! I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree with Soros when he says that there is virtually no difference between Romney and BHO! Romney has trouble articulating conservative views, probably because he isn’t one! He’s an Independent Liberal (I believe that is what he called himself when he was in a race against Ted Kennedy).

    I think that Newt would be the “wild card” that the left fears the most going up against Obama. Sure there is a lot of baggage there for them to bring up, but it has already been played out over the primaries. What they fear is that Newt will actually bring up O’s baggage! He isn’t shy about taking it to the complicit media; he won’t be shy about taking it to socialist Obama either!

  3. “scortched”. Really?
    As I’ve said a week or so ago, Santorum should be the nominee and is the obvious conservative choice. When will the GOP primary voters realize that a) Santorum is their best choice, and b) Obama is probably going to win no matter which of these 4 men are on the ticket. So which is better….to lose with Romney or lose with Santorum? Maybe it would be better to lose with Romney, because at least conservatives can say “See? You nominate a moderate/liberal/squish – like McCain – and we lost again”. Gives cons a better argument to move to the right for their 2016 pick.

  4. Gingrich has lost me. That Nevada press conference was the last straw. He got up there and just made an @ss of himself. Newt, seriously, if you don’t like negative campaigning now, well, just what do you think Obama would have in store for you.

    MO beauty contest is tomorrow. Gingrich isn’t even on the ballot. Voting Santorum, and no, that isn’t an endorsement. But if he is the last not-Romney standing I’ll ride that horse all the way to the convention.

    VOTE: Brokered Convention 2012

  5. I just watched a speech on CSPAN by Gingrich in Colorado. It was of course incredible and credible. Santorum followed him and all I can say is I was embarrassed for him. If people were really paying attention and would watch these talks given by these candidates I don’t know how they could possible support Santorum for president of the United States. Having to be totally about substance and being ask substantive questions is not the same as a debate and this is where you can really see where a candidate stands and how well he can answer questions that will affect us after the election. I just wish people would make a little extra effort to look beyond pundit opinions and see for themselves and make an informed judgement. Maybe they wouldn’t come to the same conclusion I have but at least it wouldn’t be based on what other people think or the last headline.

  6. Occupy CPAC
    http://www.dclabor.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/100458

    (Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO)With workshops like “Return of Big Labor: What Can We Learn from Wisconsin & Ohio,” and “Taking back Wall Street: The Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street,” the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) descends on the nation’s capital February 9-11 and local labor activists are planning a DC lesson to ensure that the voice of the 99% are heard at this elite conservative gathering. Actions are currently being planned for noontime and after work on Friday, February 10. Featured speakers at CPAC include Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum

  7. This is from the Washington Times. I’m starting to wonder if Rick Santorum has an alterier motive for staying in the race. I hope this isn’t true, because I would view it as a huge betrayel and destructive to the country.

    “It appears Rick Santorum is running against Mr. Gingrich to support Mr. Romney but, in reality, is not running for president himself. The former Pennsylvania senator has absolutely no chance of winning. Mr. Santorum likely could become this election’s H. Ross Perot, who split the ticket in 1992 and 1996, allowing Bill Clinton to win two terms. Hoping to get a seat in the Romney administration likely will keep Mr. Santorum in the primaries because the more votes he takes from Mr. Gingrich, the more he helps Mr. Romney, whom he endorsed in 2008.”

    1. The only way he could split the ticket and give O another term is to run
      as a 3rd party candidate in the general.
      He doesn’t have much money for a primary so I doubt he could manage a 3rd party run.
      He’s my guy so I hope he take MO and WI tomorrow. Delegates or no at least they
      are wins.

      1. Santorum is splitting the conservative vote w Gingrich. Paul is getting a small part and Romney is getting the other 35-40%.

    1. People love to inflate that beyond the factors involved. They always seem to omit the fact that Santorum’s opponent was the son of a very well-regarded–by both parties–former Governor of PA. That son, Bob Casey, Jr., was far more liberal than his father to be sure. But though Santorum had won before, even though it was by modest margins, the PRO-LIFE Casey had a cakewalk election. After all, it was the year that brought Pelosi and Reid to power, and Bush and the Republicans were at an all time low.

      Santorum was made the face of the national, “get Bush!” elections that time, because Bush wasn’t on the ballot.

      But people conveniently ignore every scrap of that info to ballyhoo the fact that Santorum lost by a large margin. Like a LOT of Republicans did in 2006.

  8. I hate to state the obvious, but. We need to keep our eyes on the prize. This is a distraction. I almost don’t care which of the 3 (sorry Ron) is in the Oval Office, just we must stop this destruction and as soon as possible. Everything else is SECONDARY. We are being diluted and misdirected. This is a game and our own stupidity to let it happen.

    And by the way all the candidates need to expend their energy on reporting on how well our country isn’t doing and since BO took office how it is accelerating toward the toilet.

    Wake up folks!

    1. Not only are people awake, but they are anxious, angry, unemployed, and about done with people telling them to settle for the establishment’s choice.

      1. so enjoy the drive off the cliff. any deviation from the cliff is an improvement. i’d pretty much vote for a steaming pile…

        1. Fine. Go over the cliff facing slightly more starboard. Once Obamacare takes hold, it’s permanent. Then it doesn’t matter who’s in the Oval Office.

  9. My vote right now is for Newt. However, another strategy that might be in play here is if Santorum & Gingrich can take enough votes away from Romney, we go to the convention without a candidate.

    There is where the real fight will take place and all the negative multimillion dollar negative add campaigns by Romney will be less effective.

    Then Newt & Rick can sit down and make sure we get our conservative leadership. I like a Newt/Santorum ticket. Let Grass hopper learn from the master all he can and when it is his turn he will be our leader he will be fully trained and prepared.

    1. Yup, I heard some reports that Romney could lose the nomination at the convention. If that’s the case I hope Newt and Santorum can take as many States and delegates away from Romney as they can!

    2. Gingrich/Palin-I know she isn’t running but as a team they would kick some major butt. Gingrich could talk about policy and Palin could kick Obama’s butt on his failures and she’s not afraid to do it!

    1. This is a great read and every person who reads GraceKnows post should read this reference. Notice the trend in Santorums actions. It appears you can get the boy away from the union, but you cannot get the union out of the boy.

      Great read. You need to read.

  10. I pray that Rick does have a surge and is able to capture the nomination. How people think Romney is a conservative based off of his past running of Mass is beyond me.

  11. I agree with your take on it, Scoop. (In fact, If I were voting today and only Newt and Rick were on the ballot, I’d probably vote Rick.) But a lot of folks are piling on the Romney, “scorched Earth against Newt,” attacks. And then of course, calling Newt a whiner–and worse, for deigning to respond.

    I guess I could understand it if they were in the bag for Romney, but a bunch of them are claiming Santorum is their guy.

    As I wrote elsewhere today, Santorum HAS to win votes from the Romney side of things if he plans to win this primary. Trying to go after Newt’s voters first–by helping Romney destroy Newt–is helping Romney to the win.

    Going after Newt is a bad plan all the way around for the anti-Romney folks. We need Newt as a fallback position in case the Santorum surge doesn’t happen.

    1. I disliked Newt from the start of the campaign. It has nothing to do with with anything Romney said.

      1. What was it you did not like about Newt from the start of the campaign? Had you done some kind of intense research on his record, accomplishments, etc. or was it that you did not like the way he combed his hair?

        Just wondering?

          1. It sounds like you have heard all of Romney’s adds.
            Sorry, do not have time to debate you on the issues, but when I hear people use his past personal failures as the reason they do not like him, I often wonder what is in their closets. Thank you

            1. What a man does in his private life carries over into his public life. If he is willing to violate the duty he owed to his wife why should I trust him as President? Newt is simply not an honorable man.

      2. It’s far too late in the state of things to be using “like” and “dislike” as excuses for letting a liberal Republican walk away with the nomination.

        I was among many people pointing out Newt’s obvious problems before he entered the race. I didn’t “like” him as the potential nominee.

        I got over it. If it isn’t Santorum, it had better be Newt or we’re Britain. It’s that simple.

        1. If it was down between Newt and Romney I would understand your point, but it’s not. I’m tired of settling.

  12. When we went to the last 4 standing, I would have liked to see a GOP Debate-Off.
    pair up 2 and 2 cover the basics economy, energy, jobs, and foreign policy, then with the remaining time let them have at it.
    Within a week pair up the winners and looser of 1st and do it all over again.

  13. Interesting to hear Britt Hume just now asking Romney fans to consider that Romney has not done well in any state that he hasn’t had massive amounts of negative ads against his nearest opponent.

      1. Hearing from his fans, and maybe checking in at blogs where comments favored Romney a month ago, but have since gone pro-Newt on those very same websites. The tide is changing, I hope, but nonetheless, I was VERY surprised to hear him point this out and kind of say “I know Romney fans don’t want to hear this BUT….”

        Edit….and one more thing I heard brought up by Krauthammer, of all people, is that you cannot ignore what Newt has been saying about the fact that turnout was UP in the state he won, and in the counties he won in the states he lost vs. turnout being considerably lower in the states/counties Romney won. Maybe they really ARE getting the message!!

          1. Hopefully, people aren’t turning out for the primary because they don’t care who it is as long as they can vote against Obama.

            This entire election is supposed to be a referendum on Obama, so if that is true, then the turnout for the primaries is less important.

            The media can’t have it both ways.

        1. Well it is about time..it is one thing to secretly support whomever(in this case Romney) but to shill openly..very bad taste!

  14. Having addressed the union thing, Santorum said he was wrong. Newt said he was wrong on mandates…we have to take these men at their words.

    1. I would like to see where he said he was wrong. I never heard or saw that anywhere and I read a lot.

      He said he represented a blue state with strong union representation. Therefore, he voted against the “right to work bill”.

      That answer is not good enough for me. It tells me that he is pro union and they controlled his vote. Think about this.

      Please reference where I can see where he said he was wrong.

      1. Rick said that he believed since he was representing PA, a non-right to work state, that it wasn’t in his position to change the state laws at the federal level….as a senator. However he did say that he would sign a right to work law if it came across his desk as POTUS.

        Plus, there is no one who is going to be perfect and appeal to every direction that you agree with. To me Santorum is the most conservative and the one I agree with the most.

      2. It was one of the debates..I think in NH when Ron Paul questioned him about it. I think he said it then, that he was wrong and wouldn’t support in nationally. Maybe I am wrong about it though…..

    1. Pawlenty is a light weight looking for a job. This is the problem I see more and more of. Conservative republicans selling out just to survive.

    1. I hope folks don’t support him, and he drops out before he saps away any further support for Newt with his constant badmouthing, and then later fades away into obscurity.

      1. I do think Newt has a better chance, but I hope Santorum gets a job in the new Admin..perhaps Sec. of State?

      2. Don’t think that all of Santorum’s support will go to Newt. Alot of of us like myself despise Newt, and alot will vote for Romney. Personally if Santorum had dropped out before the Florida primary I would have voted for Perry out of protest.

          1. Actually, most of that ad “king of bain” was a lie. Several newspapers, including the Washington Post, took it apart and refuted all the claims.

            i was all for Newt until he attacked Romney in that way. Unfortunately, he wasn’t just attacking Romney. He was attacking the free enterprise system and private equity firms which many ailing businesses depend on as a last resort.

  15. I’m glad to see Santorum getting the attention he deserves. He should have the opportunity to demonstrate if he can harness the passion of the base.

  16. I’m warming up to Santorum more than I have in the past. I still think Newt has the better shot at beating Romney and then Obama, but I would be happy to vote for Santorum.

    1. Just wait until he has been demolished by Romney and his superpacs..every vote, everything he said, or even thought will be spun in a bad light..he will be vapour, because he doesn’t have enough money to counter-act the Romney machine..Newt was hurt too, but he at least has more money to try and balance it a bit.

      1. Yeah money can tip the scales. I do believe that Santorum is the most conservative of the four currently in the race.

      2. Great point. And this is why Mitt is so despicable to many of us. Sure, primaries are a time for infighting, but he fights like the Left with spin or outright lies. I wonder how he sleep at night.

        1. When I first saw Rick at the very first debate, he really made an impact with me. It was a question he was asked specifically about Newt and his “baggage” he blew me out of the water with his impassioned response..saying something about you can’t let past mistakes and sins hold you back from doing what is right. Then in the rest of the debates, he wasn’t getting a lot of attention, and he acted put out. Newt kind of soared from there. So In know Rick can be great at times, but he is not immune to bad stuff(Romney carpet-bombing) and he will complain and be bitter..he is no better than Newt in that regard. We have to be honest in our assesments. As for stability..you are right he is steady as he goes..but I like newt’s big ideas, his plans, his verbiage. I guess that is where we differ.

          1. I also like alot of Newt’s ideas better than Santorum, and his being aggressive and outspoken does not bother me. I understand why people would be attracted to it. My problem is I just don’t trust him. He’s taken too many liberal positions on key issues and doesn’t have the strength of character to be President.

            Just to be clear I’m not a huge Santorum fan. I was a huge Perry supporter and I liked Bachman as well. But you know what you’re getting with Santorum; with Newt you can’t be sure.

            1. Well I guess all I can say is I satisfy myself that Newt will do what he says, because he already has done things that have not been done since..and he did it working with a democrat in the Oval Office.

              1. I’ll give you that and it’s more than you can say for Romney. But Benedict Arnold did great things too and later turned out to be a rat.

                I see Newt as our Bill Clinton. Just like Clinton was for Clinton, I think Newt is for Newt. He’s tremendously talented and persuasive but he’s only committed to conservatism as long as it benefits him politically. It’s like Rush said one time, you look at Newt and wonder what could have been?

  17. I’m just glad Santorum will go after Romney like an angry pitbull! And Romney will just remind us, “It’s not worth getting angry about.”

  18. I think once Romney has carpet-bombed Santorum too, we will be left with two crippled conservatives, a fractured base and Romney closer to winning in the end. Scoop is right that he is a more well-rounded conservative,(never supported the mandate or tarp) but he doesn’t inspire or convey conservatism like Newt, or is nimble enough to counter-act the liberal press. Sigh, this whole thing is a mess..and Romney gets to act above it all because he has so much money. Everyone, check out Byron York’s latest article..it is chilling what the so-called nice guy Romney will do to win.

          1. You have to be kidding. Santorum’s never been in any serious positions to even have the opportunity to weather the storm. He certainly didn’t stand on principle with Right to Work or Specter.

  19. I’d heard that he was up over mittens in some places, but I don’t like to listen to polls- they scare me. I am glad though he’s still in, and I hope for once the polls are right. Go Rick!

  20. Just took a look at real clear politics polling averages for MN and CO. Have to say I am impressed by Santorum’s numbers in both. Minnesota is going to be very exciting to watch tomorrow…it is almost a four way tie!

    1. Unfortunately, I think MN is what you call a “beauty contest”. I don’t pretend to understand the caucus system, but in 2008 I caucused for Romney to try to stop McCain, and even though Romney won by a huge margin in MN, it didn’t help him at all because they awarded no delegates.

      1. There are 40 delegates at stake tomorrow in MN.

        Are you sure you aren’t thinking of MO? They have a non-binding primary tomorrow, but the delegates aren’t selected until their caucus March 17.

        1. I just remember that 4 years ago, Romney’s number of delegates did not increase despite his big win. I tried to call the MN GOP today, but couldn’t get through. I guess I will find out tomorrow.

          Most of us really have no say in who our nominee is (unless we are in the very early states).

  21. He’s a big government conservative. He does nothing but yap and nip at Newt’s heels. He has no shot on Super Tuesday (especially in southern states). I don’t reespect him because he’s done his best to do a hatchet job on Newt instead of aiming his barbs at the moderate/liberal Mittens. This only goes to show that he’s a political opportunist little better than Pawlenty, a political hack hoping for a posting in the White House.

    1. There is not a substantive truth in your deranged rant. First of all, calling Santorum a big government conservative while cheerleading for “the individual mandate” Gingrich is laughable. Second, he’s barely even addressed Newt. He’s the one candidate left standing that isn’t interested in making baseless and silly charges against the other candidates. While Newt was attacking Bain, and Romney was attacking Newt for his lobbying, Santorum was defending both of them.

      1. hey, don’t call his posts deranged because they differ from yours…that is not a way to make an arguement.

            1. Lol. Sorry M’am. Still, there’s no bad behaviour in criticising another’s comments under the banner of ‘deranged’, especially if its true. Besides, he substantiated his claim that the post was deranged. He didn’t just spout like B-guy did!

      2. That’s ridiculous. Santorum has picked fights out of nowhere with Newt. He’s called him “crass”, irresponsible, pandering, suggested that he is dishonest, and for what? Santorum attacks Newt on any subject he can think of. Those quotes of mine were just from when he heard about Newt’s moon colony thing, and decided to misrepresent it as something “big government”, even though Newt specifically said the opposite.

        Santorum is bottom feeding BIG time and is doing his best to undermine the only conservative with a chance of winning in the race. It’s pathetic. Why can’t they handle things the way Cain and Newt did in their debate? Why couldn’t things have been civil and respectful? Instead, Santorum has made it all a battle.

        It’s fair game on Romney, but Santorum’s treatment from Perry, to Cain, and on down to Newt, is inexcusable.

        1. Agree totally. BTW, I really like Rickey’s performance in Nevada, a whole 9%. Ya gotta real winner there.

          1. Newt polled 2% with people voting for moral character. You aren’t going to win a republican primary with those kinds of numbers.

        2. “He’s called him “crass”, irresponsible, pandering, suggested that he is dishonest”

          I say Santorum is being generous.

        3. He wouldn’t last a minute in a one on one substantive debate with Gingrigh about any issue you name. This is why he has to attack there’s no other way for him to gain ground.

          1. Yes, Newt is witty. It doesn’t all come down to the debates though. They are important yes, but Bush wouldn’t have been elected either time if it was all about debate perforrmace.

            1. Consider his debate opponents for just a moment…

              ALGORE and John F. Kerry (WBTWSIV) could add their IQ’s together and still not be smart enough to follow Alinsky and Ayres.

        4. Picked fights out of nowhere? You do realize they are competing for the same job right? What’s wrong with him pointing out when Newt makes an irresponsible, pandering, or dishonest remark? That’s politics. Why you think it is fair to do this to Romney and not Newt is baffling. Even Romney’s record can be considered more conservative than Newt’s. No one is buying his line of being THE conservative in the race.

          1. You’re a propagandist for Mitt Romney. Even in 1994 there were articles out calling Romney a “pretty face” who lacked conservative principles. That’s why he lost to Ted Kennedy. He campaigned on making government “work better” but distanced himself from promises to scale the government back; he refused to defend the 80s; he openly rejected Reaganism; he denounced “partisanship”, which is another way of saying that he won’t defend us from Liberal attacks. In 1995, as a result of people like Romney who kept running for political office for the Pubs, conservatives in Mass. actually considered splitting off from the Republican party and forming their own party due to their intense disappointment.

            Yeah, your guy Romney really wins the hearts and minds LOL.

            1. I don’t know where you get your information but this is one of the problems of research nowadays. Take it from someone who has lived in MA his whole life. Let me break down each piece. First off, you don’t win in MA if you are a right winger. So lack of conservative principles is what got him elected, not what prevented him from beating Kennedy. Ted Kennedy was a made man in this state and so is pretty much anyone with that last name who runs for office here. People are still in love with anyone bearing the Kennedy name and can’t listen to reason.

              He refused to defend the 80s and Reaganism because that’s what he needed to do to get elected. He’s a typical scumbag politician. If you don’t think Newt is doing the same right now, you are kidding yourself. The only candidate who doesn’t cater to the voters is Ron Paul. His message is the same in each state. The rest of the candidates change their message to hit the local voters they are talking to.

              I know you’re from Texas so things are very different there. In MA in 2010 when everyone was electing republicans, our state didn’t elect one. Not one to DC and not even one to the state government. We are a DEEP blue state. You can’t be a partisan republican and get anything done here. The guy did get much more accomplished than the guy before him and the guy after him. He cleaned up some areas of corruption that have been untouchable for decades.

              Now granted, I’m a conservative in Massachusetts so my standards are very low, but he did a good job when he was here. It is hard to say what he would be like as a POTUS but I am sure he would be to the right of where he is now. However, I think he will be bipartisan as well. He probably would be similar to a GWB in a lot of ways. I am unsure how hawkish he would be with the military.

              Finally, the note about Republicans forming their own party due to disappointment from Mitt? I’d love to see a link to that article. Mitt actually imported an army of republican contenders to challenge for literally hundreds of seats which had been democrat for such a long time, they hadn’t even had a republican challenger in a decade or more. Unfortunately, that plan failed and the dems were reelected in the vast majority of those places, but this guy definitely fought for moving this state to the right as best he could in his four years here.

              1. Here is the link:

                http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/projo/access/573159071.html?dids=573159071:573159071&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+08%2C+1995&author=Associated+Press&pub=The+Providence+Journal&desc=Mass.+conservatives+try+to+organize+their+own+party+*The+GOP+just+isn't%2C+well%2C+Republican+enough+for+them.&pqatl=google

                They cite Romney’s pro-abortion stance and other moderates in the party for pushing them to attempt setting up their own party.

                As for having to be a moderate liberal to win in MA, I have seen articles from that time period by conservatives giving the analysis that whenever Romney spoke like a conservative, he would get applause from the audience for the debates against Kennedy. Whenever he spoke like a moderate, which is quite frequently, people were turned off. That’s why he lost to Kennedy. Not because he wasn’t moderate enough, but because there wasn’t that big of a difference between Kennedy and Romney. Conservatives stay home when that happens, and the people who DO vote don’t understand politics or are liberals themselves who are happy with mediocrity.

                It’s a lie. You run as a moderate in MA because you’re a coward who is unwilling to make the case for conservatism. I know that might be accepted thinking over in your State, but it isn’t reality.

                Romney will run the same way against Obama.

                Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, the “panderer” you mentioned, was a bloody street fighter in Congress. The idea that Newt would try to get along in the same way Romney has is quite the joke.

                1. Coming from your prospective, I completely understand why you think this way. You are right when you say people run as moderates because it is the accepted thinking in the State, but that does not mean it is not the reality. All of our republican governors and senators in the past have been moderates. No conservatives gain traction here. You probably understand my state better than most would and I’d like to think I understand Texas somewhat well. That being said, there is no replacing living in a place your whole life and speaking with the people about politics over a long period of time. What works in Texas does not work in Mass. Kennedy always was impossible to beat. He was like Elvis over here. He was a beloved king. People who voted for him had no idea what his policies were. It did not matter. He was a Kennedy. It was pretty disgusting. Nationally Scott Brown is seen as an Olympia Snow. To me, Scott Brown is about as good as we can hope for. Mitt was too. Low standards, I know. My wife has wanted to move back to Texas for a long time. I’m not sure what she craves more, the weather or the politics.

      3. He sure didn’t happen to oppose the unions in his district or bring the pork home. Yeah, I’m deranged, every time I see that sniveling little twit so bugger off!

        1. I was okay with oyu saying that about me, since I do despise Santorum and want him to drop out. But, accusing everybody of hating Santorum isn’t going to do you any good.

          1. While I’m a bit of a hypocrite for challenging you on Santorum and then writing the same sort of things against Romney, Romney at least deserves it.

            Hate is hate… and your’s is unfounded and unreasonable in the case of Santorum (imo). But I’ll leave you to it… you are entitled to your opinion.

      4. What I took from Santorum’s “Can’t we quit bickering about romney and Bain and newt and Lobbying and get onto the real issues”, was more of a dig at both willard and newt, while trying to do an 0b0 and be the adult in the room.

        1. I want Rick to win one, just to keep it going while I try to force myself to like one of these guys.

      1. He would vote Maobama or stay home… these guys (Ricardo and BankGuy) HATE Santorum… Really makes me wonder about them.

      2. It would be
        NEWT
        Rick
        willard if I can force myself to pull the lever, but I have to say I am tired of going into the booth and it stinking like a 8 feet high pile of moderate liberal rino crap.

        1992 Dolt
        2008 McCaint

        Both Bush I and II were moderate but not full blown rino, but II’s focus was totally on keeping America Safe and I think he did a good job of that, but let the fox in the hen-house on the economy, and was going to put Miers on the court.

        For all of Grinrich’s warts I think he would be more conservative in governing like he was as speaker. Newt is being crucified for a lot on things he has said, while his voting record and accomplishments while in office are ignored.
        I don’t remember the numbers but it seems that his conservative voting record was in the high 90s while Rick’s was in the high 80s.

        And Willards was, well I don’t think we want to go there.

      1. Really. Other than your comment that Newt was for ObamaCare, why do you really think Santorum would be more effective in repealing? BTW, Newt wasn’t in congress since 1998. Santorum has no character and has done nothing but screw up the conservative cause.

        1. Really, done nothing but screw up the coservative cause? Worse than mittens, or rove, or fill in the mittens loving talking heads. I don’t mind Newt, just would prefer Santorum thanks. I didn’t say Newt was for obamacare, but he was for individual mandates the same as mittens, and he didn’t have a problem with government getting involved in healthcare on a national level. You don’t have to agree with everything that Santorum has ever done, but do you agree with everything Newt’s ever done?
          And for you to say you’d pick mittens over Santorum if he wins tells me that I guess you don’t mind agreeing with everything mittens has ever done which is a heck of a lot less Conservative than Santorum.

          1. Supporting Mittens over Santorum is a very telling indicator of where this guy is coming from… I’m just sayin…

        1. I know grizzly, and no disrespect, because I’ve seen and heard all the arguments, but I could not vote for Ron Paul because of his foreign policies. I just will not agree with him on things of that nature. I would love to see him picked by whoever wins to be in charge of the fed, so he can dismantle it.

          1. I appreciate your consideration of other viewpoints (and not calling me names).

            Ron Paul would never ever ever ever never ever never get confirmed as Fed Chairman. Ever.

            1. Griz, you have to admit ABC is one of the Classiest. I wish I could hold my tongue and espouse less vile, well sometimes anyway.

              1. It can be tough. Sometimes you just have to back off the keyboard and come back after a few minutes. It is so easy to just fire off nasty comments on an anonymous internet forum, but we have to remember that we are actual people and civility is key.

      2. ABC, I know Newt was for mandates, which was the thoughts of a lot of conservatives at one time. Newt stopped Hillerycare, and he has said he would do all he could to overturn 0b0care, and I think he understands how and what it will take to overturn it better than Rick, and for sure better than willard. Newt is the one explaining how to accomplish it “I will ask the Congress to stay in session on the third of January. I will ask them to repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley.”

        He was my pick way before the voting started in Iowa, (he has a great interview on Rush one day) but he never took off. Now I am frustrated with Santorum because he doesn’t seem to be clicking with the voters and staying in splitting the conservative vote, will in my opinion end up pushing willard to the top.

        Never the less, I will vote and support him or newt over willard. I just do not see a liberal or moderate like willard beating 0b0.

    2. If you are against politicians doing hatchet jobs, you can’t possibly vote for any of the four remaining candidates. And he isn’t expected to do well in the South, just like Newt isn’t expected to do well outside of the south.

  22. Tomorrow night is caucus night here in Mn. I will be caucusing for Santorum. As of now, he is polling well in Minnesota.

        1. Ha, just joshing as one of my favorite movies is Fargo. Did a lot of bis in MSP as well as Superior and Fargo.

  23. What we are left with for candidates boils down to three “Republicans” and one “Libertarian”. Sad times indeed, when we have to sift through each of them to find the one with the most “scraps” of conservatism in their backgrounds and politics.

        1. I’ve never told you who I am voting for. Romney and Newt are both the clear liberal/moderate choices at this point. I don’t see how a case can be made otherwise but would be happy to discuss it.

          1. I could have sworn you identified yourself as a Romney bot. You were even insulting the other candidates for not getting very many votes. So now you say you’re not a Romneybot.

            I think you’re just trolling something fierce.

    1. No, but he was FAR from alone. Raising the debt limit to keep up with deficit spending had become about as automatic as sending in Mariano Rivera in 9th inning. It wasn’t until recently that conservatives decided to take an ideological stand against the practice.

    1. It is who he is. He did it in 2008 and doing it now.

      It is grievous to see so many on our side falling in line for the candidate who is pretty much like 0, only has an R by his name.

    2. My guess is this is a “pre-emptive strike” on Willard’s part. It’s easier – and cheapter – to try to squash Santorum now than it will be later if he happens to start gaining traction.

      Besides, it gives Willard a chance to throw around all. that. money.

    3. Too bad for Mittens because Glenn Beck is backing Santorum. If you go to the blaze you will find the story prominently displayed…….displayed….well you won’t find this story but if you do a search on the blaze you can find it on the blog, where the traffic is so heavy it has received 3 comments. As long as Santorum has this mighty support, he can’t lose.

      /sarc

  24. Was Santorum conservative when he voted against right to work (there is no good excuse) and the “Bridge to Nowhere”? That said, his past comments advocating a role of for the government in the bedroom will not play well in the general election and possibly enough to prevent him from winning.

    1. his past comments advocating a role of for the government in the bedroom

      I can’t believe I’m reading comments like this on a conservative site. Where, pray tell, has Santorum advocated such positions? His opposition to gay marriage is shared by every other candidate – including the Democrat in the White House. He has stated that decisions like Lawrence v. Texas were wrong not because he is in favor of sodomy laws, but because the constitution permits states to make such laws.

      1. I know, It baffels me as well. As for Newt’s record I’ve talked about it until I’m bue in the face. People know the facts they are just choosing to ingore them.

    2. Re: Right to Work… Santorum was Senator in Pennsylvania. His job was to represent those people and that state. Those people happened to be overwhelmingly pro-Union. He was merely representing them. If 75%+ of your constituency wants you to vote in a particular fashion it is your duty fulfill your obligation as a representative of that state by voting as such.

        1. The difference here is socialized medicine. In Mass., you must have health insurance or pay a fine as result of merely being alive and a resident of the state. In PA, if you don’t want to be a member of a union you can still live in the state, you’ll just have to find a different job (if your particular job happens to be union – not all jobs are union.

          Comparing Santorum/RTW and Romney(care) is like making the comparison of mandated health care to having to have liability insurance to drive.

          1. Okay, so on one side you HAVE to have Health insurance. On the other side, you HAVE to be in a Union if you want to work for certain jobs… but it’s different because not every job is unionized.

            Okay, got it.

            1. The better question is how is Romneycare is any different than Newt supporting an individual mandate. This was not just something he supported for a short time as an alternative to Hilarycare, he held this position for 16 years and only changed his mind because he decided to run for President.

              Santorum has his flaws. I can’t defend all of the votes he made during the Bush years. But, one thing you can say about Santorum that you can’t say about Newt is that he has character. Electing Newt is a crapshoot. He will do whatever is politically expedient. One thing I do know is this: any man who supports the idea that everybody must purchase health insurance or says that FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century is not a conservative.

              1. Do you know why he said what he did about FDR? It certainly wasn’t about domestic policy..it was how he lead during the War. Newt is a conservative, what you posted is not accurate. He may have gone off the reservation, but he always came back and probably was the better for it.

                1. It was partly based on his domestic policy. However, even if it wasn’t, FDR is greatly overestimated as a wartime President. He made critical errors in dealing with the Soviet Union which I believe resulted in the enslavement of Eastern Europe. As a Socialist himself, Roosevelt didn’t understood the evil nature of Stalin. He saw himself as a mediator between Churchill and Stalin instead of ally of Churchill.

                  I think it is very telling that FDR ignored Churchill’s idea to invade Germany and Eastern Europe from the South after the defeat of Italy. Stalin wanted an invasion of France because he wanted to get to Eastern Europe before the Americans and British. FDR sided with Stalin and the rest is history.

                  In no way was FDR a great President. HIs mismanagement of World War 2 led to the Iron Curtain and his policies at home began the modern welfare state.

                  The following clips are of Newt Gingrich Praising FDR, and it wasn’t for foreign policy.

                2. I hate youtube clips, because you never know if things are taken out of context. As I have said before..it is not what they say so much, but what their actions were. Newt has done things that no one else has been able to do since..all very conservative leaning..tax cuts, balanced budget, welfare reform. That is enough for me.

              2. LOL… it really makes you realize how crappy our choices are when you have two guys for tarp and individual madate and another guy that’s against RTW… wtf happened to the GOP?

              3. Oh wow, so you’re going to ignore all the decades of Newt’s good service for our cause and pin him down on the individual mandate which he has repudiated? Sure, he’s gone off the reservation a few times, but the guy has always returned to us. His record and service is NOT something to mock. He was fighting against Reagan’s tax increases in the early 80s! He picked up bad feelings from Bob Dole for calling him the “Walter Mondale” of the Republican Party for trying to undermine Reagan’s plans to LOWER taxes in the mid 80s. This is a guy who has butted heads with just about everybody to achieve our goals. And you prefer Rick Santorum, who basically calls our own guys liars and panderers?

                Sick Santorum is running too hard for the Presidency. He’s burning bridges and distorting history to score political points. I can’t stand the deception. THAT is not good character. And conservatives honestly have been quite wicked this cycle, as they’ve managed to basically distort every good man we’ve had so far. Cain was awesome, but he started to sink with the Libya thing and then no one supported him in the sexual harrassment charges. Perry is a good man and then went down. Newt is a hero and you guys still prefer the least distinguished guy in the field based on a character that is based on nothing more than his family photos.

          2. What I am saying is, the Unions are killing states with their demands, he didn’t stand against it like Walker has. He voted what his state wanted, so did Romney. Both of them were wrong.

          3. I don’t know the particulars of the bill but as someone who believes in Federalism I think Labor laws should be completely within the states jurisdiction. If the law would have interfered in the states labor policy than he did the right thing by voting no. Whether this was his reasoning is another question. I think he just didn’t want to go against his state’s policy.

          4. that’s a pretty slippery slope Jeremy. Both are two different issues but the comparison of removing liberties is a valid one. RTW isn’t anti-union, it’s anti-corruption.

        2. Stop making stuff up. No it didnt! And besides (to my knowledge) RTW was already in place in Penstate, Santorum was only maintaining what the state already had and wanted to preserve. Romneycare, whatever you say, was Revolutionary … and not in a good way before you get carried away with yourself!

          1. yeesh, don’t get your panties in a wad..I was just trying to say he voted how his State wanted(even though he was not for it) and Romney signed a bill into law because his State wanted it(he wanted it too it seems)

            1. And I was just trying to say you’re talking nonsense and that the comparison you’re trying to make is a dud!

              Santorum supports the opposite of what he was forced to vote for as a result of the state he served and he is oft cited as stating this. Romney unabashedly and unapologetically stands by Romneycare and never comes out saying it was a bad idea. Where’s the comparison?! Think these things through before posting. And I’ll do what I want with my panties too thank you very much.

      1. It’s a good thing I live in Texas I guess. I would never want to compromise my values in order to stay in power.

        Interestingly, Newt has never been a stranger to controversy. I found some old quotes of Newt where he was blaming a murder of a mother, and the removal of her fetus from her womb by a gang, on the Welfare State and the morality that the welfare state promotes.

        He’s always had balls of steel.

      2. No it isn’t. Rick got elected. You don’t take actions that mirror the latest polls in the state or the country. You do what you think is right. If that means you don’t get reelected then at least you leave office with your integrity.

    3. Hmmm, did Newt vote for or against this same bridge? He was in the House at that time right. Being speaker, he had the power to remove this little item right? So, why didn’t he?

  25. Rick Santorum had my support before and if can prove he has staying power and some substantial financial support I could easily vote for him over Romney. Newt will get my vote the last Tuesday of February otherwise.

  26. I’m just not seeing where Santorum has the “strength” on the issues. He doesn’t offer a flat tax or anything substantually different in any of his policies. And his record is not more conservative than Newt’s. If anything, his record paints him as your typical Republican moderate congressman. I know he likes to repeat that he’s the “true” conservative, and then condemns the other candidates for their impurities (though he would fail under his own standards!), but I don’t see anything of substance that backs it up!

    There is a tremendous disconnect here. I see one boring Santorum, and then other people see “true conservative” Santorum. Only one of us can be right, which means one individual at least is having some serious hallucinations.

    1. And his record is not more conservative than Newt’s. I

      Santorum never supported an individual mandate, he opposed TARP, he has been an advocate of significant entitlement reforms, and has been consistent on social issues. Newt isn’t the moderate that he’s been portrayed to be by his critics, but there is no contest that Santorum is ideologically more well-rounded then Newt.

        1. Oh please, EE has lost all credibility this election season. He was desperately trying to find any reason to knock Santorum. Most of the items on this list are a joke.

          1. I remember when they were bashing Cain too, but the record on Santorum is accurate. His best issues are the social issues, but he offers nothing else that is new or truly interesting. I find it interesting that he even voted against a Flat tax. I imagine he will be no friend to Newt’s flat tax or Cain’s Fair tax when the time comes. The guy doesn’t offer anything new for the country. We need serious reform, not a guy who happens to be good on social issues and taking photographs with his family.

      1. Except he’s never done anything of substance (and Newt has).

        Yes, he was in a tough State, but his bogus remarks about how he represented Pennsylvania vs. his own moral values at the time sounds like some cheap Romney word parsing. “I voted to get along at the time because that’s what they wanted…” is basically what he said.

      2. Paul, I’ve been arguing with Ricardo for days now about Santorum. He has a deep-seeded hatred of him for some reason. I acknowledged Rick’s short comings and tried to allay some of his concerns… but there’s no arguing with this guy. I agree with you… but save your breathe on Ricardo… you’ll be glad you did.

        1. I despise him mostly for the way he has treated the other conservative candidates. Him jumping into the gutter to run for President has NOT been positive nor principled.

          1. What?!? your statement is crazy. Exactly how did Santorum treat the “other” conservative candidates. He has not called any person a name, he has appropriately attacked his opponents positions.

            Sober is right! You are in a blind rage over Santorum for no apparent reason.

            1. You know, I was giving Sober a pass on that, but this “hate” thing is like the 5th time I’ve heard from a Santorum supporter, and the last few times were NOT directed at me.

              This is a liberal’s argument. They’re always into the “hate” thing. If he were black, I bet you’d call me racist at this point.

              This whole cycle is nuts. Conservatives have gone crazy.

              And as for my claims, you ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION if you haven’t noticed Santorum calling Newt “crass”, pandering, and so on and so forth, on any random issue he can think up to disagree on. I’m starting to think that Santorum supporters are either blind to this, or they simply don’t care, since their weird bias towards him blinds him to his dishonest behavior.

              It is for that behavior, and NOT his record, that I developed a distaste for Santorum early on, back when I first witnessed him distorting the positions of his competitors.

              If Santorum handled things the way Newt and Cain handled each other in their debates, I’d have respect for him.

              He didn’t, so I don’t.

                1. Taking out Romney is fair game. He’s a RINO. Get some bloody perspective. Instead of whining about it, join the fight and help us drive Romney from politics forever. After we regain the White House, the next great campaign will be to purge the RINO politicians from our ranks.

                2. Oh, I see. Don’t one dare mention the weakness of Newt Gingrich especially if they are “on the same team”, even if it is an honest critique. What Rick Santorum is doing is hitting two birds with one stone, attacking both Romney and Gingrich, combined.

                  Granted, Romney is bring Chicago-style politics to the primary, but sadly Gingrich took the bait big time. Would it not be helpful in defeating Romney to have Newt bow out. There is a great article on American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/turning_towards_santorum.html It lays out a very powerful argument why Newt should bow out if we truly as you say get Romney out of the way.

                  It would seem to be that you sir are in need of a change of perspective. You are staring at one tree way to long.

      3. Rick Santorum is only socially conservative, not fiscally.
        He is a big government Republican.

        Club For Growth Agrees – Rick Santorum Is Big Government Conservative
        http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/club-for-growth-agrees-rick-santorum-is-big-government-conservative/

        What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like
        http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/

        Santorum’s Big Government Problem
        http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/santorums-big-government-problem/

        Santorum on Deficit, 2003

        Rick Santorum’s “Real Concerns” About The Tea Party

    2. It will be interesting when the dust settles to find out what candidate remains standing.

      I respectfully disagree with you about the flat tax. Do you really trust our government to install a flat tax and forget about all the other taxes? I sure don’t.

      1. What the heck do you propose as a solution then? Do nothing about the tax code? Maybe lower it down a few percentage points? What a bunch of boring old crud. It needs to be eliminated.

        I am a supporter of the Fair tax, FYI, so I’d like to see the income tax completely abolished and everything replaced with a simple national sales tax on the retail level.

        The Flat Tax isn’t my favorite, but it’s better than doing NOTHING.

        1. If they install a flat tax, rest assure that tax will be piled onto the already ridiculously high taxes that we are forced to endure. Doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing. Timing is everything and given the corruption in our government now, it is not the time to redo the tax code or rewrite any part of our Constitution.

          Some interesting links about the subject are as follows:

          Is Federal Income Tax Constitutional?
          Tax Protesters Say Government Cannot Collect Income Tax

          Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/13523407/detail.html#ixzz1lhnn75zx
          http://www.wmur.com/r/13523407/detail.html

          …taxes are too high, time to change citizenship
          http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/759866.html

          What do we get for our US tax dollars?

          We like to think of Europeans as poor overtaxed serfs but the benefits they receive show the shortcomings of the US system
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/15/tax-day-us-europe

          Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary
          to Fund the U.S. Government
          http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

          Tax rates around the world
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

          5 Countries With Low Taxes
          http://financialedge.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0111/5-Countries-With-Low-Taxes.aspx#axzz1lhqX4KjS

          Fraud, Corruption, and Power: What Our Bailout Tax Dollars Are Really Going To
          http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/11/fraud-corruption-and-power-what-our.html

          Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment
          http://libertyforlife.com/constitution/us-16th-failed-ratification.htm

          1. I asked you for a solution, not for a reason to do nothing at all. My answer will be the same answer Cain gave:

            Taxes don’t raise themselves.

            Abolishing the tax code and instituting a Fair Tax, or instituting a Flat Tax (which is really more like tax simplification than tax reform, but still a positive thing) are good steps in the right direction.

            I prefer the Fair Tax as it is truly the most EQUITABLE and Business friendly system possible.

              1. If “timing” is the answer, then that really isn’t an answer. Once we get a conservative in the White House and take back Congress, it seems the timing will be just perfect.

    3. Ricardo, a flat or fair tax will come but only with legislative changes. Rick favors the fair tax and would support it. He served on the senate Armed services committee so has the knowledge of the troubles in the middle east. He is very well informed on Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Israel. Something Romney certainly doesn’t have. He is a true social conservative which constitutes the base of the republican party. The key to winning any election is to turn out votes, especially the base. Look at Nevada turn out. Dismal for Romney and Newt.

      1. His record states that he voted against it (the flat tax), and he isn’t campaigning on a Fair Tax now which you say he favors. In fact, when debating Cain early on, he was famous for turning to the crowd in New Hampshire and saying in his shrill voice “Do any of you want another sales tax!? Raise your hand!” He never had anything positive to say about it, and he constantly distorted the true nature of it. The 999 plan was derived from the fair tax and would lead into the fair tax with a constitutional amendment at a later time. Santorum, however, was never interested in the facts.

Comments are closed.