Rick Santorum

He may have been the butt of Jon Stewart’s jokes for his unwavering support of traditional virtues, but now as the arguable Republican front runner, he may be the next President of the United States.

Insiders have dismissed Santorum, the son of an Italian Immigrant, his entire career. They shouldn’t he has known how to ride the wave. In the beginning, he rode a wave of disconnect from Washington to victory against a long time incumbent in a Democrat district. He then made his name in the gang of 7 which took on the the culture of corruption and laxity with taxpayer funds. Who doesn’t remember the house banking scandal with unlimited bad checks forming an interest free loan at will. Most lawmakers didn’t go crazy with it, but some wrote hundreds of bad checks. 21 members had over 120 bad checks and had outstanding balances for more than 6 months (most 1 to 3 years). The totals for these members often went into the hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Mary Rose Oakar was convicted of using the house bank to launder illegal campaign contributions and write checks for straw donors. She was one of three indicted for related scandals. The House ethics committee identified the worse abusers from both parties. Of the 22, 18 were Democrats.

The House post office was more intriguing because Democrats tried to stonewall its investigation. It turned out to be a money laundering operation which led to the conviction of powerful Ways and Means Chairman, Dan Rostenkowski. The twin scandals alienated the 40 year Democratic majority from the people who felt the ruling party no longer lived by the same rules as the rest of us.

Santorum rode the wave to the U. S. Senate where he became a hero for a strong defense, traditional family values, the right to life, and government reform. He quickly ascended the ladder of leadership by earning the respect of his colleagues. Rick Santorum made is name nationally on the issue of banning partial birth abortion. He and his wife had recently lost a child due to second trimester miscarriage. The issue resonated with him in a deeply personal way because these children being killed where the same age as his Gabriel Michael was and older. His debate with the inane Barbara Boxer is one of the all time classics. He won reelection and became a national icon.

What undid him was another wave. He was one of the Bush administrations strongest allies including an advocate for the Iraq War and action to stop Iran from obtaining nukes. A war weary public in PA couldn’t get to Bush, but they could get to Santorum. In presurge 2006, the war was political poison north of Virginia. Republicans took a bath and he rode another wave, but this time to defeat.

Rick Santorum is now back on track and riding another wave. He speaks to the middle class anxiety and offers real solutions. It was not an accident that he swept 3 states. Look at this kickoff in Missouri. It is real, powerful, and relevant. If Republicans want to win in 2012, it would be a mistake to put the party eggs in the Gingrich and Romney baskets without looking seriously at the other two candidates.

31 thoughts on “Rick Santorum”

  1. No, it was no accident that he swept 3 states. The generally accepted reason is that the turnout for those three states was very low.

    About 250,000 voters went to the polls in Missouri, less than half than voted last time.
    Colorado had 66,027 people participate in caucuses, down from 70,229 in 2008.
    Minnesota turnout was down to 48,695 from almost 63,000 four years ago.

    I suspect the reason that many stayed home is that voters felt that they were not all that excited about Romney AND they probably feel that the race is essentially over.

    So who did show up to give Santorum the lead in those states? My guess it was the most conservative Republicans.

  2. There are a couple of other issues dogging Santorum. One of the reaasons that he got crushed in his last senatorial election was because conservatives punished him in the voter’s booth for carrying Bush’es water and supporting Specter over Toomey in their primary. He is disliked in Pittsburgh because of enrolling his kids in a Charter “Cyber” school that cost PA tens of thousand s of dollars while living in Virginia. He had a small row home as his “official” residence to maintain his PA residency. Not a big deal nationally, but a sore spot in one of the areas that helps to win/lose PA. This Catholic employers healthcare dust-up will also hurt Santorum. The tide is swinging against abortion, however over 98% of women have no issues with contraception with Catholics being among them. If Santorum carries the Catholic guidon on contraception it will hurt him with that critical constituency.

  3. FightingBlueHen is right. I’ve had others, including conservative women, comment than Santorum just looks to young to be President. He’s not, but the sweaters make him look younger and less-serious. He should get a Ronald Reagan style lumberjack shirt and go out and chop some wood. Or he should stick to business suits.

  4. In the beginning, he rode a wave of disconnect from Washington to victory against a long time incumbent in a Democrat district. He then made his name in the gang of 7 which took on the the culture of corruption….

    A good correction to the Left…

    What undid him was another wave. He was one of the Bush administrations strongest allies including an advocate for the Iraq War…

    A good correction to the Right… but the problem is that while he may get it on the one hand, he doesn’t on the other. But at least he’s basically a true believer in what he believes in and seems to be a hard worker as a politician too. I would rather vote for Ron Paul but given that I would vote for a “blank slate” politician like Romney, I could certainly vote for a true believer like Santorum too.

    I’d put Santorum before Gingrich too. I mean, trying to create manufacturing jobs will probably squander less wealth than trying to build a base on the moon or whatever other big ideas come into Gingrich’s mind.

  5. If Santorum carries the Catholic guidon on contraception it will hurt him with that critical constituency.

    Only if women are propagandized into believing that the president has some sort of role in governing their reproductive organs. That’s the only way it makes a difference what Santorum believes about it.

    I’d generally just leave that issue to Obama and the way that he is full of caring for them.

  6. Poor women… apparently Obama will care for their reproductive organs because they can’t.

    It’s too bad that there will probably be the traditional gender gap based almost purely on “I want my mommy.” or “I want my daddy.” psychological dynamics and perceptions. After all, men and women would actually be a lot better off if they cared for their own reproductive organs. But right now we’re probably only one journ”o”list/imbecile/Obama voter away from sensationalistic stories about how the Catholic church provides Viagra but poor, victimized women don’t get any care at all. No caring at all! But Obama is just trying to care for them and save them because he’s sort of like a messiah. Etc.

  7. Bottom Line, He can’t beat Obama. The only chance of beating Obama is still Mitt Romney. I believe when all is said and done it will be Romney vs Obama. That is when all Republicans must come together and support the nominee. Let the games begin!

  8. Let’s look at the interesting analysis. First CR, yes he can win in November. Polls in PA show that he beats the President in PA. If he carries Ohio and PA along with the the normal Republican leaning states, he wins. National poll numbers do not mean a lot right now because they also show a lot of undecideds with Santorum because they do know him well enough. This type of message happens to intersect with the concerns of the undecideds. When you are undecided, you pretty much are not going to vote for the incumbent in a high profile race like President or Governor.

    Let’s jump up to comment 1 by Dave. I like Dave a lot, but his analysis here is quite flawed, with all due respect.

    First, the low turnout caucus states are like MN and CO are to favor Romney and Paul because they have the organization and money. Both said to watch them and were shocked. The fact that he won Missouri is interesting, but of course that was more of a beauty contest since no delegates are selected directly by the vote. There I could buy that since Gingrich was not on the ballot that the majority of the anti-Romney vote coalesced while Romney did not really contest it because he preferred to wait for the delegate battle. The fact is that Romney put a full court press on CO and urged the media to watch it over MO. In MN, he had the organization and endorsement of Tim Pawlentey. Losing MN and CO was a real blow.

    If the Romney people think it is over because he won three states and lost more than he is toast. To the contrary, we see in Republican primaries that the winner gains momentum by winning not loses it. The fact that he lost Iowa and SC showed weakness not strength. FL and NV gave hope but not inevitability. The Romney people should have been energized hoping that they could give their guy a head of steam that would last into Super Tuesday.

    If conservatives won merely because of low turnout, then Duncan Hunter would have been our nominee last time.

    The Sweater–seriously

    Androp is right about the additional factors in the PA race. I agree completely that they are also meaningless now. As for the Catholic dust up hurting him, it may be why he won. The nation is moving to be more pro-life not less. The issue at the Catholic hospitals is about religious freedom not abortion anyway. Look at how much money the Catholic hospitals lose. Most are charities that absorb huge costs from people who can’t pay, but they maintain quality service due to the generosity of the Church. They are not for profit. How are you going to tell people they must kill innocents in order to donate and volunteer to help people. It won’t happen.

  9. Bottom Line, He can’t beat Obama. The only chance of beating Obama is still Mitt Romney.

    ‘Moderates’ don’t win. Ask Ford, Dole and McCain (and Bush Sr.). This is because ‘moderates’ offer no contrast.

    People who stand in the middle-of-the-road get run over.

  10. ‘Moderates’ don’t win. Ask Ford, Dole and McCain (and Bush Sr.). This is because ‘moderates’ offer no contrast.

    It is not just a matter of contrast this time. It is a matter of survival of our Country as we knew it was before Obama. Our Country has never been in such a mess since the great depression. The voters are seeking a change and I believe the alternative to Obama whoever it maybe will win. God help us if he doesn’t. Its time to stick all of the pessimisim in your pocket and start going positive. As a closing note, the National polls still show that the best candidate to beat Obama is Mitt Romney. I will support the Repubican nominee period. Hopefully all of the pessimists on this blog that are Republcians will do the same.

  11. i’m with Colonial Republican. I don’t care who the Republican Nominee is, I will vote for him. Obama the socialist is so bad for America that any of the above is my choice. Obama is a liar, Marxist, anti religion (unless it is a religion that trashes America) and one who screws the taxpayer to reward his buddies. By the way I know of no Republicans who disagree with my assessment.

  12. Whether Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama or not is *NOT* going to be decided by early opinion polls at this stage (which are mostly just an echo chamber of the media spin that Mitt Romney can win, because we say so).

    It will be decided by how well or poorly Mitt Romney EXECUTES on his campaign strategy and tasks ahead.

    This is part of the RINO disease. The moderate wing of the Republican party is obsessed with the idea that if you just put up the “perfect” candidate (usually meaning someone who offends no one by standing for nothing), everything just falls into place automatically. They think that if a moderate Republican is simply “nice” then the Independents will — for no good reason whatsoever — all vote for him. Why they assume that Independents will vote Republican without being given any reason to do so, is left unexplained.

    Whether Mitt Romney wins or loses will be decided by how well Romney’s team explains his “case” and defends against attacks. NOTHING that Romney supporters point to will decide the November election. Whether Romney can take a lesson (a hundred lessons) from Newt Gingrich — but without Newt’s baggage — will determine Mitt Romney’s vote totals on election night this November.

    For example, Mitt Romney’s explanation for how his work at Bain Capital translates into an ability to restore a strong economy has been WEAK at best, certainly VAGUE, allowing others to fill in the canvass with colors to their liking. If Mitt Romney does not nail that down, the Obama propaganda team will have people thinking Romney is Bernie Madoff by November.

    The best person I know who could hit that out of the park is Christine O’Donnell. She excels at sharpening the message, boiling it down to a powerful, memorable, easily-grasped, persuasive presentation, and delivering it well. She could be out there explaining Romney’s record, in terms of how things really work in the business world, before Obama’s team gets around to smearing Romney. Romney would be well advised to (but won’t) sit down and take some lessons from Christine on getting his message across. I know I’ve learned some things from her. Not enough, obviously.

    But someone is going to have to do a lot better job of selling Mitt Romney’s strong points than Romney has done so far.

  13. Not being a Democrat, I can’t say for sure, but if I was, I would probably want Gingrich or Santorum to win the nomination. As an Independent, my current feeling is that I may sit this one out.

    To me the most troubling things about Romney is I do not here him talking about his executive experience as a governor. Instead I mostly seem to hear about Bain Capital and I don’t know about everyone else, but I have a difficult time translating his role there into economic growth, plus his lack of faith in our country, by socking his money in the Caymans and Switzerland, does not set well with me. For me, Gingrich is a non starter. If he isn’t Mr. Insider, no one is.

  14. Look I am not looking to rehash the 2010 election cycle all over again and go into who did what and who was the only one who could win. But I see the same people making the same statements all over again.
    The person they predicited to win the primaries lost and then they pouted and went home leaving the nominees to fend for themselves just so they could be proven correct.
    I would hope that this time when all of the “smart people” are proven wrong again, that they will actually live up to their pronouncements that they will support the nominee whomever it is.
    Not only can Santorum win the primary, not only can he win the general election , but he is the best choice for conservatism and so for the nation. Because if you believe that conservatism is the best political ideology then you should seek out the most conservative candidate to support. So if you come here and state how you are such a good conservative, then you should be supporting him. Romney will make it very hard for conservatives to support him becuase of his history and his ability to change horses in mid stream on issues.
    Santorum however has the broad appeal of being a straight line conservativce that appeals to not only social conservatives, but fiscal conservatives and as his election history in Pa. shows, he can bring Democrats and independents across party lines to vote for the Republican in the race. But hey, I am sure some of you think Romney’s history of flip flopping is a plus.
    To go back and say the same silly things like “he’s the only one who can beat Obama” is to have learned nothing from the national and state races of 2010. In 2010 the GOP put up Mccain and told the rank and file he was the only one who could win the election, how’d that work out for us? It is time to stop voting for the one we are told can win, and start voting for the one who needs to win and ensure that they do.
    In Santorum we actually have a candidate who has strong family values and who has shown the ability to stay on message without caving to polling pressure, as Romney has shown a tendency to do.

  15. Dave he can’t talk about his time as Governor, because that is when he put the template of Obama care into place, it is exactly why he “can’t” win against Pres. Obama.

  16. Frank,

    I think your are wrong. This election is not about only a Republican Conservative can win, it is about Obama. If the voters decide he has done a good job he will win no matter who runs against him. However, I would like to think this is more like a re-call election. In my many years of being a voter and involved politcally, the bottom line with voters is the economy and their quality of life.

    To say that Romney is not conservative for you or anyone else is just not thinking outside the box. Sanotrum is a good man and but I do not beleive he will win the nomination. We all have our choice, but don’t be so narrow minded and lose site of the ultimate goal, Defeat Obama!

  17. Politico has footage of O’Donnell at CPAC claiming that Rick Santorum is more liberal than Mitt Romney.

  18. Colonial Republican is absolutely correct in #18, except that CL suggests 2012 will necessarily and automatically be a recall election — a referendum on Obama. This election COULD be a recall election / referendum about Obama, or not, depending on how well each party executes its strategy. If the voters see this as being all about Obama, as Colonial Republican argues, then Obama loses, and the Republican, any Republican, wins.

    I think Colonial Republican and others may be THINKING the following, but not entirely saying it. I give credit to CL’s post for making me think the following, but this argument could be sharpened:

    Implied in Colonial Republican’s post, I think, is the strategic concept that our choice of GOP nominee may focus the attention on Obama, or else allow Obama to put the attention on the Republican nominee instead.

    So, CL’s thinking appears to be, and it is quite intriguiing, that Newt Gingrich, for example, no matter how dynamic and entertaining a debater and speaker, places the spotlight of attention on Newt Gingrich, and relieves Obama of the unflattering attention on Obama. So no matter how great a debater and orator, with Newt the race becomes all about Newt, when we need it to be all about Obama (because Obama is already in trouble).

    This profoundly interesting argument, which I infer from CL’s post, says that the winning candidate is the one who keeps the spotlight on Obama, and avoids becoming the focus of attention himself. Thus, it is not so much which candidate is better or worse in and of himself, but which candidate avoids giving Obama an avenue of escape to distract the voters’ attention on to the GOP nominee, and avoid talking about Obama’s record. “Fascinating” as Mr. Spock would intone deadpan.

    So, this divides the strategy into two entirely conflicting scenarios: (1) If the other party’s nominee is strong, you need a compelling candidate to challenge him. E.g., the way I perceive Newt Gingrich (not how some perceive him necessarily). (2) But if the other party’s nominee is already in trouble, we need a candidate who won’t “allow” (will make it difficult for) the other party and the media TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, and allow the Democrat candidate to make voters forget about his bad record.

    In that vein, if you accept that Obama is in a deep hole, and has to climb out of it to win re-election, a plain vanilla GOP nominee, with as little as possible to distract attention from the Democrat with, would be the winning candidate…. at least on this one aspect of things.

    Of course, I differ a little in that I believe that the news media and liberals have an INFINITE CAPACITY to dream up some hogwash to throw at *ANY* candidate, because they are not limited by FACTS. Having no restraint on their ability to smear on account of truth, I don’t forsee the opposite party running out of nasty things to say, no matter how preposterous. This is why I oppose the concept of a “magic candidate” who, like Super Man, has the bullets bouncing off his chest harmlessly. I don’t think any such candidate immune from smears exists.

    Now, proponents of Romney are I think a bit too optimistic that Romney can’t be smeared. I am encouraged by how the conservative movement and conservative media slammed the door shut on criticism of Bain capital. That was an impressive display of strength, resolve, and (near) unity — even if I think it was shallow and superficial with regard to what conservatives really believe about free enterprise. If the Romney team is loaded for bear like that, and can blast the mud buckets thrown at them in mid-air, then Obama’s game plan may indeed fail.

  19. Re: Anon in #19, observations from CPAC, and Christine O’Donnell:

    Christine O’Donnell told the political press and bloggers at CPAC that Rick Santorum is more liberal ON FISCAL ISSUES such as spending than Mitt Romney. No, she DID NOT say Santorum is more liberal than Romney overall, only that his record on fiscal votes was less conservative than Romney’s. Christine made a very effective argument, better than Romney has said it, that Romney faced a liberal Massachusetts State legislature. Romney’s record has to be placed in context, just like Ronald Reagan’s efforts to compromise with Tip O’Neill and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

    I said a friendly hello to Christine O’Donnell at CPAC Friday. I was very surprised to turn around while on the phone to discover Christine O’Donnell abruptly face to face pushing her way through the crowds. Jason O’Neill was at CPAC, clearly scouring the landscape for tools and techniques for winning Delaware elections. I later pointed Jason over in the direction of saying hello to Christine.

    Romney’s organizational quality was in evidence at CPAC, with Rick Santorum a close second, and Newt lagging a bit.

    When Newt Gingrich spoke — a masterpiece as usual — Rick Santorum’s campaign lined the hallway with volunteers each holding Mitt Romney signs, on either side of the path out of the massive auditorium. So everyone who just heard Newt speak, walking out of the auditorium, walked through a corridor of at least 30 Romney supporters on BOTH sides holding up Romney signs. It was a very simple concept, yet very impressive.

    Newt Gingrich’s people retyped the daily schedule in an easier to read format, with a strong message for Newt. They took liberties with the names of some of the session titles to take digs at Romney.

    Ann Coulter “called down fire” against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in support of Mitt Romney.

    Lt. Col. Olliver North endorsed Newt Gingrich.

    Bob Dornan appeared for the first time in nearly a decade of absence, in order to tell anyone who would listen NOT to vote for Newt Gingrich.

    Jason and I ran into Terry Strine and his wife while Jason was talking to Kevin Wade and a campaign consultant affiliated with Americans for Prosperity. I ended up taking about 6 photos of Kevin Wade, Jason O’Neill, and two Wade supporters in front of the CPAC sign, but I could not get the flash to work on someone’s camera but one time.

    On Saturday, Northern Virginia Tea Party fire brand Marta Salus introduced me to JOE MILLER, Republican nominee in 2010 for the U.S. Senate in Alaska, and we talked for quite a while. WHAT A NICE GUY! Not a trace of acting “important” or too big to just chat.

    US Senate candidate Joe Miller DID NOT KNOW, and was very impressed, that Delaware conservatives kept the revolution going after November 2010, and have made changes. He noted that Delaware’s GOP is farther along than Alaska’s in that respect. He was quite taken with this news.

    Joe Miller is not sure if he will run again, and I mentioned that it is never too early to start getting ready, which turned to the topic of training a Statewide team. Joe Miller and I encouraged each other on the importance of moving the tea party to the next level from waving signs to studying the mechanics of how to win elections. I explained “TEA PARTY 2.0″ of the Northern Virginia Tea Party. I joked that Joe Miller should come speak in Delaware, after he started all the trouble in 2010. (Christine, believe me, I DO NOT SEEK THESE COINCIDENCES OUT…! They just happen to me. So what am I supposed to do? It’s all Marta Salus’ fault who introduced me.)

    I saw Sarah Palin arrive, surrounded by easily 100 to 120 conservatives all mobbing her for a photograph. Some nitwit yelled out something about Henry Kissinger. (??)

    Saturday Night Lvie veteran Victoria Jackson was everywhere, faithfully attending every minute of the conference back to back.

    The leader of New York’s “THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH” party was there, though more subdued this year than last.

  20. It is not just a matter of contrast this time. It is a matter of survival of our Country…

    So go ahead and make the same mistake…again. Really, really smart.

    Those who stand in the middle of the road get run over. Just ask our GOP ‘moderates’ who’ve been there, done that.

  21. Rick,
    Your pessimism is unbeleivable. I guess your going to vote for Obama. Get rid of that attitude that if you can’t have it exactly your way, your going to take your ball and go home. Grow up man!

  22. Ricki,

    Also, if you are going to quote me, don’t take it out of context to suit your less than intelligent rebutal.

  23. “Just ask our GOP ‘moderates’ who’ve been there, done that.”

    I have a better idea: Ask the GOP conservatives who have held statewide office about it. Oh, wait … there have never been any. Gee, I wonder why?

  24. Rick,
    Your pessimism is unbeleivable. I guess your going to vote for Obama. Get rid of that attitude that if you can’t have it exactly your way, your going to take your ball and go home. Grow up man!
    …ColonRepublican

    I never said I’d ‘take my ball and go home.’ I said that recent history shows that when the GOP nominates a ‘moderate,’ they lose. That is reality.

    People who repeat the same mistake, over and over, are really, really stupid. So go for it.

    Also, if you are going to quote me, don’t take it out of context to suit your less than intelligent rebutal.

    My ‘quotes’ were cut and pasted from your posts. Please, show me what is ‘out of context’…if you have the intelligence.

  25. Rick,

    You chose to cut and paste from part of a post what you want and that my friend is out of context and that is what I said. Keep harping on the same old same old and you sound like a broken record. Recent t history did not have Obama with a 4 year record of disaster. We are trying to defeat him not repeat history has you say. Moderate or Conservative we need to defeat Obama. Maybe if you spent more time approaching the situation at hand instead of trying to teach everyone a History lesson your remarks may bear some sense of intelligence, otherwise, I don’t give a damn what you think about History.

  26. Rick,

    You chose to cut and paste from part of a post what you want and that my friend is out of context and that is what I said. Keep harping on the same old same old and you sound like a broken record.

    It seems to me that you just don’t like a little friendly competition.

    Below is every quote of yours that I cut and pasted. ‘Out of context’ is an intentional misreprenentation, in order to promote one’s own argument. Show me what quote of yours is taken ‘out of context.’

    CR: “Bottom Line, He can’t beat Obama. The only chance of beating Obama is still Mitt Romney.”

    R: “Moderates don’t win. Ask Ford, Dole and McCain (and Bush Sr.). This is because ‘moderates’ offer no contrast.”

    Was your quote taken ‘out of context’ there? Here’s another:

    CR: “It is not just a matter of contrast this time. It is a matter of survival of our Country…”

    R: “So go ahead and make the same mistake…again. Really, really smart.”

    Again, explain how your quote was taken ‘out of context.’

    Maybe if you spent more time approaching the situation at hand instead of trying to teach everyone a History lesson your remarks may bear some sense of intelligence, otherwise, I don’t give a damn what you think about History.…CR

    As I said earlier, people who make the same mistake, over and over, are really, really stupid.

    Romney generates ZERO enthusiasm. People simply don’t like him. Romney signed in to law the prototype for Omabacare. Romney has a well-documented pro-choice record. For all practical purposes, he is a career Democrat.

    Those who stand in the middle-of-the-road get run over.

  27. “I said that recent history shows that when the GOP nominates a ‘moderate,’ they lose. That is reality.”

    So could I then form a argument that says “..recent history shows that when the GOP nominates a ‘conservative,’ they win?

    Who would you consider a conservative, who won? Would you consider Reagan? Nixon? I wonder if there is enough data to extrapolate to that conclusion? I suppose if we were to consider state-wide races and not just national races there would be enough data. I hear this argument all the time, but I have never seen any data driven studies that would evidence that argument. I think partially becuase it is so difficult to define who is really a conservative.

  28. So could I then form a argument that says “..recent history shows that when the GOP nominates a ‘conservative,’ they win?

    Yes.

    Who would you consider a conservative, who won? Would you consider Reagan? Nixon? I wonder if there is enough data to extrapolate to that conclusion?

    You don’t need ‘data.’ It is all perception.

    Nixon was the conservative against the big-government HHH, and the law and order conservative against the hippy, anti-war McGovern. He won twice.

    One could argue, in retrospect, whether Nixon was actually a conservative or a moderate (I’d say the latter). But he ran as and was perceived to be a conservative. And that’s what matters.

    Ford was the cross-the-aisle ‘healer.’ He lost (although in fairness to him, any GOP candidate would have had a rough time in ’76).

    Reagan was a conservative- period. He won twice.

    Bush ran as a conservative (carrying the mantle of Reagan), and won. Then, he ran as a perceived moderate (“read my lips, etc.”), and lost.

    Dole was a career appeaser. He lost.

    The Kennebunkport Cowboy ran as and was perceived to be a conservative. Truth is, he was somewhat conservative. He won twice.

    McCain was a career cross-the-aisler, and he bragged about it…and he lost.

    It would have been absurd for Dole, Bush I, Ford or McCain to claim to be ‘conservative.’ Moderate, concilliatory, a ‘healer’ and so on, yes- conservative, no. And that’s Romney’s problem- he’s simply not a conservative, and his hysterical claims to the contrary sound contrived, hollow and false.

  29. Rick’s the real deal.
    I’m not sure what people mean about low turnout in CO – from all the reports I heard (including our own precinct) the caucuses had an unusually high turnout!
    Rick’s the one to beat Obama. He’s going to take MI (Romney’s home state) and OH & I think he’s going to take AZ too just like he took CO.
    Game on!

Comments are closed.