Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Be (not) nice to Rick day

Be (not) nice to Rick day

It must be great to be Rick Santorum running against Mitt Romney.

By the time Mitt gets to you, after Mike H., John M. and Newt G., all of the sudden there is grave concern that Mitt will not be nice.  What’s that saying, it’s better to be lucky than good?

Via Bill Kristol, who in fairness was fair to Newt:

America is going bankrupt, Iran is going nuclear, the Obama administration is going after religious liberty. And Mitt Romney is going after Rick Santorum….

The Romney campaign often gives the impression that it thinks Republican primary voters are really stupid—and it doesn’t do a very good job of hiding its contempt. The Obama administration clearly thinks the American people are really stupid—and it doesn’t do a very good job of hiding its contempt. It would be nice if the Republican nominee could contrast his respect for the American people with the Obama administration’s contempt.

But not everyone is going to be so nice.  Remember Jennifer Rubin, who was building Rick up as a foil against Newt? Well, she has seen the light on Ricky Bobby from PA and all his bitter clinger stuff:

This is how, in part, he lost Pennsylvania — by appearing extreme and schoolmarmish, too far to the right of average voters in a purple state. If he is the nominee in 2012, he might get some blue-collar fellows, but what about those women in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.? And what about more secularized suburban communities? Fuggedaboutit.

And Mitt’s SuperPAC, you’d think they were new to this with a lame ad, but they’re just warming up for a Crazy Big Gov’t Ricky narrative:

Rick’s response? Whhhhhiiiinnnne (or at least that’s what they would have said if Newt did it:

Mitt’s response to Rick’s response? Who me?

Prognosis:

“If this race does come down to who can run the most negative ads … and  beat them into submission with those negative ads,” [Santorum senior strategist John] Brabender said, “we  can stop the campaign now. It’s Mitt Romney.”

Repeat after me:

 Newt’s third surge will be the charm

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

StrangernFiction | February 15, 2012 at 1:40 pm

they’re just warming up for a Crazy Big Gov’t Ricky narrative

About that:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html

Shocking that the Romney campaign would so mischaracterize Santorum’s record.

    The Weekly Standard article is based on the National Taxpayers Union report cards which look closely at who votes to raise taxes, but sort of skirts the issue of who votes for the largest increase in federal spending on a federal program since Medicare, which was the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

    If fiscal conservatives like Gingrich for balanced budgets, I don’t see Santorum as your man.

    If you object to dishonorable campaign practices, like Romney completely distorting his opponents records, Santorum has slung his share of false and distorted garbage in his last Senate campaign, financially backing an attempt to put a Green Party candidate on the ballot (failed to gather enough signatures), and trying to tie his opponent to the financial backing of people under criminal investigation (one had died years earlier, one had never been under investigation).

    On the other hand, if you think that Newt Gingrich’s experience in engineering the biggest Republican take-over of the House in modern history, and his work toward balanced budgets are important in a leading candidate,I think you have to ask yourself why Gingrich’s campaign is on life-support and completely dependent on a casino mogul, who is now under federal investigation, and who has already signaled that he’s ready to back Romney.

    A lot of people might consider support of Israel central to what they want in a candidate, but I can’t help but wonder how having Gingrich’s preeminent backer being a casino mogul. Maybe I’m just squeamish about gambling, but I always found the euphemism “gaming” distasteful.

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 15, 2012 at 1:59 pm

It’s amazing nobody said anything when Mittens went nuclear on Newt,in fact most encouraged it. It’s more proof of who they really fear to change the status quo. Santorum is a big government social conservative in the mold of Bush 43 and the Huckster. The establishment knows with Santorum, they can go back to their big spending, and earmarking days.
Santorum ran for congress as a pro-choice, “progressive-conservative” (whatever that means): http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_t4cAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3GMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6015,5485825&dq=rick+santorum&hl=en

And also looks like Mittens thug tactics worked in intimidating Newt donor Sheldon Adelson: http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/02/15/billionaire-gingrich-donor-might-keep-giving-money-to-help-romney-stop-santorum/

Newt will be back, after Santorum’s “flavor of the month” surge is over.

Newt DID whine about the attacks, even though it is a normal part of politics. A lot of people on this blog whined about those attacks, too.

The difference is, Santorum’s ad doesn’t whine about them, it makes fun of them. And I don’t care who you are for, that anti-Mitt ad is HILARIOUS!

    WoodnWorld in reply to Astroman. | February 15, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    I have nothing against Rick. I do question whether he has the juice to take Barack on in a national election and am more than curious to see whether his recent rise will last. If he can ah… withstand (<–I wanted to write "weather" there but thought that was too much of the same thing for two sentences…) what is about to hit him, he will have absolutely earned his stripes.

      Well, he does NOT have the juice- and I myself do have a BIG problem with Ricky for precisely this reason

      I didn’t just fight for 3.5 years to mount a lame horse like this… reminds me of the Church Lady on SNL (and I am a church-going Catholic!)

      NEWT is the only conservative warrior we’ve got… laying low in the weeds while the others hack each other to death.

      Can’t wait for Super Tuesday…

    Valerie in reply to Astroman. | February 15, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Actually, the attacks were part of the normal politics for Mitt Romney. Again, for those too obtuse to recognize what’s been going on, the problem for me isn’t the criticism: it’s the lying. Mitt Romney is a liar.

    He also lied during the last campaign, and did lasting damage to the reputations of Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Two Mitt Romney presidential campaigns are a lot of what is wrong with the Republican Party at the national level, right now.

    Newt didn’t whine, although he used clear english to describe what was happening.

    wodiej in reply to Astroman. | February 15, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Oh I am calling MAJOR BS on your comment.Gingrich was not WHINING. How would you respond to someone LYING ABOUT YOU, YOUR REPUTATION, YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS? Gingrich BARELY said anything about it. He certainly was not crying about it. Give ME A FRIGGIN’ BREAK.

    I won’t hit like or dislike on your post because I have to agree that the anti-Mitt ad is HILARIOUS! 🙂

    retire05 in reply to Astroman. | February 15, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Of course Newt complained (whined) about Romney’s ad. He even went so far as to call Romney a liar (well, it was more like “the most dishonest man” type comment). B

    But you don’t understand, Astroman. This is an echo chamber with a separate set of rules for each candidate. What is considered “fact checking” by Gingrich will be considered “whining” by Santorum.

    And not ONE person here complained when Romney created a whole website to attack Rick Perry. All you got from the groupies here was crickets about that.

    Now, watch this post rack up the dislike marks. You see, if you don’t march lockstep with the New Newties, you get a bunch of dislike marks.

If recent history is any measure, this very well may end up being “Be (not) nice to Rick Week (Month).”

Objectively, he is about to get hit with a big bag full of broken brick hammers. Some of those shots are going to land too. Newt’s negatives are known, and as such, he can easily shrug most of them off. Santorum, on the other hand, is relatively unknown and a blank slate upon whom his opponent’s projections can/will be cast upon. It’s a precarious place when those who are against you are so easily able to define both what you are, and are not.

If Rick’s bubble is burst (justifiably or not, fairly or not), I think there is a good chance the energy from his recent surge can/will be almost entirely transferred to Newt. Then, we will have a real race. I, for one, cannot count the good Speaker Phoenix out; he has risen from the ashes twice more than I originally predicted.

It’s been emotional. Perhaps it’s about to get interesting.

Hi Professor – you say, “Repeat after me: Newt’s third surge will be the charm –”

And I respond, yes! I think it is all unfolding as you have foreseen.

I talked to a friend a few days ago who is helping Newt’s campaign to call back thousands of people all over the country who were asked to help and have said they want to help Newt.

The people he’s been calling — all over the country, he said a couple of times — say they can do fundraising, make calls, organize and just overall reach out to help Newt.

My friend was clearly elated because of the good time he had had talking to them –the sheer number of them — that they were all over the country — how smart they are about Newt and the issues facing our country — and just in general how wonderful the whole experience was. I don’t know when I’ve heard him so happy. I felt happy too, hearing it.

Of course, IMO, Newt’s CPAC speech is part of the key going forward, because it’s so brilliant and comprehensive.

Yes, Professor, third time is a charm.

Romney’s abject and pervasive negativity depresses voter turnout, which is not an opinion but is well demonstrated by the post-primary statistics. Where Gingrich wins voter turnout increases, often by a large percentage (22% in SC). Where Santorum wins, turnout is a wash. Where Romney wins, voter turnout is consistently depressed. This is one of many factors that doom a Romney vs Obama candidacy. No matter the nominee, the GOP will not win in November without an enthusiastic voter turnout among independents and registered GOPers.

Obama 52% Romney 48%. Bank on it.

For Romney to attack Santorum for big government spending is like the devil chastising Jesus for being mean to the money changers. Sure you may have a point, but look at whose making it.

Let’s stick with the record that proves Rick Santorum is the real conservative.

So, tell me, Professor:

Did Rick vote for or against tax money for the NEA?
Did Rick vote for or against the Chemical Weapons Convention?
Did Rick vote for or against Start II?
Did Rick vote for or against selling supercomputers to China?
Did Rick vote for or against food sales to Cuba?
Did Rick vote for foreign aid to North Korea?
Did Rick vote for Richard Paez, Sonia Sotomauyor, Richard Holbrooke, Tim Dyk, and James Brady?
Did Rick vote for or against the National Right to Work Act?
Did Rick vote for or against requring all guns to be sold with locks?
Did Rick vote for or against a federal anti-gun school program?
Did Rick vote to force States to allow felons to vote in Federal elections?
Did Rick vote for or against McCain’s FEC reporting amendment?
Did Rick vote for or against increasing the number of immigration investigators?
Did Rick vote to increase tobacco taxes, and to use the gas tax to fund Amtrak?
Did Rick vote for or against food stamp reform?

The list is long.
Rick Santorum is a big-government moderate liberal. He is not a small government conservative.

He would probably not carry his home state of Pennsylvania in a general election – Casey beat him 60/40.

On the merits, although he is a mixed bag, Mitt Romney’s record is more solidly conservative than Rick Santorum’s.

    Given a choice between Romney and Rick, I’m with Rick. Like most rings in life, Rick is simply more conservative than Romney, and more principled. I could run attack ad about how RR was a liberal because he did do some liberal things in his career, but just because he wasn’t perfect doesn’t mean he wasn’t conservative. Romney is an actual liberal. I can’t be convinced otherwise. He’s not as liberal as Obama, but he is in my book a liberal.

    Say_What in reply to Punditarian. | February 15, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Wow, thanks but no thanks for the Romney talking points. You getting paid by the word?

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to Punditarian. | February 15, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    It’s been a month or so since I first asked, with nary a response from any Romney supporter despite repeated follow-ups. So I’ll try again:

    What conservative political accomplishments can Mitt Romney justifably claim?

    Andy Freeman in reply to Punditarian. | February 18, 2012 at 12:22 am

    Yes, Santorum is deeply flawed. However, that actually isn’t an argument for Mittens.

    Mittens has no political skills and is a Biden-class gaffe machine. He ended a long string of Repub wins in Mass. He’s never won without a financial advantage.

    Obama White can’t beat the real thing.

Being from Penn., voters here were furious when they found out that their Senator did not live here – he had moved, and lived in Virginia. He also got involved in a Penn. school district’s fight over intelligent design, taking the side of pushing intelligent design into the school. Supporting Spector over Tomey was just another straw. There was a reason he lost his last election by so much. Not because it was an off year, but that his voters were angry with him. People were publicly denouncing him before the election – never saw anything like that before or since. I don’t claim to speak for all Penn. voters, but I do question whether he would carry Pennsylvania in the general election.

    holmes tuttle in reply to tazz. | February 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    all good points. it wasn’t just living in VA. it was taking 75k in PA tax money to school his kids while living in VA. Real conservative that was.

    Rick Santorum is the President we need. He just is. How dare you. How dare you.

    Next you’ll claim there are polls indicating that Sarah Palin is no longer popular in Alaska.

    Um, wait…

      SmokeVanThorn in reply to gs. | February 15, 2012 at 3:51 pm

      Spoken like a real conservative.

      SmokeVanThorn in reply to gs. | February 16, 2012 at 1:31 pm

      No one in the history of the Internet has ever falsely claimed to be a disillusioned former “X” to try to gain credibility, so your statement that you supported Palin until she resigned is so very compelling.

    Anchovy in reply to tazz. | February 15, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Yeah, but wait until you see Santorum’s support forM groups like Stay At Home Pregnant Barefoot Mothers Of America (SAHPBMOA). It will be overwhelming.

I’m beginning to warm to Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich Opposes Bail Out
— dated: Sep 25, 2008

Yeah, it’s from 2008, but he is a current candidate for president. This is evidence which speaks to his judgment.

The problem is that conservatives don’t trust Romney so any attacks on Santorum don’t really help him.

If I was running the Romney campaign I’d appraoch it differently. I’d air that video of Santorum aying he will actively and vocally oppose the tea party and that they’re bad for the GOP and conservatism. Over and over again.

I’d also air the videos of Santorum endorsing Romnmey and praising him. Over and over again.

And, just as Newt was very effective in SC by attacking Romney from the left on the economy, I’d attack Santorum from the left on social issues. I think it’s Romney’s only chance. He’ll never beat Santorum from the right. He’ll never out social issues him. His only hope is to convince enough people that Santorum will simply be toxic vs Obama. Maybe that won’t be enough. Conservatives are in a fighting mood. They want someone who is going to be upfront about their morals and cultural views and will say it plainly and openly.

But it may be Romney’s only chance. To hope that there’s at least 40% or so of the GOP in MI and elsewhere that don’t want to make the election about the culture war, contraception, birth control, gay rights, and abortion.

To point out that Santorum holds positions where 60-80% of Americans oppose him on.

He wants to ban all funding for stem cell research. 75% of Americans support at least some funding, 52% support expanded funding.

He wants to reinstitute DADT. 75% of Americans supported its repeal and I’d guess even less support reinstating it.

He opposes that Obama HHS rule and thinks it’s a war on religion. 65% of Americans(and 70% or more of women) support Obama on that issue and think it’s nothing close to a war on religion.

He wants to ban all funding for Planned Parenthood. 55% or so of Americans support funding for Planned Parenthood.

He wants abortion illegal in case of rape. 80% or so of Americans want abortion legal in case of rape.

He opposes women in combat. 70-75% or so of Americans support women in combat.

He opposes the Griswold decision and thinks contraception is a pressing danger to society. 99% of women have used contraception and similar #s think it’s just fine. By 56-9 Americans think contraception and the pill have been a beneift for women. Santorum is on the other side.

He wants to abolish the 9th circuit. Imagine if Obama said he wanted to abolish the 5th circuit?

He lost PA by 21 pts among women in 2006 in large part because of the above positions. Two recent polls show Obama already ahead of him by 18 and 21 among women nationally. And Obama hasn’t even started to campaign or even spent 1 penny yet making Americans aware of any of this stuff.

Those #s are big enough that they mean a lot of Republican and conservative women disagree with him. I think Romney’s best chance is to appeal to them and really get them to vote.

BTW, Santorum also voted for and was a big supporter of the Iraq War, something a large # of Americans think was a total mistake and one of the worst things the US has done recently(especially big # among Inependents and Dems).

As I said, that’s just what I’d do if I were Romney. I don’t know if it will matter. Santorum is where the heart is and there’s nothing Romney can do about that. His argument was always based on the economy. Right now it’s clear the economy isn’t driving the primary and social issues are more important(more jobs #s like Feb and the economy will become even less important). Romney will never win that fight.

And I don’t even like Romney. That’s just what I’d do if I were running his campaign.

Maybe he is able to take down Rick and Newt has yet another chance. Stranger things have happened.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 15, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    This comment demonstrates that you would make a good addition to the Romney campaign because you share its integrity and regard for the truth.

      holmes tuttle in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | February 15, 2012 at 4:19 pm

      What part isn’t true?

      Here’s the video of him disavowing the tea party
      http://www.gather.com/viewVideo.action?id=11821949021930761

      Same as Romney disavowed Reagan on video. But this was last year, not 1994.

      Did he or did he not take 75k of PA taxpayer money to homeschool his kids while he lived in VA and did that or did that not play a big role in his getting crushed by 20 pts?

      All the other things are taken directly from his own web site and stated positions and interviews.

      He does support a total ban on stem cell funding
      He does want to reinstitute DADT
      He does think abortion should be illegal in case of rape. He did tell Piers Morgan that getting pregnant as a result of rape is a gift given to a woman from God.
      He does oppose the Obama HHS rule
      He does support a natl personhood amendment to the Constitution
      He does oppose women in combat
      He does think contraception is a danger to society and has been harmful to women and has said he’ll use the WH to talk to Americans about the dangers of contraception
      He does think Griswold was wrongly decided and states should be free to ban birth control
      He does want to abolish the 9th circuit COA
      He did vote for and support the Iraq War

      The polling #s are also all true.

      Which of those things is false? What doesn’t he support or didn’t he say that I said he did?

      You may agree with him, and that’s fine. You may even think most Americans agree with him and that he can win a Presidential election with those views. That’s fine, too.

      But it’s a perfectly accurate description fo his views and platform.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 15, 2012 at 4:35 pm

        Re: stem cell research.

        Adult stem cells (from live donors) have proven to be highly useful, producing many viable and potential therapies.

        Embryonic stem cells (coming from aborted fetuses) have proven to be highly problematic and no viable or potential therapies have come from these cells.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 15, 2012 at 4:46 pm

        Contraception has had many detrimental effects on Western society and on individual women.

        Like any other technological advance, the various contraceptive methods and the use of contraception has pros and cons, short term and long term effects.

        One contraception it has not done is to stop unwanted pregnancies or diseases.

        Similarly, abortion has not prevented child abuse of unwanted children as it was supposed to do. Child abuse has risen 600% since abortion was legalized and the pill was developed.

        STDs have increased exponentially since the development of contraception, despite the development of treatment this rise continues.

        Respect for women has decreased and violence against women has increased since contraception. The most frequent cause of death of pregnant women is murder.

        Another example of the ill effect of a societal change toward women, is the 1400% increase in murders of women since Sharia law was introduced in Turkey and that has been just a few short years.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 15, 2012 at 4:56 pm

        On the whole, on social issues, Santorum is generally correct scientifically and statistically correct according to research. He just needs to make a practice of quoting studies or having his staff give out papers to support his statements.

        When Rick Santorum quotes statistics, he comes across as more authoritative. Without the numbers, what he says comes across as preachy and judgmental.

        God does know best. When we follow His Word/Law/Commandments, society and individuals have a better chance of a more positive healthy outcome.

        Truth is avoided, rejected, repressed, denied…not always welcome.
        Love is counterfeited with lust, self-gratification…we have forgotten virtue, faithfulness, sacrifice, committment, honor, self-control…
        Life is devalued…extinguished for our convenience…guilt.
        We have perverted and distorted God’s good gifts and our own humanity.

        SmokeVanThorn in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 15, 2012 at 8:15 pm

        Here’s a few:

        – he opposed embryonic stem cell research, not all stem cell research

        – he said that states have the right to prohibit contraception but shouldn’t

        – he favored Plan B/morning after abortifacient pill in cases of rape or incest

        And even the Huffington Post aknowledged that Santorum was joking about the 9th Circuit.

        SmokeVanThorn in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 17, 2012 at 11:58 am

        A little more grist for the mill: CNN poll shows 50% of Americans oppose Obama’s Catholic contraception policy, 44% approve.

        As I said, you’re perfect for the Romney team.

        SmokeVanThorn in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 17, 2012 at 12:30 pm

        Santorum on birth control:

        “I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

Windy City Commentary | February 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm

It is worse than you think Professor. Read this link: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291140/adelson-romney-deal-maggie-gallagher

Looks like Newt’s Super PAC will start doing Mitt’s dirty work on Santorum. Meanwhile Mitt’s hands will be clean. Let me remind you that it is against McCain-Feingold rules for a candidate to communicate with or have any control over a Super PAC. Basically, a Super PAC can misrepresent itself as backing one candidate, while it actually does its work for another.

Commenter Uncle Samuel (h/t) adds:
Newt can’t stop Adelson from meeting with Romney’s guys and he can’t decide what his (Newt’s) purported SuperPAC says or does. A candidate can ask SuperPACs to correct errors and pull ads, but the damage is done by then.

Fact is, Newt isn’t holding either the purse strings or making the decisions.

The SuperPACs are a detriment to the election process and they harm the overall image of the candidates and the party – and need to be stopped.

    “The SuperPACs are a detriment to the election process and they harm the overall image of the candidates and the party – and need to be stopped.”

    So we give up more freedom because it gets ugly sometimes? No way.

      Windy City Commentary in reply to conductor. | February 15, 2012 at 3:21 pm

      Instead, we let corporations donate directly to the candidates themselves. That way, each Ad ends with the “I’m Candidate X, and I approve this message”. Newt and Romney’s big donors are not allowed, by law, to give to the candidates directly, if they were there would be no such thing as a Super PAC

      Uncle Samuel in reply to conductor. | February 15, 2012 at 4:28 pm

      Not because it gets ugly, but because the SuperPACs are an EXCUSE NOT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for mud-slinging and lies.

      It’s better for each candidate to be FULLY RESPONSIBLE for any ad that endorses them or uses their names. Any official endorsement or advertisement should be made with the candidate’s approval.

      It is confusing for the voter to hear a candidate say, “well, that was a ‘SuperPAC’ and I can’t help what they say.”

      Hope Change in reply to conductor. | February 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm

      Hi conductor — all due respect, as I understand it, the superpacs are not an example of our freedom.

      the superpacs are an ill-featured offshoot of the campaign finance law of Feingold and Mccain.

      IIRC, first McCain and Feingold took away our freedom. then the courts put back some of it.

      Newt says: let any american give any amount of after-tax money to any candidate. let it be reported that night on line. Accountability and transparency.

      this would go a long way to destroy the cartel of consultants and politicians who run our current political processes and think that means they run us.

      the superpacs are not accountable to the candidate and that is why the Left and those who use these labyrinthine laws to manipulate the public prefer them. Romney can stand there, bland yet pained, saying he doesn’t know what they’re talking about when the other candidates object and say, ” it is not true.” romney doesn’t care if it’s true. He has that in common with Obama and so many others. Yuck.
      The superpac can tell lies and distort the truth and the candidate just stands there pretending to have nothing to do with it.

      If a candidate had to accept responsibility, a lot of the lies would not be used.

      I don’t know much about the field of campaign finance. But the Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging our freedom of speech.

      I don’t know why there should be any law of any kind curtailing what an American can say regarding their preferences in an election.

      But also, if something can be shown to be untrue, whoever is publishing it should be held accountable under libel laws. IDK. Why wouldn’t that make sense?

      The effect of the superpacs is disgusting, IMO, and the way we ended up with them, first maverick McCain, then signed by Bush, then not struck down by the Supreme CT, is exactly the kind of lame politicking that makes me support Newt all the more.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Hope Change. | February 15, 2012 at 8:15 pm

        The freedom in play is that of speech, exercised by political action committees via media messages. The government cannot select out certain groups (PACs) and deny them freedom of speech, while allowing others (campaigns) to freely speak via the exact same methods (media ads). Agreed, what PACs are doing this campaign is distasteful. I also find communists and KKK-ers holding parades and giving speeches in the park to be distasteful, but as the historical quote goes, I will defend to the death their right to do it. True freedom requires true tolerance.

        The Citizens decision was recent and made this problem too new for resolution prior to the current campaign. I’m certainly no lawyer, but maybe there is something in the idea that a PAC could be barred from using a candidate’s name in its messaging without that candidate’s permission. Then we’d see whether a candidate truly doesn’t like what a PAC is saying on his or her behalf or not.

    Consider the source of the info, then ask yourself why would they put that info out there? Think about it … hmmm.

      Windy City Commentary in reply to Say_What. | February 15, 2012 at 3:24 pm

      The source was actually favorable to Newt. I am turning blue in the face trying to explain to casual observers that CANDIDATES HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT SUPER PACS. The McCain-Feingold Law prohibits candidates from communicating with Super PACs. Therefore, a Super PAC can claim to support a candidate, but take actions which undermines the candidate they claim to support.

        Exactly right, a source “favorable to Newt” I thought Newt’s three man race strategy was really smart, but if this is what I think it is, it’s pure political genuis.

          Windy City Commentary in reply to Say_What. | February 15, 2012 at 4:43 pm

          My understanding is that Mr. Adelson, the big donor to the Super PAC “Winning Our Future” (the supposed pro-Newt Super PAC), is giving more money to “Winning Our Future” with the intention of running negative ads against Santorum. Mr. Adelson has also met with Romney and has considered switching his support to Romney.

          Instead of openly switching his support to Romney, Adelson is instead pouring more money into the Super PAC “Winning Our Future” so that this Super PAC will run negative Ads about Santorum to damage Santorum and in the process damage Newt. It will damage Newt because everyone will talk about Newt’s mean Super PAC attacking Rick. Meanwhile, Romney will appear to have his hands clean. Instead of Romney’s Super PAC carpet bombing Santorum, and Mitt experiencing the backlash, it will be Gingrich’s Super PAC “Winning Our Future” who does the carpet bombing.

          All the while, Newt has no control over “Winning Our Future”. His own Super PAC will have damaged Santorum and Newt, while Romney’s new alli, Adelson, funds the whole endeavor.

          Say_What in reply to Say_What. | February 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm

          So you think Newt is being double crossed, but did you ever consider there is a double, double cross going on? I won’t explain it further except to say things in politics are usually never what they appear to be and it’s like a puzzle only some of the pieces don’t seem to fit, yet they fit perfectly.

          Newt knows his politics, for instance, when Rush was bashing him about his attacks on Romney about Bain, what did Newt do? He ran Romney attack ads on Rush’s show. That made Rush’s outrage look hypocritical (if Rush was really outraged then why did he take Newts ads, which he had the power not to take) and Newt took the steam out of Rush’s attack and that soon ended that.

One other thing. Santorum is a supporter of a Personhood amendment to the constitution. ICYMI, such an amendment just was defeated in MS by alsmost 20 pts, 58-42. In MS! As GOP and conservative as it gets. In CO which is a bit less GOP and conservative and closer to the country as a whole a personhood amendment went down 70-30.

This would also be something Romney could bring up. If conservatives think someone who supports a personhood amendment can get elected President, they’re free to make that decision. If the GOP wants the election to be about personhood amendments, contraception, birth control, whether raped women who get pregnant can have abortions(and whether that it’s a gift from god to get raped and become pregnant), reinstating DADT, amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, stem cell funding, etc.. it’s a free country and if that’s the election they want to have they’re free to have it. But Romney can at least present the facts to them and let them make an informed choice.

Again, though, given Romney’s own history on abortion and social issues, he’s not really the best guy to make that message.

    TryingToBeHopeful in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 15, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Whoa… Hang on there, HT. In your earlier post, you said Santorum said babies conceived in rape were a gift from God. Then in your 3:36 post, you say he says “it’s a gift from God to get raped and get pregnant…” Two VERY different things.

    I am not for Santorum, but you should be careful to state his positions correctly in your arguments. He certainly has enough in his record to legitimately argue against!

[…] Prof. Jacobson predicts a third surge for Newt. […]

“Repeat after me:

Newt’s third surge will be the charm”

From your lips (keyboard) to God’s ears!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . charm. 🙂
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . be
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . will
. . . . . . . . . . . . . surge
. . . . . . . third
Newt’s

Those supporting Rick Santorum might want to read Byron York today. He describes Rick’s loss in Pennsylvania this way: ” It was more than just a defeat; it was a personal repudiation.”

Our group of candidates may not satisfy the policy desires of most Republicans, and certainly not of most conservatives (regardless of party). I’m no Romney supporter and, yet, I am especially concerned about nominating Rick Santorum. Regardless of my personal candidate prediliction, however, what I mostly do not understand is why a Senator who lost reelection in his home state by a historic margin is now going to be an appealing national candidate. It seems clear he will not be.

Just read the article.

    tazz in reply to MTF. | February 15, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    Excellent article – thanks for posting. Byron York did a good job on his research.

    lndlyb4 in reply to MTF. | February 15, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    I agree with your comment

    “I’m no Romney supporter and, yet, I am especially concerned about nominating Rick Santorum.”

    We need to keep in mind that who we nominate can potentially screw things up really bad for the Republican party (and conservatives too :-)). This is a guy (Santurum)that left such a bad taste in voter’s mouths that they ran him out of there. Those are the facts. That is his track record. What has he accomplished? Got elected. Got re-elected. Got booted.

      Astroman in reply to lndlyb4. | February 15, 2012 at 9:53 pm

      Versus Romney who was in such a bad position he didn’t bother to run for re-elction, and Newt who was forced to step down in disgrace.

      Santorum ain’t all that, but compared to Mitt and Newt…

    Astroman in reply to MTF. | February 15, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    I guarantee you that if Mitt had run for re-election in MA, he would have lost by a much greater margin than Santorum’s loss. It was so bad, unlike Santorum, Mitt didn’t even try to run for re-election.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to MTF. | February 16, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Romney lost to Kennedy by 16.

Jennifer Rubin’s quote “He lost Pennsylvania — by appearing extreme and schoolmarmish” got me thinking.

“Schoolmarmish! That’s the word I’ve been looking for!”.

The big question though is: How will SNL portray him? Will they bring back the Church Lady? (Could be Satan?) Or would it be more of a Mrs. Doubtfire? (It was a drive by fruiting!)

Perhaps we should take a poll.

I think it’s nap time for me.

[…] And Barack Obama Will Not Be Re-Elected Posted on February 16, 2012 7:23 am by Bill Quick » Be (not) nice to Rick day – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion Prognosis: “If this race does come down to who can run the most negative ads … and  beat […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend