Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Romney’s carpet bombing coming home to roost

Romney’s carpet bombing coming home to roost

So what did last night mean?

Rick Santorum won the two non-binding caucuses where all candidates competed, and the Missouri non-binding primary where Newt was not on the ballot.

Does it mean that the Republican electorate all of the sudden has fallen in love with Santorum?  That remains to be seen.  Santorum has done well in three caucus states so far (IA, MN, CO), and very poorly in one caucus state (NV) and the three binding primary states where everyone competed (NH, SC, FL).

While Santorum deserves to bask in last night’s glow and the media will give him plenty to glow about for a day or two, Santorum cannot be considered the designated not-Romney until he proves he can win or at least do very well in big states with binding primaries where everyone competes.

In other words, let’s see how Santorum does on Super Tuesday.  Then we can talk.

As for Newt, he’s still hurting from the almost $30 million in negative ads run against him in about a 45 day period starting in December in Iowa, as well as the conservative media and political establishment pile on.

Newt’s best chance was to slow Romney, gain some breathing room, and hope for a strong showing on Super Tuesday.

Romney has been slowed by Santorum, giving Newt some breathing room as Romney of necessity will have to turn at least some attention to stopping Santorum.  Newt needs to prove himself on Super Tuesday.

As for Romney, his completely over-the-top attacks on Newt hurt Newt, but they also hurt Romney.  Tellingly, the percentage of the vote for Romney in the three states which voted last night completely collapsed since 2008.

A lot of people are disgusted with the way Romney has run his campaign, and it forced powerful voices like Sarah Palin and Mark Levin to speak out against the smears.

I’m not sure Romney can carpet bomb Santorum successfully the way he carpet bombed Newt — the Republican electorate will not stand for it again.

Romney will have to find a more subtle way to take down Santorum.  Maybe Romney should start thinking outside the box, and convince people whey they should vote for him not just against others.

The other take away from last night is the damage done to Republican enthusiasm by Romney’s carpet bombing.  Once again, turnout was down dramatically.

In Colorado, 65,479 voters turned out versus 70,229 in 2008.  In Minnesota, 47,836 voters turned out (95% reporting) versus 62,828 in 2008.  In Missouri, 251,868 turned out versus 588,720 in 2008.

It’s the problem I highlighted in my post the other day, When did you decide to become politically active?

… the way in which the Romney campaign has been run — uninspiring but brutally negative and efficient yet dependent upon massive supporting fire from establishment Republican media and politicians – will do great damage….

We may be seeing the early signs of that damage in the moribund and sometimes lower turnout numbers in states and counties where Romney does well.  We are at risk of heading back to the lifeless, limp political body of 2008.

Those who tuned in in 2009 are tuning out, getting ready to go back to their previous lives, rebuilding walls around themselves.

My post was mocked by Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades HQ, who completely misunderstood my point.  It’s not about being anti-Romney, pro-Newt, or a Santorum fan.

We have a problem folks. Romney’s carpet bombing is coming home to roost.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

How sad: ” Maybe Romney should start thinking outsidethe box, and convince people whey they should vote for him not just against others.” Convincing people to vote for you and not just against someone is “outside-the-box.”

I thought that is what Newt started out doing.

South Carolina, where Newt won, had a voter surge over 2008 primary total. A voter surge is needed if getting conservatives into the Senate, the House and state legislatures is going to happen.

This whole campaign has been nothing but an exercise in demoralizing the base. I am utterly disgusted at what has happened. A guy who lost his senate seat by 700k votes in 2006 just curbstomped the supposed front runner in three theoretically swing states. The GOP is in complete shambles. When we needed a hero nobody stepped forward. Christie. Daniels. Palin. All of them are gutless cowards. Obama is set to cruise to re-election this fall.

This patriot is now turning his attention to Congress because it is now our only hope at stopping the Obama administration until January 2017. I only hope theres a country left by then.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Jaydee77. | February 8, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Anyone is better than Obama. Even Romney, moderate as he is (to say the least), he will be better than Obama by a mile.

    I agree with you on focusing on the Congress – House and Senate seats MUST go to solid Conservatives if we are to take this country back, to change course.

    Think long term. This is just the first step in a long marathon. Should Romney get the nomination, then the newly Conservative-fortified Congress will hold him to doing the Conservative right thing (pun intended). Otherwise, he will be primaried and then have to prove he will do what is right. He will NOT have 2 terms if he turns into a Bush clone or Obama lite.

    Not unless we the people quit, give up, and refuse to vote ABO.

    As Churchill said, “Never give in. Never give in! NEVER NEVER NEVER!!” I, for one, will not quit; I refuse to surrender my country without a fight – and making Obama a ONE TERM PRESIDENT is just a part of the fight.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Jaydee77. | February 8, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Leave Palin alone. The word went out from Romney in 2008 to savage Palin, and his minions started doing that. The word went out from Romney and the GOPE that nobody was to sign on to work with Pslin, the one who brought the great GOP victory of 2010. The big money scorned her, and she would not bankrupt her family to go against Romney or Obama, not when she has kids to send to school and a Down syndrome child who needs special care. She has the ideas, she has the fire, but the GOPE doesn’t want her and she won’t go third party. Classing her with Cristie and the rest is absurd. What have they done besides run off at the mouth? The GOPE hates Palin more than they want the WH. Let them go to her as supplicants, on their knees, if they want to rid us of Obama cuz Romney can’t do it.

DINORightMarie | February 8, 2012 at 8:55 am

That Missouri number is DRAMATICALLY down. Wow – 1/2 of the turnout!

Are these caucuses/primary states Republican-only votes? Or were they “open” to all?

Also, given this recent video on voter registration/vote fraud (in MN, in this case), I wonder about the voting and registrations for primary votes – not to mention the general. Voter fraud prevention and voter roll verification is desperately needed – in all states, in all elections. This is made more obvious in national elections like the primaries and general for federal seats; however, it is essential across the board, IMHO. (BTW – ACORN is not gone, just “rebranded” – and still federally funded, by DOJ mandate and otherwise.)

Democrats have been in charge of the voter registration process in most states for DECADES, and have prevented reforms and/or elimination of obvious problems to ensure voter roll integrity. Republicans have not pushed for audits, controls, or other means to ensure voter rolls and the process are trustworthy as possible.

Turnout and enthusiasm is indeed a problem, fueled by the negative carpet bombing by Romney & Co. But I believe, Houston, that we have an even BIGGER problem……

    Windy City Commentary in reply to DINORightMarie. | February 8, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Considering last night’s Missouri primary didn’t award any delegates, that is probably why the turnout there was so low. In 2008, I bet the Missouri primary awarded delegates. I wouldn’t compare MO in 2008 to 2012, unless of course, in 2008 they also didn’t award delegates.

    Regarding Newt, I’m seeing in National Review that Santorum is poised to overtake Newt as the not-Romney. Of course this is the spin NR would take; they are so predictable. National Review’s default position is “Against Gingrich”. If Romney focuses his oppo research on Santorum and Rick starts to fall, I think Newt will be there on Super Tuesday to pick up the pieces.

      As a Missourian, I can attest to that. This is the first time that I can recall that our primary was swapped for a caucus due to some Jeff City infighting. Also in many counties there were no secondary issues on the ballot, so many people (myself included) didn’t really feel all that inclined to go out and waste time.
      I wouldn’t include Missouri numbers in any analysis of turnout, honestly. I suppose you could use it to talk about how enthused the various followers of each candidate are (who ran out to make a symbolic gesture) but wihout Newt on the ballot (unless you’re couting him as “uncommitted”) that’s still a dicey proposition.

“As for Newt, he’s still hurting from the almost $30 million in negative ads run against him in about a 45 day period starting in December in Iowa, as well as the conservative media and political establishment pile on.”

Does Newt carry any responsibility for where he is, Professor, or is his situation entirely Romney’s and/or the “establishment’s” fault?

    hrh40 in reply to Ryan. | February 8, 2012 at 9:24 am

    Right back at you, Ryan:

    Is Romney at all responsible for the DRAMATIC drop in turnout in states he won?

    Is Romney at all responsible for his scorched earth campaigning in 2008 and 2012?

      Ryan in reply to hrh40. | February 8, 2012 at 9:26 am

      Q1. Possibly, but lots of factors could affect turnout.
      Q2. Yes.

      Try answering my question now.

        CWLsun in reply to Ryan. | February 8, 2012 at 10:45 am

        Q: Was the fact that Gingrich was cleared by the ultimate judge the IRS in 1999 included in the Romney Diaries even once? (Romney diaries of course being the proxy for the negative campaign ads)

        Q: Was the fact that Gingrich engineered the return to the Reagan agenda in 1994 included in the Romney Diaries even once?

        Q: Wasn’t the guts of the Romney negative campaign against Gingrich that he was ethically challenged and wasn’t really a Reagan republican?

        One last question, and I’ll answer it myself

        Q: Who or what can’t Romney carpet-bomb that remains a deep threat to him?

        A: Romneycare

          hrh40 in reply to CWLsun. | February 8, 2012 at 1:00 pm

          Thanks for that, I really don’t have to answer now.

          But I will.

          Yes, Newt is responsible for a fraction of it.

          But as has been pointed out, Mitt LIED about Newt with MILLIONS of dollars of ads at a 65 to 1 ratio.

          So Mitt is largely responsible for Newt’s drop.

          No, not totally.

          But yes, his lies were a huge factor.

          So back at you again:

          Is Mitt responsible for the lies his campaign spreads? Which he does not call out, retract, or apologize for?

    JDmyrm in reply to Ryan. | February 8, 2012 at 9:39 am

    Newt can – should – only take responsibility for the attacks that are true right?… which in the last 30million dollars from Iowa till today has been zero.

      Valerie in reply to JDmyrm. | February 8, 2012 at 10:43 am

      Agree with JD. Newt hasn’t been effectively attacked on his weak points. He’s been attacked by lying. He was good to Mitt Romney: he gave Romney a reasonable, real way out of the trap Romney placed on his own foot about Bain: and this was after the first wave of negative ads!

      Romney was trying to tell us that he was responsible for job creation while he was at Bain. That’s a day-to-day item. Bain had its day-to-day troubles, including a huge fraud case. If Romney was really involved in the day-to-day work, he either knew about the fraud, or was stupid. Newt corrected him, and had Romney had the sense, and respect for the voters, he could have accepted the correction and made a more compelling case for himself, which does exist.

      Instead, he chose a huge, personally damaging campaign of lies against Newt.

      Two Mitt Romney presidential campaigns have all but destroyed the Republican Party at the national level.

Anecdotal stuff. At our caucus last night, there was a great deal of frustration with the choices. People are sick of having to hold their nose when voting. Consensus was that Romney is too far left, and I used my 2 minutes to remind everyone of his many sins as Governor of MA. Lots of doubt that Newt could win. My wife and I had gone in planning to vote Newt. Our table decided it was better to all vote together. Wound up 9 Santorum and 3 Paul.

Take away – this vote was NOT a result of enthusiasm for Santorum.

    CatoRenasci in reply to Same Same. | February 8, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Same Same wrote: “Take away – this vote was NOT a result of enthusiasm for Santorum.”

    I think this is the most important thing for the Republican Party establishment to take away from these caucuses/votes — there is just no serious enthusiasm for Romney, and it just can’t be bought or manufactured.

    More importantly, candidates like Santorum and Newt are very flawed, probably worse than Romney for various reasons, and would lose to Obama far more decisively than would Romney, but people are SO FRUSTRATED with Romney’s refusal to admit RomneyCare is ObamaCare is a disaster that must be completely REPUDIATED.

    The ordinary Republicans are saying loud and clear we cannot win with any of these bozos. You may go to war with the candidates you have rather than the ones you’d like to have, but those candidates may well doom you to lose and to lose big.

    Romney’s BEST case is that he is the LEAST WORST candidate.

    That’s NOT what people want. Conservatives – both social and fiscal conservatives – want someone who is articulate, forceful and honest, who will focus primarily on the important fiscal issues and individual liberty issues, while letting social conservative questions be decided at state and more local levels so that each state’s solutions to these questions can reflect the varying consensuses in each state.

      I agree for the most part. People are very frustrated at the lot we have. I think a lot of it is based on the bias we are getting from the Conservative Media. They are very pro-Romney and very Anti-Newt. Santorum like Paul isn’t considered a serious candidate.
      Romney’s only claim to fame is the media’s Pre-Primary coronation as the “Most Electable.” That’s it…well lots of money to spend on attack ads too. The reason conservatives are frustrated is because how the media (both Right and Left) attacks anyone for all their flaws, except Romney. The only time Romney get’s asked hard questions (exception to Bret Beir on his interview) is during a debate and that’s because it’s prompted by other candidates. No one wants to get into a crap throwing match, knowing full well that Romney’s money and the Media’s bias will do anything to take them down (Cain’s allegations).
      A lot of people I talk to can hold their noses for Santorum and Newt, but not for Romney. His negativity reminds them too much like Obama…then I make sure to remind them of Mitt’s other similarities with Obama.
      As long as the Media keeps pushing Mitt as the front runner, turnout will continue to plunge.

1. The worst President in decades could be reelected by a landslide. The Stupid Party is outdoing itself. Obama is surging on Intrade.

2. Is it too soon to worry about holding the House (or even avoiding a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate)? Not if Santorum is the nominee. When he was a senator, even conservative sites described him as a laughingstock.

3. While I expect things to change several times before the election, right now we could be headed for a 2010 in reverse–or more so.

    Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to gs. | February 8, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Yes absolutely amazing. I mean the never underestimate the ability of the Stupid Party to snatch defeat. The GOP is like a football team that jumps out to a 3 TD lead, and then immediately pull all their starters, and play ultra-conservative, and are then amazed when their rallies from behind and beats them. That is the the GOP in a nutshell.

    CatoRenasci in reply to gs. | February 8, 2012 at 10:18 am

    A Santorum nomination would be a repeat of 1964 – without carrying Arizona! It was that blow-out that gave Johnson the majorities he needed for his War on Poverty, Medicare and Medicaid in 1965!

I don’t have any problem with Santorum in principle. He generally has positions I agree with. I need to see evidence that he can build a national campaign, though, which means more than a shoestring budget and real on-the-ground organization. He’s got his shot now, let’s see if he capitalize.

Gingrich is old news. He fell on his sword with his post-Nevada spectacle. I never count the old Phoenix out, but he has never been less likely to mount a come back than he is right now.

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 8, 2012 at 9:42 am

”Maybe Romney should start thinking outsidethe box, and convince people whey they should vote for him not just against others.” Convincing people to vote for you and not just against someone is “outside-the-box.”

You must be joking professor, you know Mittens is a robot and has no ability to think outside his programming parameters. He will unleash the carpet bombing, and Drudge, Coulter, and the MSM will all coordinate to destroy Santorum. I think this will help Newt, because he will finally be out of the fire. And he will be able to instead focus on staying on message, and reaching out to voters.

We also have the debate in AZ on the 22th.

As things go, Ron Paul was making a lot of odd statements about Delegates last night that kinda had me worried. I remember reading somewhere that there was a theory that Paul was going to try to capitalize on a brokered convention by getting delegates who supported him to work their way in. So they’d vote the way their bound first then when released go all Paulbot on the covention. I hope this isn’t the case.
Speaking of that, does anyone actually know if the delegates can accomplish a brokered convention? For the last 20 years at least the convention has basically been a 3 day party for the delegates, now they may end up having to…well…convene and do actual horse trading.

    Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to tsrblke. | February 8, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Erick Erickson wrote about that not too long ago:

    “A prominent friend told me some weeks ago that he noticed an odd thing. In his state, several people who have been successful in getting themselves known as very probably Mitt Romney delegates for the Republican National Convention are also his supporters. And they are not just my friends’ supporters, they are also long time staunch Ron Paul supporters.

    Why then would they, long time staunch Ron Paul supporters, align this year with Mitt Romney? He made calls and talked to friends in other states. All of them saw the same thing happening — long time Dr. Paul supporters working to become delegates to the convention pledging to support Mitt Romney and others.

    If the field stays fractured at this level, with only a few people, but each getting delegates enough to prevent the front runner from an outright majority, there will be a second vote at the Republican National Convention.

    Delegates are only locked in for their candidate during the first vote. After the first vote, they can vote for whoever they want. So if Mitt Romney is unable to clear an outright majority on the first ballot, suddenly he could see some of his delegates turn on him — turn and go back to Ron Paul.

    It is an ingenious strategy premised on a convention where no one gets majority support early. It plays well to a primary calendar where the delegates are first awarded proportionally. Who knows if it is a campaign strategy or just his volunteers, but the Paul campaign has been active now for four years trying to take over local parties.”

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/19/the-horserace-for-january-19-2012/

      That’s probably the article I read, I would have cited it but couldn’t remember where I read it (I think I saw it on AoSHQ).
      In any case, Paul’s speech last night he made statements like “getting the maximum number of Delegates” at least twice (refering to Nevada and Minnesota) as well as specifically thanking his supporters in Minn for “staying after to help get our delegates selected.”
      Of all the canidates, Paul seems the least likely to gain traction through a normal mechanism. He’s won zero states and had some crushing defeats. Additionally I can’t discount the theory that he’s gaining traction, in part, due to anti-war democrats who feel betrayed by Obama’s sudden reversal on these issues (apparently we’re discussion a Syrian invasion now!). If Erickson is right on this Paul would be subverting the process in a serious way. But then as I stated before, I’m not sure the GOP (or the dems for that matter) can effectively broker a convention anymore. People going to these things are no longer concerned with the good of the party….

Don’t worry about enthusiasm. I believe that reflects conservatives’ view of the establishment. If we get Newt at the top; enthusiasm will be great even in NVA. If we get Santorum, then we will likely improve over McCain but VA will be 50/50 for teh win.

If we end with Romney – the R-whiz kids might not take the Senate with a working majority; Allen in VA will struggle – he’ll lose NVA.

Team Obama is working the GOTV now in Prince William County a hi-population county in NVA with demographics that can be exploited. The establishment R’s in NVA spent $3M in GOTV and campaigns in the 2011 VA Senate races. The R’s only won the Senate because of down-state Tea support. If the Est.-R’s successfully get Mitt on the top of the ticket, enough people stay home to give VA to Barack.

The solution is to deny the VA delegates to Un-fitt Mitt by Newt and Santorum supporters backing Ron Paul in the VA Primary. We can have the Newt\Santorum fight later.

    DINORightMarie in reply to NVA-Patriot. | February 8, 2012 at 10:30 am

    I agree with you on enthusiasm – and who is at the top of the ticket will drive that. I also believe Newt will drive people out, as was shown in SC.

    Good to learn some NVA details – I personally see that area going Obama no matter what; the leftists have long controlled that area of VA.

    I am also glad to see someone else thinking about the primary here in VA. I live in Winchester, so I can’t vote for Newt in the primary – or Santorum. But I will NOT willingly vote for Romney, as I don’t want him to get the VA delegates. A “protest” vote for Paul will keep Romney down in the delegate counts, and help the Not-Romney fight continue.

    I have wanted to posit this question to Mark Levin, a fellow Virginia voter, to get his take on this. I abhor Ron Paul overall, but Romney is a disaster, too. All IMHO, of course. 🙂 I wonder what Levin’s view is, as he doesn’t like either one, and vigorously decries our being disenfranchised voters in this primary.

The Romney campaign is expected to announce today that Pawlenty’s endorsement either saved or created over 5,000 votes for Mitt Romney in Minnesota.

I’m glad Santorum slowed down the inevitable Romney train. However, I’d love to see a poll from Pennsylvania about Santorum’s chance of carrying the state in a national election.

Pennsylvanians were publicly furious with him in 2006 over the Spector endorsement, charging his children’s cyber schooling to the state when the family lived in Virginia, and his residency. He owns a house in Penn., but lives in Virginia.

It will be interesting to see how Santorum holds up with finally being vetted. I’m just glad the primary process is having a chance to play out in spite of the establishment efforts to force their guy on us.

The most inspiring person last week was Obama with his “attack” on Catholics. Could Obama be so devious as to try to give Santorum a boost, to keep Republicans fighting?

I worry a little that Santorum tends more toward taking our country back to the Bible, whereas Gingrich rightly responds that he will take us back to the constitution. A commitment to beliefs is one thing, but coming across as the evangelical candidate would probably be a negative.

Obama’s contraception mandate seemed perfectly timed for Santorum. If he can focus on keeping government OUT of religion, more than the abortion issue, he would be the more conservative candidate. But he needs to lean more toward religious (and non-religious) liberty, and less toward fighting gay marriage or abortion issues. More libertarian, less religious zealot.

@tsrbike:
You are absolutely correct. The Paulbots ARE doing just that. I got that from people in the Republican party who know about it. They’ll stop at nothing to get Ron Paul in a brokered convention. They are like little brainwashed cultists.

“How Mitt Could be Beat”
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/08/how-mitt-could-be-beat

I wish Santorum would wake up and ally with Gingrich. He and Gingrich worked together in Washington and could do so again. Each man has something the other one lacks- much like a good marriage- and could be a good balance for the other.

Santorum, nice man that he is, is simply NOT first chair, yet. Gingrich is. I would love to see a Gingrich/Santorum ticket. In four or eight years, Santorum WILL be ready for the first chair- he simply is not now.

Gingrich inherently knows this, Santorum is foolish not to ally with Gingrich to defeat both Romney and, ultimately, Obama.

    Astroman in reply to AmandaFitz. | February 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    What I think is foolish is claiming that Newt is “first chair” and Santorum isn’t, while Santorum has won four times as many states as Newt “first chair” Gingrich.

    The fact is, Newt has had HUGE momentum in this race twice already, and blown it both times. Y’all lay 110% of Newt’s cratering in FL on the Romney attack machine, but I’m telling you if Newt had debated in FL the way he did in SC, Newt would have taken FL, too.

    And Newt’s pettiness, which has a long, storied history, has been rearing its ugly head again and again. THAT is why Newt won’t be getting a third surge. There’s a new “first chair” in town, and at this point, it will be either Santorum or Romney.

      janitor in reply to Astroman. | February 8, 2012 at 2:48 pm

      Gingrich was the one in numerous debates up until Iowa, consistently talking in terms of “we”, and boosting everyone.

      Santorum’s emphasis on managing social issues misses the mark and an opportunity. This emphasis will not appeal to social liberals who otherwise are upset enough about the economic situation in this country to overlook their ideological differences with conservatives on social issues, and vote for fiscal responsibility. Santorum doesn’t offer them that opportunity. Reducing the debt and size of the government must come first.

    AmandaFitz, I’ve said as much to people at central committee meetings, local and county. I initially thought that Newt wanted to be kingmaker – as in have enough votes to effectively broker the convention without actually brokering it.
    Seeing what the Paulbots are doing from other messages here, I would think the only way to effectively cut them off is for a Newt/Santorum ticket pulling together just enough votes to avoid a brokered convention. It will only get messy if we have to go to a second round of voting, but maybe it’s something we actually need. If so, I would still hold out for a Newt/Santorum ticket as being their most logical way out of the current problems we are facing.

I consider myself a Santorum supporter though he was not my first choice between Bachmann, Cain and Santorum.

I think last night’s results are encouraging news for Santorum and bad news for Romney.

However, something less than 750,000 people cast votes in three contests. I think the total number of people casting votes mitigates the results in some way. I am not sure in what degree. However the results clearly demonstrate:

a) Non-binding events don’t excite a large number of people.
b) Romney is not exciting large numbers of people and in fact may be turning off lots of people.
c) The GOP field is not drawing lots of people.

I won’t support Romney should he win the nomination. I will definitely support Santorum should he the nomination (unless he is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl prior to the election). And I am no longer willing to categorically refuse to support Gingrich should he win the nomination. But I know Newt and I don’t believe he believes much of what he telling the base right now. But I know Romney and I know he doesn’t believe any of what he is telling the base now.

I smell a Santorum/Gingrich ticket.

Congrats to Santorum and his supporters. Well done! Romney’s campaign is already attacking Santorum, Rick said so this morning on Fox.
Romney will now have to fight on two fronts and I don’t expect him to go positive because he has nothing to offer conservatives. His offense is his only option for liberal positions he cannot defend.
I think it is important for Newt and Rick not to attack each other, just focus on defeating Romney. No matter which one comes out on top, they are going to need eah other.

[…] that Republicans are not excited about the prospect of a Mitt Romney candidacy or presidency. The depressed voter turnout, along with the wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri for Rick Santorum, and even […]

Imagine if Gingrich pulled out, endorsed Santorum, and then was announced as Santorum’s VP running mate should Santorum win the nomination. A lot of Gingrich’s support is qualified: “I really like Newt, but…”. Support might solidify over the idea of combining the two viable ‘not-Romneys’ on one ticket, with Newt playing attack dog with that marvelous tongue of his, and while Santorum presidentially lays out his intended conservative policies. Announcing his VP early might fire up momentum for Santorum. The GOP primary voters would be looking at Romney vs Santorum/Gingrich.

Just thinking out loud.

“The other take away from last night is the damage done to Republican enthusiasm by Romney’s carpet bombing. Once again, turnout was down dramatically.”

THAT is the most damning aspect about Romney. 7-8 million southern conservatives (Reagan Democrats) stayed home in 2008 rather than vote for McCain. Romney is probably going to raise than number to 15 million. The enthusiasm just isn’t there. Romney (and Gingrich too) are crushing the spirit of those they need to get elected.

We just spent six years of grassroots insurrection. It started in 2006 when many of us stormed the phones, faxes and e-mails to successfully stop the Kennedy/Bush/McCain amnesty assault. Instead of listening to us, the GOP declared war on conservatives and got crushed in November 2006. Hello Pelosi and Reid!

So who do they nominate for president? McCain, the very face of everything we hate about the GOP. So 7-8 million Reagan Democrats stayed home in the critically important south and lots of people like me voted 3rd party. Romney is likely to compound that problem.

This energy then rolled into the Tea Party movement which restored a GOP majority in the House. You would think that the GOP would be grateful? Nope. War against conservatives intensifies and they launched a RINO stampede for 2012, not to defeat Obama, but to defeat conservatives. It’s all about Jebbie in 2016.

Romney and Gingrich are NOT going to win in November if nominated. Santorum is polling like the only one who has a chance. And it is not likely Ron Paul would be a 3rd party threat if Santorum won the nomination. If Paul then endorsed him, especially in a brokered convention, the energy would probably be there and we would have made a dent in the GOP establishment monopoly. We would have at least drained the moat around their crumbling castle.

Soooo…

Earlier, y’all were calling for other candidates to drop out to prop up Newt – even before Newt had placed in the top 3 in any state.

But now Santorum has won FOUR times as many states as Newt, but y’all aren’t suggesting Newt step down to help Santorum? Of course not! According to Mr. Jacobson, Santorum first has to prove himself on Super Tuesday. Even though y’all were calling for others to step down for Newt back when Newt had failed to win even a top 3 spot, much less actually win a state. (Despite the fact that Newt had previously been polling well in those first two states.)

It is called hypocrisy and a total lack of credibility. Own it.

    Say_What in reply to Astroman. | February 8, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    Astroman, if you like Santorum and want him to win, then bashing Newt supporters is not a good idea. Realize that the enemy is not Newt or his supporters and alienating them is not going to help Rick. I am a Newt supporter and if you read my previous post, I congratulated Rick and his supporters.

    Please be gracious because we are going to need each other to defeat Romney or you will be playing into his hands.

      Astroman in reply to Say_What. | February 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm

      You have it all wrong.

      I am/was a Perry supporter. I used to be a fan of Mr. Jacobson and this blog until Mr. Jacobson continued to make cheap shots at Perry, back when Perry was still a major factor in this race.

      I believe Perry offered us our best chance to beat Obama, in that he provided the strongest contrast with Obama. Of the remaining candidates, it isn’t that I’m a big supporter of Santorum, it is that Santorum is the only one still in I’d actually be able to vote for.

      I simply won’t vote for Romney or Newt out of principle (Romney is a RINO’s RINO, and Newt is too dangerous, being so out of control). Beyond that, I believe Romney and Newt would lose to Obama.

      Santorum is a weak candidate, but I believe he would at least have a small chance of beating Obama, but at this point, we’ll probably lose regardless.

      The reason I have returned to this site is for the same reason I used to watch Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I kept hearing clips of what he was saying, but I kept thinking to myself “surely no one is that far gone.” But he was. And that is why I come here, to see what Mr. Jacobson and the commenters here have to say about Newt and to point out there rank hypocrisy. It is time for y’all to take some of your own medicine. The spin is outrageous here!

      Seriously, “Newt had a good night” last night?!

        William A. Jacobson in reply to Astroman. | February 8, 2012 at 1:36 pm

        Identify the cheap shots I took at Perry. I brought in a guest blogger to run positive posts about Perry over the summer. It irked some people when I accurately assessed the damage to Perry from his debate performances, but it was what it was. And yes, if the alternative were a good night for Romney or Santorum, Newt was much better off it being a good night for Santorum.

          Mr. Jacobson, I got fed up with you repeatedly making snide cracks at Perry concerning the “heartless” comment. I didn’t mind you bringing it up, as it was a mistake, but to keep harping on it when obviously Perry was grasping for words and simply misspoke – he admitted he was wrong and apologized, whatever.

        Say_What in reply to Astroman. | February 8, 2012 at 1:53 pm

        Astroman – You supported Perry, I supported Palin but we don’t always get what we want. You call Newt supporters hypocrites but practical politics sometimes requires to choose from the choices available to us. Having a Conservative win is more important to me than any one candidate, so I can be satisfied with Santorum or Newt. I don’t see this race as fighting for a particular man.

          Astroman in reply to Say_What. | February 8, 2012 at 6:02 pm

          Look, even when I put my support fully behind Perry, I criticized him at times. I reminded my fellow Perry supporters that it wasn’t that Perry was all that great, but that he was merely the best choice among a sub-par group of candidates. And I caught grief at times from my fellow Perry-supporters because of that.

          As far as Newt goes, how is someone who was suckered into sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and being for a federal healtcare mandate be considered a solid conservative? Newt didn’t make those mistakes as a young man or a rookie politician, but as an older, seasoned Washington veteran. THAT is why, Perry or no, I can’t vote for Gingrich.

          Beyond the principles and on to electability, Newt is a poor candidate in the general, because like Mitt (and McCain prior to now), there is a significant percentage of Republicans who simply will not vote for him.

          And I am personally fed up with how Mr. Jacobson and many commenters here continually harp on how Perry and Santorum need to drop out for the sake of Newt, but now that Newt has faded and Santorum has the momentum, suddenly they aren’t so into that line of thinking. Right now, y’all are reaping what you sow.

          And if y’all don’t like me for what I’m saying now, it is only because you are now tasting your own medicine.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Astroman. | February 8, 2012 at 2:06 pm

        Just out of curiosity, Astroman, do you also watch TV shows and movies you aren’t a fan of? Do you eat food you don’t like?

          Astroman in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 8, 2012 at 6:04 pm

          Henry, let’s stick to the points, rather than trying to go ad hominem, eh?

          If you don’t like my points, perhaps you would like for me to show the quotes where the exact same arguments were made by Mr. Jacobson and many of the commenters here?

Trump: ‘I don’t get Rick Santorum’

That Trump endorsement certainly had a short shelf life

Do we sense a trend?

In Missouri, Romney received 63,826 votes last night for 25% and second place. In 2008, he received 172,329 votes for 29% and third place. That’s a net loss in support for Romney of over 100,000 votes, an almost 70% drop.

As for Minnesota, Romney received 8,096 votes for 17% and third place behind Ron Paul. In 2008, Romney received 25,990 votes for 41% and first place. That’s a net loss in support for Romney of almost 70,000 votes, also a nearly 70% drop.

Mr. Inevitable? Mr. Electable?

Well, you know what they say, the more you get to know him, the more you long for darn near anybody else.

[…] from the personal and vitriolic attacks between Romney and Gingrich that have to some degree, sullied both candidates. But Santorum was also helped to some extent by the unpleasant reality of administrative fiat that […]

I say the same sort of things but you don’t see me running for president lol.

To me Ricky is not qualified, has a mediocre record of achievement, and has had PLENTY of bad Big Gov ideas himself.

And Obama would thrash him- Santorum is simply too weak a horse to hook our wagon to. Of course I could vote for him, but I honestly don’t understand the focus on words rather than deeds by so many on the right- Newt won the first Congressional GOP majority in 50 years, forced a balanced budget down Clinton’s throat, introduced MAJOR welfare reform… and has pledged to move our embassy to Jerusalem while putting Iran back on it’s heels.

And Santorum has done what, exactly? Give speeches?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend