Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dear South Carolinians: A vote for Perry or Santorum is a vote for Romney’s inevitability

Dear South Carolinians: A vote for Perry or Santorum is a vote for Romney’s inevitability

Quin Hillyer, who has been pretty brutal in his posts about Newt, details the reasons to doubt that Romney can beat Obama, Why Romney is Weak vs. Obama:

Then there’s the attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital. The attacks are over-the-top and unfair. But coming from the left in a general election campaign, they will work. That’s how a weakened Ted Kennedy in a Republican year blew open a tight race against Romney and won by a landslide — by attacking Bain (and by some subtle but effective exploitation of anti-Mormon bigotry, which unfortunately and unfairly and sickeningly will probably cost Romney a point and a half from otherwise GOP voters this year as well). What’s particularly devastating here is when a candidate’s big vulnerability is in the very area he tried to, and expected to, make his biggest political strength. Romney’s main selling point has been that he is a good businessman who proved himself in the private sector; if that gets taken away, he’s toast, because his record as governor was nothing to write home about, with his only significant “achievement” being the execrable one of Romneycare. This is very much akin to what happened to John Kerry, who tried to make his major selling point his supposed military “heroism,” when the highly on-target Swift Boat attacks made that same military service into a slight net liability. You can’t win when your biggest selling point is actually a vulnerability.

Among other things, Hillyer notes growing concern even among those favorably inclined towards Romney that he cannot overcome the Bain and other problems in a general election.

If Mitt Romney wins in South Carolina by a substantial margin, the narrative of inevitability will gain even more momentum, and we will head towards the nomination of a candidate without giving the electability concerns a chance to mature.

The most recent polling points towards Newt as being the only candidate with the potential to beat Romney in South Carolina.

As discussed yesterday, Insider Advantage has Romney up 2 over Newt.  American Research Group today has Romney up 4 over Newt, and Rasmussen up 9.  In all of these polls, Santorum and Perry are far behind.

PPP polling released a poll a few minutes ago which is consistent with these other polls.

Mitt Romney continues to hold a modest lead in South Carolina’s Republican primary for President.  He’s at 29% to 24% for Newt Gingrich, 15% for Ron Paul, 14% for Rick Santorum, 6% for Rick Perry, 5% for Jon Huntsman, and 1% for Buddy Roemer.

Voter in South Carolina have a choice.  Split the conservative vote among Newt, Perry and Santorum, and allow the narrative of Romney inevitability to continue before Romney’s general election problems sort themselves out.  Or coalesce around the candidate who is most competitive with Romney.

It’s not going to be something Perry and Santorum supporters will like to hear, but reality in this primary season is what it is.  A vote for Perry or Santorum in South Carolina is a vote for Romney’s inevitability.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

A vote for Newt or Santorum is a vote for Romney. Vote Rick Perry!

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Astroman. | January 13, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    Perry is in single digits, it’s not going to happen, at least not in South Carolina. We can push to strip votes towards Perry and maybe push him into the teens, which would be heaven for Romney with all three conservative opponents bunched double digits behind him.

      I’m in SC, so I probably have a better grasp of what’s going down here than you do. So here’s the deal:

      I think it is likely that Newt will edge out Romney for first place anyway. There is no way, though, that Newt is going to beat Romney by a large margin (unless the attack ads against Romney really hit home – possible, but a huge Newt margin of victory will only come from Romney going way down, not Newt going way up).

      Santorum is going down. Now that his Iowa bump is fading, there is just no way a pro-union Yankee is going to do well, especially not against Perry, a pro-job growth Southerner.

      I believe the ARG poll is far more accurate, which shows that Perry has doubled his support, and Santorum is imploding.

      And the fact is, Perry is a much better not-Romney over the long haul, because he is a better contrast against Romney, and has better organizational and fund-raising potential.

        raven in reply to Astroman. | January 13, 2012 at 4:09 pm

        Perry is over. Good guy, but out of his element.

          Astroman in reply to raven. | January 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm

          Yeah, Cainiacs were telling me that for the longest time.

          People been saying the same about Newt, too.

          I’m content to let the voters decide. =)

          Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to raven. | January 13, 2012 at 4:18 pm

          The difference being that Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum all have some concrete accomplishments to help them repudiate the attacks. All Romney has is his much vaunted ‘electability’.

          retire05 in reply to raven. | January 13, 2012 at 5:48 pm

          Well, look at the upside if he is. We get to keep him as Governor in Texas, will continue to see jobs, and companies, move to our state and unemployment decrease, will continue to see state revenues increase and debt decrease, pubic per capita debt will continue to decrease, and people like you will continue to move here from your loser state when you lose your job.

          raven in reply to raven. | January 13, 2012 at 7:03 pm

          “and people like you will continue to move here from your loser state when you lose your job.”

          I consider Perry a solidly performing public servant and a gentleman — heads and shoulders above Romney. But he just never seemed to have the heart or hunger for this pursuit.

          Thanks for the well wishes.

    workingclass artist in reply to Astroman. | January 13, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Sometimes just running for office can have an impact…and maybe start something BIG!

    Gov. Rick Perry on the Citizen Legislators Act
    06:01 PM, January 12, 2012

    AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement on the Citizen Legislators Act filed today by Illinois Congressman Timothy V. Johnson.

    “I applaud Rep. Johnson for filing legislation to create a part-time, citizen congress that will restore the vision of our founding fathers. This bill aligns closely with my Uproot and Overhaul Washington plan, which calls for cutting congressional sessions, staffs and salaries in half.

    “I support Rep. Johnson’s legislation because I believe members of Congress should spend less time in Washington and more time living at home under the laws they pass with the people they represent.

    “Americans are tired of Washington politicians who are out of touch, spend all their time inside the beltway, and whose reckless spending and corrupt practices are endangering our great nation. It is time to send these politicians back home to get real jobs rather than spending all their time in Washington spending money we don’t have on programs we don’t need.

    “With a part-time congress, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars, end the permanent political class and begin a complete overhaul of Washington’s broken status quo.”

    http://data.greenvilleonline.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/12/gov-rick-perry-on-the-citizen-legislators-act/

hillyers article cites romneyites expressing misgivings about romneys electability in the general. this is cowardly bet hedging on their part. they want to get on the record so no matter which way it goes they can say they toldus so. on the other hand prof is on the record from the outset raising these issues wen it was not popular.

Karen Sacandy | January 13, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Alot can change in a week.

The idea that Gingrich is a better candidate than Romney ignores Gingrich’s propensity to be infatuated with his ideas, regardless of their philosophic underpinnings. He’s “conservative” one day, the next day, he’s somewhere else. Depends on his mood.

Dear Conservatives –

Don’t vote for the person you think is best because I say so. Oh, and if you do then you really are just stupid. In other words – just act like Democrats and vote the way other people tell you to 😉

Or, you could vote for Dr. Paul and make a statement that fiscal policy and smaller government are your most important issues. Otherwise, a vote for Perry, Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich is nothing more than a voter for “more of the same,” which will be no choice in November.

    Astroman in reply to princepsCO. | January 13, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    Well… a vote for Ron Paul certainly makes a “statement,” I’ll give you that much. =)

    scottinwisconsin in reply to princepsCO. | January 13, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Well said. 20% of SC seems to be there already.
    Intrade also has Paul shooting solidly into 3rd over the last couple days. It had Iowa and NH just right.
    Hopefully, both Paul and Newt can pass Mitt before primary day.

    Dynamism in reply to princepsCO. | January 13, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    I’m Libertarian, but Newt has reasonably good limited government credentials, and his positions tend to be philosophically consistent on the matter—most importantly, they’re also pragmatically achievable. And he has the right force of personality to present the ideological contrast America needs right now. So, I’m glad to support him.

    I like Ron Paul okay, but he makes me hesitant because as far as I can tell, he’s sat up there in Congress for 30+ years and hasn’t successfully lead any major initiatives to roll back government. Newt, however, has done so.

Karen Sacandy | January 13, 2012 at 4:25 pm

I realize Professor Jacobson resented National Review’s characterization of Gingrich as “zany,” but the fact is, Gingrich talked about improving Alzheimers (sp?) treatments as one of the factors in controlling medical care. He talked about going to Mars. He criticized Ryan’s efforts to get a handle on the budget. When you have a candidate talking about treatments for specific diseases, you don’t have a conservative. You have someone who wants to direct medical care from governmental control. Either R & D will solve this or it won’t. It shouldn’t change the structure of how medical care in this country is delivered, whether between patients, doctors and their free-market insurers, or by government “death panels.”

As for Mars, does Gingrich know we have a deficit? Does he know there are private entities working on space flight? Please, let’s not have a dreamy-eyed republican spend my mortgage and/or medical care money on trips to Mars.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    We’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven’t read what Gingrich said about Alzheimers and Mars. If you have, you already know you are misrepresenting it – like Teams Romney or Paul would.

    Gingrich spoke of federally funded medical research as an adjunct to any health care reform efforts, the idea being that we reduce the costs of treating diseases if we, you know, cure them. What a horrible idea, huh? Alzheimers was just an example he used of a costly, chronic disease that requires major treatment dollars, one where research could greatly reduce costs to the system via progress on medical research. Geez, hang the guy, huh?

    Gingrich spoke on Mars as a mining project, but his idea wasn’t on Mars, per se. It was on how we fund space missions in economic hard times. The ‘Mars Prize’ idea basically is that instead of a long-term, expensive NASA program, Congress would appropriate some large sum, say $20 billion, and dangle as a prize for private aerospace firms to go for by successfully achieving the mission, whatever it is (again, Mars was just an example). The idea would lower the overall costs to federal gov’mt greatly, since the private sector is so much more efficient and non-politicized as NASA is now. Gingrich was not terribly serious about it, and the idea reflects the musings of an intellectual who is also a fan of space exploration. It was not any sort of platform plank or plan for a Gingrich administration.

      Hope Change in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm

      Very true, Henry Hawkins. Newt also has said that he supports private entities developing space and space travel.

      I know what Newt is proposing because I have watched Newt’s speeches.

      There are now 17 of Newt’s speeches on NEWT GINGRICH SPEECHES on Facebook. Scroll Down to find the speeches.

      Starting with “WHY I AM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT,” at the POLK COUNTY, IOWA GOP BANQUET.

      Oh, and yes, Karen S, with all due respect, Newt is WELL AWARE that we have a deficit.

      Newt has excellent ideas for turning things around as Reagan did in the 80’s. The American people were creating MILLIONS of jobs within, I think, less than two years after Reagan’s inauguration.

      Newt has a clear plan for finding the lowest TAX RATE for producing the highest TAX REVENUES, just as was done under Kennedy, Reagan and G.W. Bush. Plus, making regulations fair, predictable, helpful to business and long-range, so thta businesses can plan. Also, 100% expensing so our businesses have the best, most up-to-date equipment in the world. Zero capital gains tax so that all those billions tied up overseas can COME HOME. Watch the speeches if you want to understand.

      This is the opportunity of a lifetime. Unless you want banker Potter to keep running Pottersville.

    workingclass artist in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 14, 2012 at 12:37 am

    Truth is Romney was against Newt’s Space Capitalism.

    Now how come the Clearchannel Nabobs aren’t yammering about that?

Oh my, oh my…

South Carolina is yet another open primary state. Since Obama is unopposed, what is a true-blue Obamabot supposed to do on election day?

(Hint: the answer is NOT “stay home from the polls and sit on your thumbs.”)

Karen Sacandy | January 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm

I like Dr. Paul, but I heard some of his calls or advertising to voters described Rick Santorum as pro-choice, a lie if I ever heard one.

We don’t have a line-item veto thanks to the courts, so you can’t vote for a pure bill, even if you want to.

I’d like to see a choice between Dr. Paul and Rick Santorum.

    scottinwisconsin in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    As I recall, that claim was based on Santorum repeatedly voting to increase Planned Parenthood funding.
    Why on earth would a conservative, pro life candidate vote to do that? (Answer: to get re-elected in PA?)
    I’m against virtually ALL government spending, but some is even more obviously bad than others. That’s a bad one.
    Perhaps someone has other data on this . . .

The “Stop Romney Express” has only one engine and his name is Newt Gingrich.

    scottinwisconsin in reply to conductor. | January 13, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    Newt, who got 13% of the vote in Iowa, followed by 9% of the vote in NH.

    As opposed to Ron Paul, who got 21% of the vote in Iowa, followed by 23% of the vote in NH.

    I don’t think “express” means what you think it means. . .

Gingrich is now running an ad attacking Romney . . . for speaking French.

Interesting, since Newt’s doctorate is in Euro-history and he cites well over 100 sources in the original French in his dissertation, as well as several interviews in Belgium (although the language wasn’t specified).

Obama will attack whoever the nominee is. Bain attacks against Romney will be untrue. He won’t need to lie to attack Gingrich, the little snake.

We conservatives ditched this loser from the Speakership when the Establishment was willing to keep him after he plea bargained his ethics violations. Instead of going home to Georgia, Newt bought a house in Virginia to stay close to his revolving door of influence peddling.

His attacks on Romney have been analyzed and found false and misleading. There is absolutely nothing about the man which would qualify him for the highest office in the world, no reason to believe he could do the job, and certainly no reason to think he would do anything but go down in flames and take the down-ticket with him.

But it seems the same people who swore Cain was Da Man until he got caught in his zipper now want us to go with Newt, whose idea of “family values” is porking the help.

Of course, just because you committed adultery against your first two wives doesn’t mean you’ll do it again – but it’s wise to keep a $500,000 line of credit at Tiffany’s, just in case.

    Dynamism in reply to Estragon. | January 13, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    It’s better for Romney’s sketchy Bain Capital record to be exposed now for the liability that it is—either way, if Romney ends up the nominee, Obama will annihilate him in the general. Romney’s a wishy-washy technocrat who can’t present a decisive ideological contrast between himself and Obama, nor does Romney possess an effective force of personality to counterbalance the rhetoric that the Leftist machine will mercilessly slaughter him with.

Midwest Rhino | January 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm

We see polls giving Romney a three point lead head to head with Obama, but Gingrich is close too.

Where is the poll of Romney head to head with Gingrich? (or any other not Romney). Despite all the big money for Romney, and all the Republican Establishment media campaigning for him, I’d bet Newt would beat Mitt by at least 10 points. Obama needs a third party spoiler, and “inevitable” Mitt still needs the ABR vote split several ways.

DINORightMarie | January 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm

OT but related – who is Ron Paul attacking now? And, who is attacking Ron Paul? From all the buzz about Paul, that DeMint and Palin are supposedly “supporting” Paul (or at least some of his ideas), Ron Paul seems to be the spoiler more so than Santorum or Perry.

I agree that the vote is split; however, Paul is the one who is getting so much attention, but is totally unelectable in the general. Why vote for Paul when he is such an unstable, loose cannon – and has such a dangerous foreign policy?

(Paul-bots, please don’t SPAM me. Just stating the reality from my viewpoint.)

    Yeah, I love the line that Santorum is out despite tying Romney in Iowa and tying Newt in NH.

    scottinwisconsin in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    “unstable?”

    Why, because he isn’t on this third wife, or 2nd position on every topic that matters.

    Because he isn’t suddenly against the free market, now that it might pander to the weak of mind?

    You take a guy who has been saying THE EXACT SAME THINGS for 30 years — things that are plainly right and true, and fitting with the Constitution, and dismiss him as “unstable.”

    You’re an idiot.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm

      Not much of a salesman, are ya?

        scottinwisconsin in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 13, 2012 at 5:08 pm

        There aren’t many minds open here, as far as I can tell. And anyone who simply dismisses a medical doctor, with a 50 year marriage, and a 24 year record of consistent defense of the Constitution, as “unstable” isn’t exactly listening to reason. And IS an idiot.
        It’s not my job to try to win over the big-government Republicans — I’m already betting on the inevitable collapse.

    princepsCO in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 13, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    “Why vote for Paul when he is such an unstable, loose cannon – and has such a dangerous foreign policy?”

    Good question. I guess it comes down to your definitions of “unstable” and “loose cannon,” or at the least, your foundation for such assertions.

    Is he unstable because he delivered over 4000 babies and still opposes abortion being paid for by taxpayers? or unstable because he rarely votes Yes, and never when a bill is blatantly unconstitutional, just to get a good ‘rating’ from the peanut gallery?

    Is he a loose cannon because he sees the destruction to the American economy by continuing unconstitutional wars that drain both treasury and blood? or is it because the Constitution as written such that Congress should be sending troops to war, not the Executive Branch, and Dr. Paul says “No More!”

    A dangerous foreign policy? compared to what? Compared to the foreign policy followed since 1945? Our current foreign policy basically comes down to: If we can bribe you to do as we wish, we will; if we can’t, we’ll send in the Marines.

    As a conservative, I, too, want a country where I feel safe from the saber rattling of China and Russia. BUT, I do not want military bases in over 100 countries just to prop up dictators and thugs (Middle East since 1945), to pay back investors with plantations (Central American 1950s), or to “police” the behavior of States that the current Administration doesn’t trust (worldwide since 1945).

    Usually, conservatives are sub-divided into fiscal, security-state, and social “brands.” Fiscal conservatives have been given the shaft by Democrats and Republicans since the 1960s, and it shows. When, not if, the economy crashes, Democrats and security-state/social conservative Republicans will be to blame.

    Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate in the mix, Democrat or Republican, with a plan to remove $1 trillion dollars from the first budget he submits to Congress. And his plan is only a beginning because, with yearly spending to the tune of $4.5 trillion a year with over $1.5 borrowed from China, we need to spend $1 trillion Less than the Federal government takes in EVERY YEAR to pay the more than $100 Trillion in liabilities and debt already incurred.

      retire05 in reply to princepsCO. | January 13, 2012 at 5:53 pm

      I suggest you dig deeper into Ron Paul’s history. All you are basing your opinion on is what he says, not what he had done. And frankly, as a Ron Paul For Congress precinct chair years ago, I certainly am pleased that he has announced that if he doesn’t win the nomination, when it comes to his Congressional seat, he is done.

      Maybe he can share a room with Shiela Jackson Lee at Shoal Creek Hospital.

        valleyforge in reply to retire05. | January 13, 2012 at 11:54 pm

        If you know something different why don’t you share sources instead of making ad hominem attacks. princeps doesn’t need to rely on what Paul says. Paul has a voting record of 12 terms in Congress.

        Of course Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum supporters have to rely on what the candidates say now because their records contradict them.

Still time for Newt to pick up steam. Looking at SC Primary history…the only Republicans to go on to a general election win all had 49% or better win in SC. It would seem…since 1980 anyway a really strong showing in SC is an indication perhaps of general election prospects.

1980: Ronald Reagan won with 55%, defeating runner-up John Connally.
1984: Uncontested (Reagan was the incumbent president and was re-nominated).
1988: George H. W. Bush won with 49%, defeating runner-up Bob Dole.
1992: George H. W. Bush won with 67%, defeating runner-up Pat Buchanan.
1996: Bob Dole won with 45%, defeating runner-up Pat Buchanan.
2000: George W. Bush won with 53%, defeating runner-up John McCain.
2004: Uncontested (Bush was the incumbent president and was re-nominated).
2008: John McCain won with 33%, defeating runner-up Mike Huckabee.
2012: TBD

So…perhaps based on SC anyway…doesnt look like Romney with perhaps 25-30% projected is all that demonstrative of electability.

    valleyforge in reply to jimzinsocal. | January 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm

    Never-beens get knocked down every cycle. There was a time when no president had ever been elected without winning the New Hampshire primary. Until Bill Clinton was elected. Then it was no Republican has been nominated without winning New Hampshire…until Bob Dole. Then it was no Republican ever won both Iowa and New Hampshire…until Romney. Now it’s no Republican has ever been nominated without winning South Carolina. It might stand up this year, but that would just be by chance.

Karen Sacandy | January 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm

All this talk about people bowing out. Lack of money may do it, but why any other reason?

I don’t know the rules at the convention, but why can’t all the 2nd, 3rd, etc. candidates stay in, and AT the CONVENTION, on the 2nd 3rd 4th ballot, start consolidating behind one candidate, meaning NOT ROMNEY?

If they stay in, at the rate things are going, they’ll have cumulatively, 2/3 of the delegates. Then they pick whomever they wish instead of Romney.

This irrational urge to pick one, before 98% of the country has had one vote, baffles me.

As for Gingrich, I agree with ScottinWisconsin above. Gingrich’s vote totals are unimpressive. Either Santorum or Paul so far have earned the number 2 slot to continue on, if you insist that only one should.

Huntsman, no; Perry, no; Gingrich, no.

    scottinwisconsin in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 13, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Starting Super Tuesday (and also Florida), the states are winner take all for delegates.
    So soon, it will be hard for anyone other than the “front runner” to get ANY delegates.
    So they can stay in, and keep getting 10-15% of the vote, and NO delegates. And without money, they won’t get 15% of the vote.
    There are some caucuses out west that Paul may well win outright, and thus gather delegates, even if Romney is winning other states.
    But for the rest, they simply aren’t accumulating delegates. (I think Newt has 1 delegate so far. Paul is in 2nd place, with a good number of delegates.)

      Karen Sacandy in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm

      I see. I was mistaken. I thought most of them were pro rata now, not vice versa.

      Thanks.

      Perhaps you should recheck your math. Coming out of Iowa, Santorum, Romney and Paul all had 6 delegates, Newt with 5, Perry with 4 and Bachmann with 1.

      Now add to those totals New Hampshire which was not winner-take all. Paul garnered 24% of 12 delegats, or 3 delegates. That gives him a total of 9. Not exactly an eyepopping number when you consider he needs 1143 to take the nomination.

      It is wholly possible that the winner of South Carolina (non-proportional) will be wiped out in Florida. And no one will have enough delegates at the end of the vote counting after Super Tuesday. And Paul, being the little weasel he is, will not throw his delegates to anyone else.

      It’s going to be a long, bumpy ride.

        princepsCO in reply to retire05. | January 13, 2012 at 5:59 pm

        Sounds like a good thought, so I did….. went to http://teapartycheer.com/election-info/republican-delegate-count/2012-republican-delegate-count/ where I see

        Romney 13
        Paul 9
        Unassigned (Elite votes at convention) 8
        Santorum 6
        Gingrich 4
        Perry 3

        So yes, Karen, it is too early for candidates to throw in the towel if they truly wish to carry forward the values of the people who vote for them. If they’re just in it to get the press time for the next time around (I’m looking at you, Huntsman), then moving forward against the money and inside brokers is foolish…..unless you are part of the inside broker set.

          workingclass artist in reply to princepsCO. | January 13, 2012 at 9:56 pm

          Texas has 155 delegates and Perry won’t give that up easy…no way.

          He could tie either Romney or Paul and he will win that state.

          valleyforge in reply to princepsCO. | January 13, 2012 at 11:36 pm

          @workingclassartist – Texas is a pure proportional state. So Perry would have to win by quite a large margin to get a substantial net delegate lead.

        scottinwisconsin in reply to retire05. | January 13, 2012 at 7:16 pm

        Or, we can check with CNN, who seems to understand how delegates are assigned:

        Romney 14
        Paul 10
        Santorum 8
        Gingrich 2
        Huntsman 2
        Perry 2

        http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/calculator/

          valleyforge in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 13, 2012 at 11:39 pm

          The Iowa delegate allocation isn’t just known. It won’t be determined until the June state convention. January 3rd was just the start of a long process and the publicized vote was in no way binding on how those delegates are chosen. So the “hard” delegate totals are based solely on NH:

          Romney: 7
          Paul: 3
          Huntsman: 2

          Plus Romney has a few delegates who have endorsed him among the party chairs and national committeemen who are automatic delegates and whose states allow them to make their own decision. They can still change their mind so they are considered “soft”.

    Hope Change in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 13, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    Hi Karen Sacandy — with all due respect, sincerely, IMO Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who can win the general election. Newt has a clear plan, starting on the FIRST DAY, to turn around our economy, restore self-government through the 10th Amendment, re-balance power among the three CO-EQUAL branches of the federal government.

    If you want to know more, see “STRONG AMERICA NOW” on YouTube.

    IMO Newt is the only candidate who can defeat Obama.

    Newt will team up with conservatives running for Congress and the Senate so that we are clear from the FIRST DAY what we plan to do to put America back on the road to prosperity and constitutionally-based government. They’ll be restoring the approach of Reagan.

    Romney lost to McCain, who lost to Obama. I support Newt wholeheartedly.

Henry Hawkins | January 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm

I’ve debated whether to share such sensitive information on the internetz, but what the hell….

In 1975, while a politically naive undergrad upon whom leftist mantras had been dumped for years like a Texas thunderstorm, and at the tail end of a month-long binge on alcohol, marijuana, and mushrooms, while wearing platform shoes, bell bottom jeans, and a Velvet Underground tee shirt, long after a Bob Seger concert and at the very end of a long, confusing evening, say 5 am, in the laundry room in a cheap hotel near the Detroit waterfront, I’m about 95% sure I slept with Ron Paul.

*sigh*

Astroman | January 13, 2012 at 4:24 pm

Well… a vote for Ron Paul certainly makes a “statement,” I’ll give you that much. =)

It makes a statement that you have lost your mind.

    Hope Change in reply to BarbaraS. | January 13, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    thank you. laughing felt good!

    scottinwisconsin in reply to BarbaraS. | January 13, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Yea, that whole “following and Defending the Constitution” thing is just Wacky! What’s up with those crazy folk?

    What we really need is a guy who says whatevery we want to hear, promises us guns and butter, and then steals our money and our freedom. And bankrupts the country in the process.

    Wait. We’ve got one of THOSE! Why do we need another?

      Henry Hawkins in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 13, 2012 at 8:20 pm

      Name one major rollback of government spending led by Ron Paul and then we’ll talk about folks blindly following someone because he says what you want to hear.

        valleyforge in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 13, 2012 at 9:15 pm

        620 of them. But I won’t blame him for 218+ other representatives not wanting to actually cut spending.

        He walks the walk, votes against higher spending and taxes every time, returns money to the treasury from his own congressional office, including part of his salary.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to valleyforge. | January 14, 2012 at 10:56 am

          Name one major rollback effort led by Ron Paul. Just one. Should be incredibly easy for a Paul supporter to do. The guy’s been in Congress for decades. Surely just one can be named. Or maybe Paul is just good at getting naive idealists to swallow his spoken calls for hope and change?

          Just one. Name it.

Karen Sacandy | January 13, 2012 at 4:25 pm

“I realize Professor Jacobson resented National Review’s characterization of Gingrich as “zany,” but the fact is, Gingrich talked about improving Alzheimers (sp?) treatments as one of the factors in controlling medical care. He talked about going to Mars. He criticized Ryan’s efforts to get a handle on the budget. When you have a candidate talking about treatments for specific diseases, you don’t have a conservative. You have someone who wants to direct medical care from governmental control”

Got news for you, lady, alzheimer disease is the leading cause of high medical care. If you have or know someone who has alzheimer you would understand that families have gone bankrupt taking care of these people.

I want us to go into outer space as we used to do. Now we are letting China do it. Iran claims ability to do it also.

Ryan admitted he needed to tone is budget down and did so.

I’ve got news for you. The governemnt, more or less, has had control of the medical field for a couple of decades. Remember FDA and oversight and strict regulations re insurance coverage. Also, how hospitals can operate.

    Hope Change in reply to BarbaraS. | January 13, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    BarbaraS – agreed! I appreciate the energy.

    Newt’s speech at the Alzheimer’s Annual Awards banquet changed my understanding of what families go through, and the amazing breakthroughs we can expect in brain science in the next few years, and the money we can save if we can just DELAY the onset of Alzheimer’s for 5 years (to say nothing of what we could do if we can cure Alzheimer’s).

Karen Sacandy

|”I don’t know the rules at the convention, but why can’t all the 2nd, 3rd, etc. candidates stay in, and AT the CONVENTION, on the 2nd 3rd 4th ballot, start consolidating behind one candidate, meaning NOT ROMNEY?”

The GOP establishment doesn’t pick their delegates randomly. They are hard core GOP members who will obey the party higher ups. The real danger to us is that these delegates would pick someone else (Romney) at the convention if someone else is nominated.

Karen Sacandy | January 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm

My Dad has Alzheimers. He’s 96.

Where in the Constitution does it provide for exploration of space? Where? Why does your whim to go to space give you permission to point a gun at me and take my money? Iran, in space? The Muslims haven’t invented much of anything in the last two hundred years that I’m aware of. Their big thing is intimidation through mutilation.

Yes, the government is a big player in medicine. And has been for some time. That doesn’t mean I endorse it, have endorsed it, or will endorse it. I’m simply observing that Gingrich wants to play R & D director. I think those trained in the various areas of medical research would do better. I don’t want to play Gingrich to play head of medical research, nor Hillary. I got a group of doctors together in 1994 and we picketed outside while Hillary made an appearance before the Medical Association of Georgia in support of Hillarycare.

The DMV in charge of medical research and in charge of deciding what protocols will be adopted, one size fits all. Please fill out my death certificate now.

    scottinwisconsin in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 13, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    Wise observations. Sorry about your dad.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 13, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    “Where in the Constitution does it provide for exploration of space?”

    Congress, as the voice of the people, is empowered to fund initiatives, including space exploration. If enough people don’t like what Congress approves, they may vote their respective representatives out. Do we really need to hold a 4th grade level civics class here?

    “I’m simply observing that Gingrich wants to play R & D director. I think those trained in the various areas of medical research would do better.”

    Gingrich does not want to play R & D director, and he also thinks those trained in research are the best choice to conduct it. You have to understand that the penalty for your ignorance of what Gingrich has said does not accrue to Gingrich. It accrues to you.

    “The DMV in charge of medical research and in charge of deciding what protocols will be adopted, one size fits all. Please fill out my death certificate now.”

    Such ill feeling and anger are the unfortunate but just rewards of your ignorance. You simply have it all wrong.

      Karen Sacandy in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 13, 2012 at 8:43 pm

      You don’t understand limited government.

      ‘Nuff said.

      scottinwisconsin in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 13, 2012 at 10:26 pm

      “Congress, as the voice of the people, is empowered to fund initiatives,”

      Spoken like a good Republicrat big government worshipper. The police state flows directly from that sick idea.

      You make an excellent slave. Congrats.

      “I have seen the enemy, and he is us.”

        Henry Hawkins in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 14, 2012 at 11:01 am

        What happened in 2010? With a Republican landslide all the way down the ticket, did the people not speak their voice on what sort of initiatives the US and state legislatures ought to enact?

        What is Paul going to do, wave a magic wand?

          scottinwisconsin in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 14, 2012 at 11:25 am

          You think the 2010 landslide was a vote for more “government initiatives”?

          Ya, that’s the sign I kept seeing at Tea Parties. “MORE GOV. INITIATIVES”

          You’re one delusional dude.

      Hope Change in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 15, 2012 at 3:22 am

      Henry Hawkins, I think you are right on each point you make.

    Hope Change in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 15, 2012 at 3:18 am

    Hi Karen – I wonder where are these ideas from, of what Newt is proposing.

    Newt is not planning to have the government explore space. He is planning to have incentives, like we did when we wanted railroads built. Private entities will explore space. Newt wants government to encourage private entities to do research, innovate, explore and have initiative.

    If you actually could see Newt describing his policy proposals, what he’s talking about, instead if second hand “reports,” you would know. Watch “STRONG AMERICA NOW,” about space and engineering and aerospace and manufacturing and Lean Six Sigma. these are exciting ideas and have nothing to do with government running anything. Newt wants the government running LESS.

    Newt is also not planning to be the head of brain science or medicine.

    Where do such ideas come from?

    Your concerns are based on a really distorted impression of what Newt is talking about.

    Newt’s own mother was very ill with Alzheimer’s-like symptoms, or at least deteriorative challenges to her mental functioning. Newt studied the question of how brain science can help us delay the onset of Alzheimer’s because of the wrenching experience with his mother. Newt also talks a lot about the terrible toll on the families of people with Alzheimer’s.

    If you would like to see the depth of Newt’s care and understanding of these issues, you could watch two of Newt’s speeches about Alzheimer’s and brain research. The speeches are at the Facebook page NEWT GINGRICH SPEECHES. Scroll down and you will see the titles. One is at the Alzheimer’s Awards Banquet and the other is at Iowa State University in Iowa City.

    I can understand that you like Santorum. Fair enough. But you keep describing concerns with Newt that aren’t based on Newt’s proposals. I hope you will check these speeches out so you will know.

Karen Sacandy | January 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm

It’s Friday evening and I just watched a GOP candidate presentation in South Carolina, at a high school, shown on C-Span. I missed Gringrich, but saw Rick Santorum asked questions. At the end, he made a couple of poignant observations.

First, he noted the parallels between now and 1980 when Carter was president and described the country as suffering from “malaise,” and Iran was holding American hostages. He noted that then, South Carolina chose Ronald Reagan, but then, Ronald Reagan wasn’t the man we remember. He was just another candidate that every one was describing as “too conservative.” He noted that South Carolina made it possible for Reagan to BECOME the Reagan we remember.

He continued, making some general observations about South Carolina, that they valued smaller government, lower taxes. I can’t remember all the items he mentioned, perhaps religion, perhaps family…. then he mentioned something all the candidates hear from voters, “Why did you compromise? Why did you vote for ‘x’? Why didn’t you stand firm and vote your principles?”

He then delivered the coup de grace. He said, “Why don’t you [voters] vote your principles? Why don’t you [voters] stand firm and support your principles?”

He said those that want South Carolinians to vote for a candidate that doesn’t share their values, to vote for the most “electable,” are those that don’t share the values of South Carolinians, but do share the values of those they are urging South Carolina to vote for.

One of the most impassioned and reasoned closings I have ever heard.

“Voter in South Carolina have a choice. Split the conservative vote among Newt, Perry and Santorum, and allow the narrative of Romney inevitability to continue before Romney’s general election problems sort themselves out. Or coalesce around the candidate who is most competitive with Romney.”

Thanks for the endorsement of President Paul, Professor.

I might also note he runs much better than any of the other conservatives against Obama.

Any of these clowns are going to get clobbered by Obama and the mainstream media shills.

All this hot stove league speculation comes down to one simple, undeniable fact … Romney can’t, and won’t, win in November.

I don’t know about South Carolina but I predict a Paul win in Virginia.

The federal court ruled today (properly, I believe) that only Romney and Paul would be on the ballot. I can’t stand either one but I WILL be voting for Paul to stick it to the GOP.

Then I will take my vote to the Constitution Party again since the GOP keeps gaming the system to push RINO progressives on the American people.

Good luck with that…

StephenMonteith | January 14, 2012 at 2:24 am

Professor, I know YOU don’t want to hear it, but even if Newt does win in SC, he won’t win the nomination. He’s finished outside the top three in both Iowa and NH, and, according to revised numbers, Santorum beat him in both states. Looking forward, Santorum is actually on more state ballots than Gingrich is. Newt failed to get on the Missouri ballot as well, remember? Of the two of them, Santorum has the best chance of competing with Romney over the course of the primaries, so if you’re seriously anti-Romney, then Santorum is the candidate you want to back. But if this is just a pro-Newt post, then you may as well let everyone else be pro-whoever they want.

Know why? Because it doesn’t matter. Whoever wins SC, Romney still holds a double-digit lead, over 20 points in some cases, in Florida, Nevada, Arizona, and other states that vote between now and Super Tuesday. And then there’s Super Tuesday. I’m not going to tell you to abandon your vote; but seriously, stop trying to tell other people to abandon theirs. At this point, people can vote for whomever they like and it won’t make a difference.

    StephenMonteith in reply to StephenMonteith. | January 14, 2012 at 2:32 am

    Oh, yeah, Ron Paul. He actually has a better chance of defeating Romney than any other candidate. I’m surprised to see myself typing it, but I suppose I always knew it was true. He got more than twenty percent and finished in the top three in both Iowa and NH, he’s running the best campaign after Romney, and he has an excited base of support. No other candidate can boast that. I should amend my earlier post to say that, if you want a serious ABR candidate, then you should vote for Ron Paul. But I know you won’t.

      scottinwisconsin in reply to StephenMonteith. | January 14, 2012 at 11:30 am

      He’s raised $80,000 in the last hour. It’s fun to watch it tick up. (Somehow, I doubt Newt or Rick are tick up quite like that.)

      https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/

      WarEagle82 in reply to StephenMonteith. | January 14, 2012 at 1:07 pm

      Ron Paul doesn’t have a snowball’s change in H*ll of beating Romney or Obama. Ron Paul is a lunatic. Obama would love to run against Paul. The only good news is that Paul will never get the GOP nomination. The bad news is the GOP field may be the weakest in the last 30 years…

        Henry Hawkins in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 4:09 pm

        Paul himself has admitted he doesn’t see himself ever attaining the White House. He isn’t running for office, he’s just using presidential runs to further the big-L libertarian movement. Unfortunately, all these naive Paulbots conflate movement with action.

        Perhaps a resident Paulbot can tell the class how many bills Paul has sponsored? (Hundreds).

        Perhaps a resident Paulbot can tell the class how many bill has gotten past a vote in all his years in congress? (One).

        Ron Paul: All Talk

Karen Sacandy | January 14, 2012 at 7:33 am

Here is the link to the C-Span video of Friday’s presentation by Gringrich and Rick Santorum.

Santorum’s great closing begins around 1:11:45.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Republican2012Pre/start/0/stop/4306

My suspicion is Romney’s showing in SC will raise more questions than answer. At somewhere between 25 and 30% and others not too far from that mark…he begins to look like a McCain candidate so far as going on to a November win.
That alone will get republicans rethinking things. Assuming of course we read primaries as indicitive of the big picture.

The innate brittleness of the Romney ‘electability’ argument is beginning to show.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend